Audrey Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Sad, but true... the KKK has called themselves a Christian organization since their inception. The only way I can explain that is my theory that they've been reading the book backwards and upside down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Sad, but true... the KKK has called themselves a Christian organization since their inception. The only way I can explain that is my theory that they've been reading the book backwards and upside down. LOL :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 On my phone, forgive the short reply. Examples: Cutting hair Selling daughter into slavery A woman must marry the man who rapers her Concubines Haven't forgotten... just busy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemiSweet Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Wow! I think there's a case to be made that this doofus is persecuting Christians by labeling himself as one. Since when is the KKK a "Christian group"?!? That's just nutty and very derogatory to everyone else who identifies as a Christian! I remember seeing a national newsletter type thing for the KKK when I was in high school and it was full of Christian references and Jesus-this and whatnot. It really surprised me. They believe whites are God's superior race. Very hateful but I would classify them in the Westboro type of Christian camp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chocolatechip Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 I remember seeing a national newsletter type thing for the KKK when I was in high school and it was full of Christian references and Jesus-this and whatnot. It really surprised me. They believe whites are God's superior race. Very hateful but I would classify them in the Westboro type of Christian camp. Ugh. Just ugh. :crying: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Lulu* Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Accident closing off other lanes? According to another poster at the hive, crazy driving is always explained by explosive diarrhea. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SadieMarie Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Here is a summary of a recent poll of attitudes toward different religions. http://www.salon.com/2014/07/21/the_numbers_are_in_america_still_distrusts_atheists_and_muslims_partner/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrookValley. Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Here is a summary of a recent poll of attitudes toward different religions. http://www.salon.com/2014/07/21/the_numbers_are_in_america_still_distrusts_atheists_and_muslims_partner/ From the article: "And atheists are shot down to the bottom and universally disliked by just about every religious group there is." As an atheist who often admits I dislike all religions equally, I got the giggles when I got to this. Fair enough! :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Here is a summary of a recent poll of attitudes toward different religions. http://www.salon.com/2014/07/21/the_numbers_are_in_america_still_distrusts_atheists_and_muslims_partner/ Most approved of: Jews. That's interesting. It being by far the smallest religion (demographically) on the list probably helped! Odd that the included Catholic and Evangelical Christian. Doesn't that leave out a whole lot of Protestant groups? And they separated LDS, though Mormons are Christian (according to Mormons.... which is the only source that would count). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 I was thinking about this topic today a lot and especially how it relates to same sex marriage. I keep coming back to the idea that God granted us free will but many Christians today seem to be unwilling to do the same. They instead feel the need to make decisions for others. I know that some don't really believe in free will but I do. I don't think for one second that I know better than He does so I will not try to tell others how they must live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 But granted, I have been on various meds all week for a kidney stone and right now I am slightly more irritable than usual. So that could just be me. :o :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: I'm so sorry to hear about the kidney stone -- how painful! :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemiSweet Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 I was thinking about this topic today a lot and especially how it relates to same sex marriage. I keep coming back to the idea that God granted us free will but many Christians today seem to be unwilling to do the same. They instead feel the need to make decisions for others. I know that some don't really believe in free will but I do. I don't think for one second that I know better than He does so I will not try to tell others how they must live. I have wondered about that more times than I can count. As far as I know you cannot go to hell or get in divine trouble for someone else's marriage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mom-ninja. Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 We were talking about what has happened at the hands of religious people, specifically Christians, so that would mean me. I've never done those things, so it's a false statement. White Southerners owned slaves. I have never owned a slave. Does that make the first statement false? No, it does not. The laws and rights of all citizens should not be infringed upon by the religious beliefs of some. This should be repeated over and over and over and over. This country (the US) is NOT supposed to be based on religion. That's the whole point of separation of church and state. The US is not supposed to be a theocracy, yet there are many who would like it to be so.....with their own religion, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 I was thinking about this topic today a lot and especially how it relates to same sex marriage. I keep coming back to the idea that God granted us free will but many Christians today seem to be unwilling to do the same. They instead feel the need to make decisions for others. I know that some don't really believe in free will but I do. I don't think for one second that I know better than He does so I will not try to tell others how they must live. I have wondered about that more times than I can count. As far as I know you cannot go to hell or get in divine trouble for someone else's marriage? As tempting as it may seem to try and point out the folly of such beliefs, I personally don't think this is the motivation behind LGBTQ oppression (publicly or privately). I will admit that this opinion comes from my own personal experience as a conservative Christian, and from my understanding and interpretation of others who voice their opinions. The way I see it, limiting marriage to one man and one woman isn't about making decisions for others so they don't go to hell, or making decisions for others because their behavior will somehow make the Christian go to hell. The issue is about safety of society, namely the children. For the same reason you would't likely vote for the age of consent to include prepubescent children, conservative Christians don't vote for matters of consent between two (or more) people of the same gender (or non-conventional gender identity/orientation). I don't think it's about not acknowledging free will, I think it's about fearing for society. The state of Utah recently requested and was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court a stay on a ruling to recognize the legal, civil marriages of 1300 same-sex couples. The reason, get this, the state of Utah would suffer "chaos" and "irreparable harm" if the Court did not grant the request. The state of Utah will face horrors unimaginable if marriage between same-sex couples is recognized. I wonder if these people put their heads down on their pillows at night wondering if they'll wake up to tanks in the streets in the morning because the gays have somehow gone wild. This is but one example of public policy reflecting the fear individuals have been conditioned to respond to with regard to this subject. This isn't about free will, it's about safety, and the erroneous notion that homosexual couples are a danger to society. People are taught by leaders they trust and admire that marriage between two people of the same gender undermines 'the future of humanity itself.' They are taught by their leaders and trusted spiritual advisers that legal marriage granted equally would “threaten the entire superstructure†of society. There are tons of examples, quotes, and emotional and biblical appeals that essentially paint a dystopian future for America if marriage was no longer limited to one man and one woman. The cry of persecution was loud and clear yesterday following President Obama's signing executive orders demanding federal contractors not discriminate against LGBT people in the workplace. The proverbial sh*t hit the fan when conservatives freaked out, accusing the president of undermining the First Amendment by not granting permission to discriminate for sexual orientation or identity. In my opinion, this freak out isn't about being close-minded or intentionally nasty or evil, it's about fear. It's about fearing the future because of a perceived moral decay, as understood by a conservative interpretation of the major religion of this culture. Mat Staver says that President Obama's executive order protecting LGBT workers is "not non-discrimination, it's not tolerance: it is absolute dominance particularly not only of all worldviews but of the Christian and Judeo-Christian worldview." Gary Cass warns that "for the sake of appeasing the twisted sexual proclivities of less than 3% of our population, America has become an advocate of open rebellion against God. ... [W]hen a culture loses its most basic sense the difference between boys and girls and right and wrong and follows the irrational demands of a few militants, we’re on the rainbow path to judgment." Last week, Chris McDaniel made his fifth appearance on Bryan Fischer's radio show, joining him in person in the studio. Finally, James Robison says that conservative Christians can save America if they will only get involved in politics: "We could impeach corrupt judges and justices. We could rid the House of every representative who openly mocks God and His Word, fails to understand the importance of faith, family and freedom, personal responsibility, and the Constitution. We should remove those who are so incompetent they can't even balance a checkbook, a budget, or make sane decisions. We could secure the borders, address every national ill, meet every challenge and stop building an even greater crisis in the name of compassion and in order to manipulate political advantage (which is exactly what is happening on the border). We could stop the nonsense, stop the insanity, stop the blatant rebellion and return to God." - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/right-wing-bonus-tracks-72114#sthash.Bc2SesLs.dpuf This is about free