• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Question for those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds:

Brendan

Guerilla Urbanist
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
911
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Please do not take this as shit stirring. I'm curious.

I understand that not every religion takes kindly to it. But if you're not being forced to marry same sex couples in your own church, mosque, synagog, what have you, then why the opposition?
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Please do not take this as shit stirring. I'm curious.

I understand that not every religion takes kindly to it. But if you're not being forced to marry same sex couples in your own church, mosque, synagog, what have you, then why the opposition?

The answer's in your question.

The point is that the goal of those pushing the issue is that it will be within every church, they arent content to live after their own fashion and let others live after their own, its a campaign to achieve universal acceptance, appreciation, support, endorsement, approval.

Often its as a substitute for the approval they couldnt receive at home or in their own communities and that's so fucking neurotic, its impossible to satisfy and ultimately will send people insane because no matter how much legislation, change etc. there is they'll always be left with the suspiscion that some place some where the thought of their sexual behaviour makes someone want barf because that same someone thinks its abnormal, unnatural, perverse.

This is part of the reason why I dont think this issue is anything like the half a dozen other minority-majority relationships or discrimination issues which its compared to, its nothing like the racial discrimination and black civil rights movements because they had a point at which they were prepared to say "OK, its done", at least some of their pundits where.

For many conscientious objectors to homosexuality, including religious, its a water mark, how far are people willing to go to try and create an artifical consensus and enforce a political correctness or closed mindedness (yeah, closed minded, why is it not to suppose that everyone is latently homosexual when there is such a great number of people who are not and never develop that way?).
 

Nonsensical

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
4,006
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7
Personal judgements, uncomfortabilities, opposition towards that which is not understood (ignorance), and people just being straight up heatless assholes. Don't let people tell you what love is. Fuck them.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Jesus!!

Well, I'll not tell anyone what love is if they're going to fuck me if they dont like the answer!!

Although what's the relationship between being cold and all this?
 

Seymour

Vaguely Precise
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,579
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
The answer's in your question.

Kind of ironic since you immediately head away from the original question.

The point is that the goal of those pushing the issue is that it will be within every church, they arent content to live after their own fashion and let others live after their own, its a campaign to achieve universal acceptance, appreciation, support, endorsement, approval.

The question was about same-sex marriage, not requiring universal approval. Trust me, I don't assume that everyone accepts, nor do I believe it possible to force people to change their minds. I do think that knowing ordinary gay people on a day to day basis does change some people's minds, but that's not something that can be legislated.

The Catholic church has long had its own standards about remarriage and divorce. No one forces the Catholic church to accept divorced and remarried people, even though they are married in the eyes of the law. Why would same-sex marriage be any different?

Often its as a substitute for the approval they couldnt receive at home or in their own communities and that's so fucking neurotic, its impossible to satisfy and ultimately will send people insane because no matter how much legislation, change etc. there is they'll always be left with the suspiscion that some place some where the thought of their sexual behaviour makes someone want barf because that same someone thinks its abnormal, unnatural, perverse.

Why all the charged language above? Why "fucking neurotic" and talk of making someone want to barf? My feeling is that the visceral "ick" factor does play a major role in opposition to gay marriage. That's not a political or moral argument, though.

This is part of the reason why I dont think this issue is anything like the half a dozen other minority-majority relationships or discrimination issues which its compared to, its nothing like the racial discrimination and black civil rights movements because they had a point at which they were prepared to say "OK, its done", at least some of their pundits where.

Do you know that it won't be enough? Does whether or not it will "be enough" have any bearing on the right/wrong/fairness of it? I don't think gay people here in Massachusetts are clamoring for additional rights from the state. I think most people in the state would say that allow gay marriage is total non-event that hasn't effected their lives for better or for worse.

For many conscientious objectors to homosexuality, including religious, its a water mark, how far are people willing to go to try and create an artifical consensus and enforce a political correctness or closed mindedness (yeah, closed minded, why is it not to suppose that everyone is latently homosexual when there is such a great number of people who are not and never develop that way?).

