That you think you're in a position to have empathy based on your life experiences but then you don't doesn't do anything to help your position. How do you not get how validating and helpful this simple adjustment to the law would be? Not that it wouldn't be worth it anyway, but especially since it comes at essentially no cost (none that you have been able to tell us, anyway), how can you be against it? It's not as you describe it:

I already posted song lyrics that have this covered: "And a certificate on paper isn't gonna solve it all, But it's a damn good place to start."

Your words here don't match what you tell us your actions have been. If you truly cared about gay people and didn't look down on us, you wouldn't post the things you do. Can you really not see the harm in the ideas you're posting here? It's amazing the blinders you have to wear to make yourself out to be the innocent good guy here.

dogggg, why is the idea of homosexuality deeply frightening to you? I would guess that for most heterosexual men, the idea generates fear to some extent, but it seems extra strong in you. There also seems to be a large "yuck" factor, which may or may not be the same as the fear. Any insights into what is going on?

Then, since we've just been through a similar discussion, you know what to do with statements like:

Ya, so that I see that same media outlet increasingly decree a leftie war on everything from soda pops to rudy the reindeer is a useful piece of evidence and justification for my conviction that Conservatism in general (not just in the US) is going increasingly bonkers?

Nope, but they both indicate quite similar problems in argumentation: Fox - just like Godwin - are invoked if no better argument is available. Because of that, I'm very sceptical of the bolded.

Sure, but...

'lol@ you falling what what in my growing impression is an increasing but unprovable reliance on 'don't bully me' as a defence by western christians in the face of criticism or questioning, as opposed to actual physical or mental persecution as occurs in a handful of countries where christians live.'

....doesn't have quite the same impact.


Maybe, maybe not but it certainly isn't the RGT equivalent of Godwin's law when used to illustrate my particular point.

No, that's some meaningless criteria you've applied to Fox. By all means be skeptical of the bolded but don't try to undermine anything by using a false analogy. Since Fox are one of the more public faces of right wing conservatism in the US, and they use this tactic, that makes them relevant to this discussion.

You know, I'm not going to claim that persecution is reserved for Christians alone. If you are simply an honest person, and strive to tell the truth in most situations, you will surely be persecuted throughout this life.

I've spoken on this before, but having worked in various places and in various positions, I still find it astounding how in the business realm, when you get hired at a new job, you are automatically expected to get in lockstep with unwritten policies that are dishonest and most-times criminal.

Supermarkets are regularly repricing and extending dates on perishable foods. Sales teams regularly lie to clients and consumers, simply making up figures and numbers beforehand, targeting the elderly and young. Chicanery is the norm. And if you are going to have a commitment to integrity and honesty, you are going to be bounced around a bit until you find the right place for you. You will be fired and written up and threatened before then.

When I was in Florida, and was out of work, I actually had to turn down an office management position, because it became clear to me that the particular "charity" only existed to put money in the backer's pocket, and that there was no, if any, funds -- going to help the unfortunate themselves.

Maybe I just had bad luck, in that I kept running into these places, but I suspect that the problem is widespread across many disciplines and spheres of business.

People are generally crooked. If you walk a straight and narrow path, you are going to be excluded and persecuted. It is not going to be easy for you.

But there is another kind of persecution, and that is what we see here. You villify others because of their religious beliefs. Their beliefs are seen as "archaic" and outmoded.

It is clear from the conversation above that civil argument or discussion will be met with slander, accusation, persecution and defamation. An ugly emotional response takes place. All this from otherwise reasonable people. Why?

Because they honestly believe that they have the moral high ground. You'd think they would realize this and it would make them understand better the reaction of the people they regularly mock and belittle.

It reminds me of the bully who says something smart to you outside the school, and you say something biting back, and everybody laughs. He searches for a response but finds none, so he just pushes you to the ground and gives you a wedgie.

If I have to vote on it, I will vote for it. I don't believe it is good for anyone, or will validate anyone, but I have always voted in line with more freedoms, and not less. I know that might not make any sense to you, but I don't abandon my libertarian commitments just because I don't agree with the moral values involved. I have never voted that way. And, in fact, I have yet to vote for a Republican president.

As a Christian, I don't believe that participating in a homosexual act is any more good for you than cheating on your wife. It is a sin. Sin is sin.

Why does this surprise you?

Yeah, that's kind of the point. You do realize that "doesn't have the same impact" also means "isn't quite as bombastically wrong when it's wrong?"

Since they're one of the more public faces of right wing conservatism in the US, they are relevant to a discussion of right wing conservatism in the US. If you want to make them relevant to a discussion of "Christianity" in a worldwide sense and how that do or doesn't relate to homophobia or a "we're bullied feeling" - be prepared to supply arguments that show that and how Fox's general sentiments/tictacs/arguments are applicable to Christianity at large.

If this is true, then your entire worldview is inconsistent with itself. You think personal freedoms are great and everyone should have them, but... you dont think the right to marry for gays is a good thing...? I mean, its one thing to say 'i think this is a sin as a Christian but people should still have their freedoms.' But to not actually recognize it as a positive and still vote for it makes very little sense.

I don't think this characterization is successful. I may not think that cigarettes are a good thing, and I may think that voting to ban them is not good as well.