will, but not rejecting the idea - instead fearing it. Free will means people are free to persecute Christians by not allowing them to actively identify and oppress that which does not comply to their understanding of what is safe, as defined by what is moral, as revealed in the bible. For every Christian leader a liberal Christian dismisses, a conservative Christian nods her head and says to herself, "he's got a point. The bible does say just that. If I'm going to trust Jesus, I'm going to trust him all the way." I think it's bad judgement to brush off people one doesn't agree with simply because they don't share the same perspective. The idea that the KKK doesn't "count" as Christian is as harmful as suggesting Ken Ham doesn't "count" because he embarrasses people in a different way. It's the same logical fallacy that suggests Catholics don't "count" or Mormon's don't "count" or Lutherans don't "count." Those of us on the outside of your religious community recognize that for each independent group that thinks they have their finger on the right button (the mind and will of God), we see a hell of a huge population that may not be acting in unison smoothly, but is influencing the direction of the stampede nevertheless. You may not individually see or appreciate the effects of this fear-mongering, but when taken together, the fear of persecution is a huge force to reckon with. People who feel like they are being backed into a corner feel like they have nothing to loose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommymilkies Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Most approved of: Jews. That's interesting. It being by far the smallest religion (demographically) on the list probably helped! Odd that the included Catholic and Evangelical Christian. Doesn't that leave out a whole lot of Protestant groups? And they separated LDS, though Mormons are Christian (according to Mormons.... which is the only source that would count). Surprising to me. I was certainly NOT approved of because I was Jewish as a kid. I often had friends who couldn't play with me, come over to my house, etc. because I was Jewish-said straight to my face like I was a leper. And I know there is so much misunderstanding of Judaism. I've had door to door proselytizers and a CPS agent tell me that "Jews believe in Jesus" and that we believe basically the same thing. They obviously are mistaken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemiSweet Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 I too, was a conservative Christian not terribly long ago and I was raised in the gay community so my thoughts were a little different but I was very torn about gay marriage, so I can appreciate the perspective. Fear is the ruling factor in conservative Christianity, society is changing and it is scary. It's very difficult to go from being the favored class (which they still very clearly are) to being just like all the other people. It feels like persecution even though it is really more of an equalizing issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemiSweet Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Here is a summary of a recent poll of attitudes toward different religions. http://www.salon.com/2014/07/21/the_numbers_are_in_america_still_distrusts_atheists_and_muslims_partner/ No surprise there, we've had several issues because dd's friends are Christian and we are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Χά�ων Posted July 22, 2014 Author Share Posted July 22, 2014 Fear is the ruling factor in conservative Christianity This right here is the core of the entire issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Fear is the ruling factor in conservative Christianity It certainly does seem to play an objectively significant part. In a recent paper by John Hibbing and colleagues of the University of Nebraska, "political conservatives have a 'negativity bias,' meaning that they are physiologically more attuned to negative (threatening, disgusting) stimuli in their environments. (The paper can be read for free here.) In other words, the conservative ideology, and especially one of its major facets—centered on a strong military, tough law enforcement, resistance to immigration, widespread availability of guns—would seem well tailored for an underlying, threat-oriented biology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarenNC Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Here is a current example of why the term "witnessing" can raise some unpleasant associations in some areas of the country: Operation Save America disrupted the Sunday service at the First Unitarian Universalist Church of New Orleans this Sunday in what OSA calls "dynamic witness"-- http://nblo.gs/YCynd http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/benham-group-disrupts-synagogue-satan-unitarian-universalist-worship-services-receives-procl And how Operation Save America is framing their actions: http://www.operationsaveamerica.org/category/in-the-streets/new-orleans-la/ After this, the mayor's office said the proclamation to OSA was an error http://www.bestofneworleans.com/blogofneworleans/archives/2014/07/22/city-proclamation-welcoming-operation-save-america-issued-in-error-says-landrieu-spokesman These are the folks who have their headquarters near us. :( Luckily, to my knowledge, they have not yet specifically threatened or disrupted any of the three UU congregations in the area or other local congregations known to be liberal. We've only had to run the gauntlet of their giant graphic