I don't think anyone is threatening your conscientious objector status. I support your right to not to participate in homosexuality or not vote for gay marriage. Nor do I assume that all straight people are secretly gay (any more than I'm a latent heterosexual).

I don't understand why you find gay marriage threatening, though. It seems, from my perspective, like it has become a symbol for a whole cluster of your dislikes (victimhood, legislating morality, attacks on the Catholic church, etc.).
 

Nonsensical

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
4,006
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7
Lark, I wasn't directing my aggressive post at you. No worries, it's all good bud.
 

Usehername

On a mission
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
3,794
Please do not take this as shit stirring. I'm curious.

I understand that not every religion takes kindly to it. But if you're not being forced to marry same sex couples in your own church, mosque, synagog, what have you, then why the opposition?

I have always been pro civil union, and in favor of removing marriage out of the hands of government and leaving it to one's religious leaders. I think the second-tiered citizen issue between homosexual partners (in countries where that exists) is a human rights violation.

-

Can you imagine the mindset of someone who would be opposed to any sort of polygamy sanctioning? Because even if it doesn't affect them personally, it dilutes what they understand to be the bedrock of a healthy family, and therefore weakens society? Christians who understand the Bible literally are starting off with biblical directives and using (roughly) that worldview when they look at anything but the heteronormative nuclear family.

(Just in case someone points this out: yes, there are religious figures in the Bible who were polygamous--that is kind of off topic to my post. Though if anyone religiously informed wants to discuss the polygamy issue I'd love to have a more complex discussion than someone saying, "well, just because they did it doesn't mean God affirmed it." IMO polygamy seems to complicate the notion of what a God-honouring marriage or sexual adult relationship is more than most think.)
 

Brendan

Guerilla Urbanist
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
911
MBTI Type
ENFJ
The answer's in your question.

The point is that the goal of those pushing the issue is that it will be within every church, they arent content to live after their own fashion and let others live after their own, its a campaign to achieve universal acceptance, appreciation, support, endorsement, approval.
The answer is not in my question. That's certainly not what I want. And it's not what the gay people who I'm close with want either. Actually, believe it or not, the gays I'm close with (even the ones who consider themselves Christians) keep a pretty healthy distance from the church. I want to live and let live. Honestly I don't even care if I can be married, I'd just like to be with the person I love.

But hey, this isn't about me. So, as long as it's not shoehorned into your church, you don't care?
Often its as a substitute for the approval they couldnt receive at home or in their own communities and that's so fucking neurotic, its impossible to satisfy and ultimately will send people insane because no matter how much legislation, change etc. there is they'll always be left with the suspiscion that some place some where the thought of their sexual behaviour makes someone want barf because that same someone thinks its abnormal, unnatural, perverse.
Those are some pretty venomous things to say, if you ask me.

That said, I think you've got a point. No amount of legislation will satisfy an attitude like that. But I don't think that's why people are pushing for gay rights. I think if a direct dialogue is opened up (i.e. one that isn't filtered through mass media) a good amount of understanding can be had.

Did I face adversity in my own community? Yes. Does that make me desire a legal requirement that every religious organization marry homosexual couples? No. That's going too far. Anyway why would I want to be married in a church that doesn't want to marry my partner and I?

I'm not going to pretend that the group of gay people I keep company with are your typical gay people, because they're not. I don't know what the gay community at large is saying because I don't really seek out the gay community. All I see is what's on 24-hour news channels, and I take that with a grain of salt because I know it misrepresents gays as much as it misrepresents Christians, Muslims, and whoever it decides to shine its spotlight on. But the point is, those with whom I have directly interacted don't see the issue as "homophobia must be eradicated." They see the issue being, "a threat to liberty anywhere is a threat to liberty everywhere."

What I'm more interested in is a direct dialogue. Person to person. Round table. As long as it's not filtered through mass media.

What, Lark, would make you okay with gay marriage? There's got to be some common ground here.

Hell. If nothing else, gays and Christians certainly share a sense of being under fire.
This is part of the reason why I dont think this issue is anything like the half a dozen other minority-majority relationships or discrimination issues which its compared to, its nothing like the racial discrimination and black civil rights movements because they had a point at which they were prepared to say "OK, its done", at least some of their pundits where.
I think there's more to it than that.

