I'm implying Christians to include those who do not support it. Fair that not every Christian is "against" gay marriage, although this number is surely the lesser of the two.

Yeah and i think you shouldn't. It only goes to help support the us verse them Doggs of the world.


As far as the majority of what Christians believe on gay marriage. I wouldn't be so sure. The times are a changing.

I see your point, I only do it because it's easier to communicate that way, not for any other reason. The time are a changing, that I can agree with.

Nice, "ridiculous". You are expanding your vocabulary.

Look. For all of those here who are strenuously feigning utter ignorance of the existence of any arguments against gay marriage being made legal, there are many reasons that any parent or citizen could oppose it. One does not even need to reject it based upon a judeo-christian framework, although one can.

The Bible defines marriage pretty clearly. The Bible, that is. It is a sacred institution for believers of all stripes. The idea of two women or men marrying is an affront to some of them, and their beliefs. Especially since there are civil unions that give equal and equivalent legal protections to gay people that carry the same legal force as a marriage. They see the movement itself as a series of extraneous actions taken by a rabid enemy in a heated culture war.

There are other concerns from the judeo-christian perspective. This perspective sees homosexual activity as aberrant and deviant behavior that is harmful to the individual who partakes in this sexual behavior. They cite secular-based statistics in order to back up their claims about highly elevated suicide and depression rates in homosexual-identified people. They feel that the prophets spoke against homosexual behavior because the prophets intuitively understood that homosexual behavior was "bad for you." They understand their opposition to the legalization of gay marriage as fomented only by love for neighbor, and not hate. They would not vote for gay marriage for the same reasons that they would not vote for the legalization of heroin. They don't want needles being passed out to their children at their high school graduation. They don't want their children being taught that heroin use is good for you, or even an equivalent alternative to smoking a cigarette. They don't want to see people hurt themselves, in all.

(As an aside, *I* feel that Christians in general treat homosexual people better than atheists and godless liberals. I believe much of the left has adopted their cause because they believe it is politically expedient. I don't believe they care about homosexuals more than Christians do. I believe that they use them and take advantage of them, and that the rise of the far left is the worst thing ever to happen to homosexuals and those who may have inclinations in that direction. It seems like almost every day another degenerate Hollywood liberal gets caught using a slur against homosexuals, even though they are the most vocal "supporters" of their cause.

This does not surprise me at all. I have ran in liberal circles. The moral degeneracy among them takes place on a "biblical" scale. You couldn't trust anybody. Backstabbings were common. Hypocrisy was everywhere. I once had all of my money stolen from me from a vocal atheist while I lived at her house. Everything. Then she extorted me, to boot. These stories are common among them, and not at all out of the ordinary.

Two things come to mind, for me, along these lines. Even the Westboro Baptist people, whom the left adorates, had a homosexual v-logger at their house overnight. They fed him dinner and loved on him- according to his own accounting of the night. He considers them close friends. His video account can be found somewhere on youtube.

I also look at my church's treatment of homosexual people (as well as my own.) If they walk in, we include them, love on them, feed them, and accept them in Christian love. In fact, I'd be willing to say that the modern church has fed and supported and prayed with and mourned with more homosexuals than the left has ever had a wet dream of doing.

I myself once put my own life in jeopardy many years ago at a party when two bullies wanted to attack a homosexual man outside the party just because he was a homosexual. I stood in front of them and blocked them and told them that they were going through me first. Both were as tough as nails and had bad reputations, and I had no chance of fending off an assault if they called my bluff. But I had a reputation too at the time, and was hoping it was enough so that the situation would resolve without bloodshed (which it did!)

There were many young, liberal people at that party that night drinking and chatting up. It was the christian who had to step up? I believe it represents something about faith, and christianity, and christian love. The talkers and theorizers stood back and gawked. The man of faith knew he had to step up and act.