You're obviously wrong here. By voting for gay marriage, he's upholding the higher-order belief in personal freedom, while thinking that exercising that right via gay marriage is a sin - nothing per se inconsistent there.

True, you may think the act itself is harmful, but you recognize the fact that having that freedom itself is a positive, and (presumably) that you don have the right to tell others if they can smoke or not. I see no evidence that Dogggg thinks this is a positive in anyway.

The point is that its not at all clear that he thinks having this personal freedom is a good thing. Going back to the ciggarette example, there is obviously a positive that comes from that, it is that people get to hold on to their personal freedoms as a result. Doggg says that 'he doesnt believe its good for anyone' which doesnt make sense IMO, because the sense of personal freedom that is being protected should be regarded as a good thing.

I believe this is because you've got your blinders on because you desire to portray his position in a certain way.

I mean, you're certainly welcome to think this. But actually it comes from both the tone and text of his post on the subject. He doesn't once say that the freedom itself is a good thing, that there is inherit goodness in having personal freedoms. As I said, I understand thinking its a sin and still being for it because you believe in personal freedom, but Doggg doesnt seem to think having this freedom is a good thing, and so I am at a loss as to why he is voting for it.

The abstract linked to a study that Narth did not conduct, from what I can see.

I don't know nothing about Narth, but I do know that just about any and every conservative organization is slandered by the left as anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-this and that.. If there is an organization representing 150 pastors, and one of them says something controversial in the pulpit one day, the next day on Wiki you find evidence that "this organization has recently been labeled anti-gay or..." whatever. It's very convenient when you need to ignore evidence that opposes your entrenched view to simply slander or defame instead of actually dealing with the evidence.

I don't know about these other organizations, but NARTH is a rather clear-cut case of anti-gay garbage that will publish non-science as science and twist the words of respectable people in order to say the opposite of what they really said. There's no reason to support NARTH in a real discussion.

Because while your vote is nice, and you treating your gay friend well is nice, it's clear we don't have your actual support, and the things you say demonstrate a lack of understanding of the actual issues. You really believe that it is Christians, who will not be affected by this, who are under attack, not the gay people who are currently suffering.

It's so insulting for you to belittle the suffering currently going on by making it sound like Christians have it worse even though nothing about their beliefs or practices will have to change.

Then, you also make a few ridiculous arguments against gay couples, showing that you don't approve and don't understand them. Like when you said that marriage was about raising kids, something gay couples are very capable of doing, and doing well. Then there's this:

What does that even mean? It's biology that makes homosexuality.

You speak of homosexuality like it's bringing the end of the world and ruining society:

You find some correlation and believe that gay is the causation because you honestly believe it's bad for everyone. Do you not get how all these things you're saying can affect someone? These beliefs you have are shared by so many, and so many are vocal about it. Despite your life experiences, it's clear that you just don't get it. Having this one victory of legalizing SSM would really mean so much in the face of the negativity you put out.

He did say this:

At least implicitly, this is an affirmation of "more freedoms." He also mentions his libertarianism, which is also consistent with "more freedoms."

You may disagree with him on whatever other rationales he puts forward, but you're taking a rather large leap trying to get where you're trying to go by calling his worldview inconsistent.

I disagree. In light of everything else, his vote here seems like little more than a political reflex. He said himself that it is 'not good for anyone.' Why would he say that? But hey, why don't we ask him?

Doggg, in spite of everything about it you disagree with, is the freedom for gays to marry each other a positive thing?

You're still playing the characterization game. I think legally recognized marriages are a net negative, but I would vote for gay marriage in a binary vote (yes/no for gay marriage and no other changes) and I would vote to remove legally recognized marriages in a binary vote (yes/no any form of marriage).

Sorry, but I am not feeling very generous on bestowing credit on Doggg (who i thought said he was leaving but appsrantly not) for his vague libertarian appeal in the middle of his long, ridiculous and disgusting series of comments ITT. Maybe he walks into the voting box and despite thinking all these terrible consequences of gay marriage are about to occur votes in favour of gay marriage due to libertarian tendencies. Great. Indeed, part of the massive success of a shift towards acceptance of marriage equality has been the entrenchment of the idea that this belongs in a category of basic freedoms much the same as previous social issues and thus getting people to support it at the ballot box despite having reservations about the social consequences. But this does not make his statements ITT any less ridiculous.

How? I didn't say anything about what the 'net' was. That's your wording. In fact 'net' has nothing to do with this. Recall that Doggg said that no good, none whatsoever, can come from this

Yes, that's my word because I'm trying to highlight why your question is still framing the issue in a certain way. Your question is phrased the way you would ask an opposing politician about a wedge issue.

Edit:

I don't think that expanding legally recognized marriages leads to anything "good." It leads to something like "more equally bad" (which is 'good' but not "good").

its misleading because there is a difference between 'net positive' and 'positive'

And that's exactly what you would do with a wedge issue to try to force an answer. You create a false choice by characterizing the issue in a certain way.

Okay, you've lost lost me. That isn't what I'm doing. What I'm asking is very clear. Does he feel that there is something positive that comes from the freedom of allowing gays to marry. He can affirm this view and still think Gay marriage is bad for society as a whole, and I will press no further. What false choice has been set up?