I think the biggest reason it's different is because you can't tell who we are just by looking at us... most of the time lol. In a certain sense, anyone can be gay, wether they're gay or not. You, Lark, could go into a gay bar, pretend to be a gay man, and get away with it. Just as I could go into a non-specialized bar and have it be assumed that I'm straight unless I say otherwise.

The other part is that the gay community isn't all that easy to quantify. What makes someone gay? Good question. It's certainly not just having engaged in homosexual behavior, as many men and women have done that once and never again. Then you get the gender-bender, self-identified straight men who like to get it on with guys every once in a while. Then there're bisexuals, then transgender, then questioning. The importance here is that the "gay community" is a living example of how the boundaries that we see in subjects such as gender and sexuality really only exist in our minds. And to see that is sort of threatening. I certainly felt threatened when I started to see the boundary of "Boys like girls | Girls like boys" dissolve in my own mind.

Also, the reason we haven't said "okay, enough" is because we haven't really gotten what we've been asking for. And I'm not talking about curing every case of homophobia. That focuses on symptoms, not causes and it's unrealistic. I'm not looking for pie in the sky.

I want to be able to live my life how I see fit. I want to live with my partner, perhaps raise a child, build a home together without fear that when we grow old we'll be ripped away from everything we've built or from each other. You know?
For many conscientious objectors to homosexuality, including religious, its a water mark, how far are people willing to go to try and create an artifical consensus and enforce a political correctness or closed mindedness (yeah, closed minded, why is it not to suppose that everyone is latently homosexual when there is such a great number of people who are not and never develop that way?).
I don't think the assertion is that everyone is a latent homosexual. I think the assertion is that sexuality is a dimmer switch, not an on-off switch. That said, it doesn't really matter to me. Some people have homosexual urges that they never act on and never admit to. Who cares?

And I don't really care if people are politically correct. If someone has a problem with me he can remove himself from my presence. If he's got something to say, you can bet I'll have something to say back.

So yeah, the question stands:

What, Lark, would it take for you to vote yes on a hypothetical ballot that asks, "Should same-sex marriage be allowed?"
 

gromit

likes this
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
6,508
We should just have ANY union in the eyes of the law be called a civil union. Churches shouldn't be allowed to perform those unions. A religious group can define marriage as they see fit (and it will be different because there is a varying degree of tolerance depending upon the religion), but it won't be legally binding.

That seems like the only solution that can address most of the concerns of both sides.
 

kyuuei

Emperor/Dictator
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
13,964
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
8
^ Would this satisfy christian homosexual couples I wonder?
 

Invisiblemonkey

New member
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
117
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Morals.

In explaination, location has nothing to do with it. If someone doesn't oppose something that they believe is wrong, then they're either lying, or unnaturally apathetic.
 

Beorn

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,005
Here's the thing most people view homosexuality as something harmless and what two consenting adults do is there own business.

I view homosexuality as something that is harmful, homosexual couples are not loving each other they are harming each other physically, spiritually, and emotionally. Moreover, it is harmful to society because it undermines the basic family unit of a father and mother. I find it strange that liberal journalists will spend one article writing about the increasing problem of fatherless children in urban areas and without a blink of an eye write another article praising a lesbian couple that is raising a child without a male authority in its life.

I don't think the state should endorse behavior that is fundamentally harmful to individuals and to society. For example I think we can all agree that that self-harm is bad for individuals and bad for society. Therefore no one would be in favor of a national self harm day in which the state celebrates a person's right to self-harm.

I know that may be a very shocking and annoying analogy for many of you. But, hopefully you can see why based on my presuppositions I reach my conclusion that its ok to "force" my beliefs about homosexuality on other people.

Ftr, I'm not a homophobe. I have no problem being around homosexuals and I actually have a good friend who goes in and out of the lifestyle. I am absolutely opposed to making fun of or denigrating homosexuals in any way. I think they deserve an equal place in society, but do not deserve any special protections or privileges. I believe that it is irrelevant whether or not homosexuals are born with same-sex attraction. I can understand that people have same-sex attraction, but I don't think that justifies harmful homosexual behavior.