signs by the entrances to the mall, Toys R Us, or outside local schools periodically for the last several years (areas that are not anywhere near any clinic or health provider of any sort). I'd be curious to know if anyone hears about this in the conservative religious media and how it is viewed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeacherZee Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 A blog outlining how Christians are NOT persecuted http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/so-listen-its-not-religious-discrimination-just-because-you-cant-discriminate/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Lulu* Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Haven't forgotten... just busy! I wanted to come back to this, because you never answered my question. How is saying that homosexuality is okay more intrusive of religious rights than saying that it is okay for women to not cover their heads or to wear pants, or for adults to drink or get tattoos? (All four of these are things that certain religions/denominations hold as sinful, inappropriate behaviors.) Just wanted to say I am still interested in hearing the answer to this question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joules Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 A blog outlining how Christians are NOT persecuted http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/so-listen-its-not-religious-discrimination-just-because-you-cant-discriminate/ Loved the article. That line from Monty Python comes to mind to me often when I am reading the news This needs to be said more often: It’s not discrimination when we are prevented from doing the discriminating. It’s not persecution when we are prevented from doing the persecuting. It’s not bullying when we’re told that we can’t bully others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Loved the article. That line from Monty Python comes to mind to me often when I am reading the news This needs to be said more often: When one group seems to say "we are going to change the nature and definition of a basic social institution and ram it down your throats 'whether you like it or not'" it sure feels like being bullied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Lulu* Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 When one group seems to say "we are going to change the nature and definition of a basic social institution and ram it down your throats 'whether you like it or not'" it sure feels like being bullied. Yes, it may feel that way. I am sure it felt that way when polygamy went out of vogue, when slavery was abolished, when women won the vote, and when segregation was ended. Yet the world still turns and the ranks of Christianity continue to march on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 When one group seems to say "we are going to change the nature and definition of a basic social institution and ram it down your throats 'whether you like it or not'" it sure feels like being bullied. I always love the "ram it down your throats" argument. As if this was being done at gun point instead of as part of the process set forth by our founding documents with a system of checks and balances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 When one group seems to say "we are going to change the nature and definition of a basic social institution and ram it down your throats 'whether you like it or not'" it sure feels like being bullied. If you were being forced to get gay married, it would be bullying. When you just have to allow others to get gay married, it isn't bullying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 I always love the "ram it down your throats" argument. As if this was being done at gun point instead of as part of the process set forth by our founding documents with a system of checks and balances. Legitimate processes have also been used by those seeking to maintain a traditional definition of marriage, and yet the opposing side consistently claims unfairness and persecution. I would love to see reasonable dialog regarding this issue in which each side makes an honest effort to understand the perspective and concerns of the other and to address those concerns in a thoughtful and respectful way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Legitimate processes have also been used by those seeking to maintain a traditional definition of marriage, and yet the opposing side consistently claims unfairness and persecution. I would love to see reasonable dialog regarding this issue in which each side makes an honest effort to understand the perspective and concerns of the other and to address those concerns in a thoughtful and respectful way. There do exist all kinds of honest efforts to understand the perspective and concerns of the others. Ultimately though, legitimate reasons are considered, and personal faith or belief is not a legitimate concern when it inspires an infringement of another's civil rights. You may think they are legitimate, but legal discussions must be divorced from personal religious beliefs. If there are non religious beliefs to contribute to the conversation, I'm not aware of them (well, the one's I am aware of have been thoroughly debunked with objective data). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Legitimate processes have also been used by those seeking to maintain a traditional definition of marriage, and yet the opposing side consistently claims unfairness and persecution. The previous poster mentioned "checks and balances," that means the court system. The court system is there to protect is from what the founding fathers called the "tyranny of the majority." You can't make laws that infringe upon the rights of other people, that is a basic tenant of our government. And it is unfair to label it "traditional marriage" when the definition of marriage has changed many times over history. If you mean "heterosexual marriage," then you should say that, IMO. I would love to see reasonable dialog regarding this issue in which each side makes an honest effort to understand the perspective and concerns of the other and to address those concerns in a thoughtful and respectful way.It isn't reasonable for one side to want their religious beliefs to be the law of the land. That is what makes thoughtful dialogue difficult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Interesting how quickly people join the dog-pile to tell me how invalid my views are... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Interesting how quickly people join the dog-pile to tell me how invalid my views are... Really, the thing is, you make it sound like people who don't want to ban gay marriage just don't understand religious objections. But this is not a case of ignorance. The disagreement is about the fundamental approach to civil rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemiSweet Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 I'm just curious if you have a non-religious reason to oppose same-sex marriage? I've never heard a single argument against it that did not include religion. I think it's strange to want your religion to rule the land, because what happens when your religion is out of vogue and say Buddhism or Islam is the majority, would you want to be ruled by their laws? Another point I often ask and never get an answer for: do I have the right to be married as an atheist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Interesting how quickly people join the dog-pile to tell me how invalid my views are... I don't think anyone is suggesting your views are invalid. They are your opinions, an opinions are subjective. They are neither right nor wrong. Reasons that are defended by religious beliefs, on the other hand, are not valid by virtue of the Constitution of the United States. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 I have attempted to explain my views in the past, and have occasionally had actual interesting discussions with people who were willing to respectfully consider am opposing point of view. I have unfortunately not seen this topic handled so respectfully on this forum, which makes me hesitant to make the attempt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 I have attempted to explain my views in the past, and have occasionally had actual interesting discussions with people who were willing to respectfully consider am opposing point of view. I have unfortunately not seen this topic handled so respectfully on this forum, which makes me hesitant to make the attempt. I've often wondered how a one-on-one only discussion might go here. Would you be interested in doing something like that? We could ask others to add comments in a complimentary thread, but it would be like a formal debate between two people? It would remove the dog-pile aspect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 I have attempted to explain my views in the past, and have occasionally had actual interesting discussions with people who were willing to respectfully consider am opposing point of view. I have unfortunately not seen this topic handled so respectfully on this forum, which makes me hesitant to make the attempt. I don't really understand dancing around the issue, personally. If you want to have a discussion, it would be very welcome. If you do not, just coming here to say that you think everyone is incapable of talking about it respectfully is just...... I don't know. Name calling? Pre-emptive scolding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 I don't really understand dancing around the issue, personally. If you want to have a discussion, it would be very welcome. If you do not, just coming here to say that you think everyone is incapable of talking about it respectfully is just...... I don't know. Name calling? Pre-emptive scolding? I clicked on the last page of the thread, read a post, and responded with my perspective--which set off a dog-pile. At that point I was reminded that people rarely succeed in discussing this particular issue politely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 I've often wondered how a one-on-one only discussion might go here. Would you be interested in doing something like that? We could ask others to add comments in a complimentary thread, but it would be like a formal debate between two people? It would remove the dog-pile aspect. If I had more time I might be interested, I'm afraid I can't commit right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Lulu* Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Interesting how quickly people join the dog-pile to tell me how invalid my views are... I just re-read all the posts responding to yours and, unless my reading comprehension skills have failed me, I didn't see anyone saying your view is invalid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrookValley. Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Interesting how quickly people join the dog-pile to tell me how invalid my views are... It's not a dog pile; a lot of people happen to disagree with you. Are their views invalid because there are several people who disagree with you? Should everyone who disagrees remain silent? The reason (or one of) these discussions don't remain civil is because it's very hard to be nice when someone is telling you you're a lesser human being because of the gender of your partner/spouse. And yes, that *is* exactly what it is saying to LGBT people, whether you think you mean it that way or not. Personally, I have listened, read, discussed--politely--with those who disagree, and every time I have come to the same conclusion: I cannot respectfully consider the views of someone who feels they have the right to insert their religious beliefs into someone else's marriage and treats an entire group of people as sub-human. Nope. Sorry. I don't negotiate with bigots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spryte Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 The reason (or one of) these discussions don't remain civil is because it's very hard to be nice when someone is telling you you're a lesser human being because of the gender of your partner/spouse. And yes, that *is* exactly what it is saying to LGBT people, whether you think you mean it that way or not. Personally, I have listened, read, discussed--politely--with those who disagree, and every time I have come to the same conclusion: I cannot respectfully consider the views of someone who feels they have the right to insert their religious beliefs into someone else's marriage and treats an entire group of people as sub-human. Nope. Sorry. I don't negotiate with bigots. I wanted to like this 500 times. "I don't negotiate with bigots." Perfect way to sum it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 It's not a dog pile; a lot of people happen to disagree with you. Are their views invalid because there are several people who disagree with you? Should everyone who disagrees remain silent? The reason (or one of) these discussions don't remain civil is because it's very hard to be nice when someone is telling you you're a lesser human being because of the gender of your partner/spouse. And yes, that *is* exactly what it is saying to LGBT people, whether you think you mean it that way or not. Personally, I have listened, read, discussed--politely--with those who disagree, and every time I have come to the same conclusion: I cannot respectfully consider the views of someone who feels they have the right to insert their religious beliefs into someone else's marriage and treats an entire group of people as sub-human. Nope. Sorry. I don't negotiate with bigots. But it's not really a discussion. The poster said she felt bullied, and that an agenda was being pushed down her throat, and that those in favor of 'traditional marriage' try to put forth reasonable arguments but cut off by cries persecution, and that people aren't respectful. Then she claimed dogpile. Then she said discussion is impossible. At no point has actually said anything that makes an argument against gay marriage. It's all just complaining about how much people who disagree with that side are bullies who are impossible to talk with. I can say why I think gay marriage should be legal. It's really easy to talk about, from my perspective. I'd LOVE to. Why can't we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRAAB Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Thinking out loud here, and I'm sure someone will set me straight. Is part of the issue that there are Christians who believe that marriage is Biblical, that it was instituted by God, and because of that belief, they (some Christians) believe that marriage should be controlled by them? That they, in a way, own marriage, and it is their responsibility to see that marriage is conducted according to their beliefs? There's really no snark in my question. Again, I'm trying to understand on what grounds so many Christians vehemently disagree with marriage equality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elfknitter.# Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 I don't really understand dancing around the issue, personally. If you want to have a discussion, it would be very welcome. If you do not, just coming here to say that you think everyone is incapable of talking about it respectfully is just...... I don't know. Name calling? Pre-emptive scolding?Exactly. This seems a recurring issue with these kinds of threads. A poster comes in, states an opinion, others disagree, and then subsequent rebuttal comments like dog-pile and persecuted are thrown around. Someone else may post suggestions for discourse and suddenly those claiming intolerance from those who seek tolerance or who may have stated feeling persecuted no longer have time or claim some other excuse for not participating. Intentional or not, this repeated pattern demonstrates that a civil discussion is neither desired nor an option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrookValley. Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 But it's not really a discussion. The poster said she felt bullied, and that an agenda was being pushed down her throat, and that those in favor of 'traditional marriage' try to put forth reasonable arguments but cut off by cries persecution, and that people aren't respectful. Then she claimed dogpile. Then she said discussion is impossible. At no point has actually said anything that makes an argument against gay marriage. It's all just complaining about how much people who disagree with that side are bullies who are impossible to talk with. I can say why I think gay marriage should be legal. It's really easy to talk about, from my perspective. I'd LOVE to. Why can't we? I don't disagree with any of this. And it's usually very easy for me to talk about, too. But sometimes, I'm just tired. Tired of being positive, tired of talking about until I'm blue in the face but feeling like I'm getting nowhere. Tired of being told my feelings don't matter because Someone Else's Belief matters more than someone else's LIFE that has no affect on said belief. Really sick and tired of feeling like I did when I read the "ram it down our throats" post, which was beyond frustrated, angry, and upset. I know a lot is missed online, but I was in tears. That happens very rarely for me, but every now and then, I'm just...tired of it. So apologies to those of you who can discuss it rationally and without emotion today; I can't. Maybe tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheres Toto Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Easy way to settle the most recent dog-pile sidebar - what are the non-religious reasons to be opposed to gay marriage? Things that apply to ALL hetero marriages and are not contradicted by things such as the legality of divorce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbel Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Thinking out loud here, and I'm sure someone will set me straight. Is part of the issue that there are Christians who believe that marriage is Biblical, that it was instituted by God, and because of that belief, they (some Christians) believe that marriage should be controlled by them? That they, in a way, own marriage, and it is their responsibility to see that marriage is conducted according to their beliefs? There's really no snark in my question. Again, I'm trying to understand on what grounds so many Christians vehemently disagree with marriage equality. I don't believe that this is the case. More like this, I think: God instituted marriage. I guess you could say that God "owns" marriage. And it was between a man and a woman. So that is marriage, period. Any other combinations do not fit the definition of marriage. Obviously I am not speaking for anyone but myself, and my own understanding of objections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarenNC Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Thinking out loud here, and I'm sure someone will set me straight. Is part of the issue that there are Christians who believe that marriage is Biblical, that it was instituted by God, and because of that belief, they (some Christians) believe that marriage should be controlled by them? That they, in a way, own marriage, and it is their responsibility to see that marriage is conducted according to their beliefs? There's really no snark in my question. Again, I'm trying to understand on what grounds so many Christians vehemently disagree with marriage equality. I am sure you are right in at least some cases. The problem, as I see it, is pinning down exactly what type of marriage was " instituted by God" as shown in the Christian Bible (using the Protestant one here, because it is the one with which I am most familiar, there may be other instances in the material included in the Roman Catholic version). Is it marriage with your half-sister? Being required to marry your rapist with no possibility of divorce? Being required to marry your dead husband's brother if you had no sons by your dead husband? Having multiple wives? Having concubines? All of these were either commanded by God or those in these situations were described as being blessed by God in the Bible. Now, marrying foreigners or those outside the faith or remarrying a former spouse if one has been married in between were all specifically *not* allowed, also according to the Bible. So, which ones are the "traditional Biblical marriages" being argued for when most of the same folk who are against same sex marriage seem to also be against the examples in the first paragraph and not to have a problem with allowing marriages like those in the second paragraph to be legal? It's pretty evident to me that marriage has changed dramatically at times over the centuries, even in religious terms within Christianity and within the Bible. My own grandfather was legally allowed to marry his step-granddaughter (his daughter's step daughter), which to me is a lot more problematic and potentially destructive to family structures than allowing two unrelated adults of the same sex to marry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmiraGulch Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 I don't believe that this is the case. More like this, I think: God instituted marriage. I guess you could say that God "owns" marriage. And it was between a man and a woman. So that is marriage, period. Any other combinations do not fit the definition of marriage. Obviously I am not speaking for anyone but myself, and my own understanding of objections. That makes absolute sense to me when you're talking about Biblical marriage. Legal marriage is another story entirely. It is a contract; a civil right. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone's religion. I'm not actually sure how anyone can see this part of it any differently. You are not required to have any sort of service that has anything to do with anyone's faith in order to have a legal contract of marriage. Similarly, you are not required to be legally sanctioned in order to be married in the eyes of God. Two separate issues, and types of marriage, entirely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.