I hold heterosexuals to the same high standard. I don't believe in no fault divorce and I would seriously consider making adultery a crime.
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
all kinds of things hurt the family unit.

i almost got close to beating the shit out of a "nice church family's" dad one day because the mom and daughter were giggling and chit chatting during a choir service (and they were doing it quitely), but i saw the dad squeeze the wife by the arm and grunted "you better sing". she cowered before him as if she was a little girl herself.

yeah, great family life they probably have.. it reeked of abuse, and all probably in the name of god. he looked so unfit for a family that i really didn't want to hold myself back even in a church.

and i guess my point is, there's no ideal "configuration" for a good family life. you can say all you want about your worldviews, but there are plenty of children of gay parents (or rather, more commonly, one gay parent who discovered themselves late) who would testify how happy and grateful they are for their families.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
^ Would this satisfy christian homosexual couples I wonder?

At that point, it's an issue between christian homosexuals and the denominations, NOT homosexuals in general and the legal system.

Let them fight it out inside the church, if need be, where a discussion like that belongs. It should not be spilling out to interfere with what unions are legally regarded as valid in situations that are decidedly not moralistic at all (such as tax purposes or hospital visits or property ownership).

Here's the thing most people view homosexuality as something harmless and what two consenting adults do is there own business.

I view homosexuality as something that is harmful, homosexual couples are not loving each other they are harming each other physically, spiritually, and emotionally. Moreover, it is harmful to society because it undermines the basic family unit of a father and mother. I find it strange that liberal journalists will spend one article writing about the increasing problem of fatherless children in urban areas and without a blink of an eye write another article praising a lesbian couple that is raising a child without a male authority in its life.

I don't think the state should endorse behavior that is fundamentally harmful to individuals and to society. For example I think we can all agree that that self-harm is bad for individuals and bad for society. Therefore no one would be in favor of a national self harm day in which the state celebrates a person's right to self-harm.

I know that may be a very shocking and annoying analogy for many of you. But, hopefully you can see why based on my presuppositions I reach my conclusion that its ok to "force" my beliefs about homosexuality on other people.

Ftr, I'm not a homophobe. I have no problem being around homosexuals and I actually have a good friend who goes in and out of the lifestyle. I am absolutely opposed to making fun of or denigrating homosexuals in any way. I think they deserve an equal place in society, but do not deserve any special protections or privileges. I believe that it is irrelevant whether or not homosexuals are born with same-sex attraction. I can understand that people have same-sex attraction, but I don't think that justifies harmful homosexual behavior.

I hold heterosexuals to the same high standard. I don't believe in no fault divorce and I would seriously consider making adultery a crime.

While I respect how you state things (you're very civil and decent about it, thank you), and while I totally get where you're coming from (for a portion of my life, I would have made the same argument.... and did) and can respect what you are saying, I just no longer believe the church has any right to be legislating morality of this level. It runs as anathema to the practices of Jesus, he did not respond to sin in society in this manner whatsoever.

I view this as an outcropping of a moralistic subculture that feels ultimately that it is responsible for controlling other people's behavior in order to "save/protect the world for God" ... as if God is not capable of defending Himself by reaching people in personal and internal ways directly, changing hearts rather than imposing regulations.

i also feel that you are taking advantage of a culture that in general has tried to respect your freedoms as a citizen, rather than decide that your "faith" is harmful to your marriages, children, and interaction with other people (since it can drive a host of various abuses as it has been practiced, and some people would see it as a patriarchal mess, creating misogyny, teaching false science, dumbing down kids, etc), and thus seek to pass legislation against your faith so that it no longer harms others in this society.

Spin it around, and see how if others followed your reasoning, you might find your own rights and personal beliefs and way of life threatened. You are taking advantage of a free culture to try to limit the ability of others to act freely. Does that put anything in perspective? Do you believe that is consistent or moral? Your personal values, as objective as you believe they are, are often no more objective than other people's personal values, and they are extending you more space to live as you wish, while you are not responding equitably.

If the United States were a theocracy, maybe I would side more in your favor.
 

Beorn

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,005
all kinds of things hurt the family unit.

i almost got close to beating the shit out of a "nice church family's" dad one day because the mom and daughter were giggling and chit chatting during a choir service (and they were doing it quitely), but i saw the dad squeeze the wife by the arm and grunted "you better sing".

yeah, great family life they probably have.. it reeked of abuse, and all probably in the name of god. he looked so unfit for a family that i really didn't want to hold myself back even in a church.


and i guess my point is, there's no ideal "configuration" for a good family life. you can say all you want about your worldviews, but there are plenty of children of gay parents (or rather, more commonly, one gay parent who discovered themselves late) who would testify how happy and grateful they are for their families.

So basically... you disagree. cool.
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
So basically... you disagree. cool.

i don't merely disagree. i'm urging you to take in information from the bottom up - on a case by case basis - what it means to have a healthy family unit. is it really as simple as "mom and dad" to you?
 

Beorn

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,005
i don't merely disagree. i'm urging you to take in information from the bottom up - on a case by case basis - what it means to have a healthy family unit. is it really as simple as "mom and dad" to you?

No it obviously isn't as simple as that... but it is a pre-requisite.
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
No it obviously isn't as simple as that... but it is a pre-requisite.

to what end does the prerequistite lead to then? is there a concern to prevent "what is harmful" to society like you said? that's your goal, right? then you need to look at details. that's where things are happening.. and you shouldn't be afraid of what might be revealed to you. it's all good to have a model world for yourself, and clamping down on what doesn't fit - but you need to step down a bit sometimes and see what actually works and doesn't, and then go back on your mountain and readjust the model to compensate. and i'm saying this because some of the things you yourself want are "harmful to society". things that are, ironically, counterproductive to your overall goal.

take criminalizing adultery, for another example. i would agree that it isn't ideal, but you have no idea what people are going through (i.e. the details) for them to do that sometimes. criminalizing them may very well turn them further to the deep end and, who knows, could hypothetically cause them to commit suicide. and then what are you going to do? you're no cruel entj :D you're an infp and would be distraught about it.
 

Beorn

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,005
to what end does the prerequistite lead to then? is there a concern to prevent "what is harmful" to society like you said? that's your goal, right? then you need to look at details. that's where things are happening.. and you shouldn't be afraid of what might be revealed to you. it's all good to have a model world for yourself, and clamping down on what doesn't fit - but you need to step down a bit sometimes and see what actually works and doesn't, and then go back on your mountain and readjust the model to compensate. and i'm saying this because some of the things you yourself want are "harmful to society". things that are, ironically, counterproductive to your overall goal.

I'm not on the mountain. I'm simply proclaiming what's on the mountain.

I reject pragmatism as a basis for social mores. It is an unwieldy tool that can easily be used for oppression. I know what you are thinking, but I stand by the fact that God's law frees us and does not oppress.

On some lower level I don't have a problem with focusing on methodology and the pragmatic as long as it does not violate God's law.


take criminalizing adultery, for another example. i would agree that it isn't ideal, but you have no idea what people are going through (i.e. the details) for them to do that sometimes. criminalizing them may very well turn them further to the deep end and, who knows, could hypothetically cause them to commit suicide. and then what are you going to do? you're no cruel entj :D you're an infp and would be distraught about it.

Lol. I hope you realize how silly this argument is. We don't base laws on the psychological effect they will have on the criminal. I could make the same argument against theft laws. We shouldn't have theft laws because somebody who is has not eaten for two days may steal something and then kill themselves because they feel guilty.

Your arguing backwards from effect to principle your also using inductive reasoning. This is a very poor way to set up a society. You can end up with whatever general principles suit your fancy this way.

The better way is to start with a set of principles... say Love the Lord with all your heart and do unto others... than deduct from those general principles the first four commandments of the decalogue from the former and the last 6 commandments from the latter. Then you can continue down from there. That is a stable standard of law.

Even if you disagree with the Bible at least the reasoning is more sound.

edit: I hope I didn't come off as too dismissive. I did honestly think your appeal to my infp-ness was hilarious.
 
Top