((Now, I am not bragging. I have at a times been a coward as well. But when I look at those times, I always noticed a common thread- that my cowardice never directly harmed anybody but myself. For example- running from a bully on west side avenue in jersey city after he assaulted me and took my jacket. Or having a very drunk and possibly coked-up stranger drive up and jump out of a car and launch a suprise assault on me because he said I "gave him the finger" while I was walking. I had a panic attack during the struggle and became physically weak and could not catch my breath. I thought I was having a heart attack. I had to pack my pride under my arm and flee.))

Now, one secular argument states that marriage is "all about the children." The state, in many ways, subsidizes marriage between hetero couples because the state has an interest in the propagation of society. It also states that marriage is not an absolute universal right in any way. There are already numerous restrictions on marriage: cousins and sisters and brothers are discriminated against, and restricted from marrying each other.

The state's interest is twofold. First, people who marry and have children tend to produce other people who marry and have children. Wherever the nuclear family has been deviated from, they say- we have seen ill effects on society and the children. The state has an interest and subsidizes marriage between unrelated hetero couples because they are likely to propagate.

The common rebuttal is that a very small minority of infertile couples are allowed to marry, so there is that. But some find this argument to be a kind of technical, nominal gripe, because in order to enforce the state's interest completely, this would involve mandating fertility tests for everybody. The fact is that most infertile people do not know that they are infertile. This would be a laborious and intensive and costly enterprise. It would not be in the state's interest.

The article below lays out a short summary of a secular case against legalizing gay marriage:http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

Here is another: http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress...-gay-marriage/

And this here: http://www.npr.org/2013/03/20/174848...ake-their-case

This is only a small sampling. There are numerous other arguments in the negative- religious and secular. I find the feigned ignorance of them particularly amusing, to be frank. But I understand it. It is much easier to pretend that the opposition has no arguments and therefore- their beliefs simply represent their ill character. It is happening in this very thread. Shame on you.

Shame on you for framing it as a Christian vs secularism. It dishonest or ignorant.

Christians make up what like 70% of the population in the US. The evil atheist secularist baby eaters are a very very small minority with very little power or influence.

This debate is more if anything a Christian vs Christian debate.

If this was non-Christian vs Christian then percentages for or against do not add up, as more than half the population support equal marriage rights it in the US per 2013.

Thus Doggg must be wrong.

In before they are not True Christians....

Christ did say that MANY would come to him one day who identified themselves as believers, and that He would say "I never knew you," and they would not be able to enter heaven.

He also said that MANY would take the wide path, and that the narrow way that leads to life was only for the few.

Also, "the evil atheist secularist baby eaters" have an undue influence in this society, perhaps having gotten the upper hand because they lack the absolutist moral framework that the opposition does, and they therefore capitalize on that. So, for example, they might just call people who oppose gay marriage bigots, over and over and over and over in a great chorus, KNOWING that there are arguments against gay marriage, but stating that they "cannot imagine one."Anything for the cause. Lying. Deception. Dishonesty. Whatever.

Yup not true Christians.

It's pretty ironic, because I included secular arguments. Or did you miss that?

wat?

I said this debate will be won or lost and decided by enlarge, Christians. Then you went full blown, they are not real Christians. That you included secular arguments in your diatribe doesn't have anything to do with anything.


Btw i never said there arent non bigoted or non Christian arguments.

That may be directed at me which I'm alright with given it's Doggg, however I never said that there are no non bigoted arguments nor did I say the bigots don't have any arguments just that they aren't good ones.

Though I'm not sure on the non bigoted arguments against same sex marriage though I accept there are non bigoted objections to the employment directive the topic of the OP.

I don't think it's quite so simple. I'm Jewish and for a time did keep Kosher. I felt it was the right thing for me to do. But I would never dream of legislating Judaism, forcing others to keep Kosher. I don't think that would make for a better society. I'm ok with other people having their own beliefs and living their lives according to their own standards. I think diversity is good for society.

Why is there a large Christian population in the US that feels otherwise?

Good point. We shouldn't say there are no arguments against gay marriage. We should be careful to be more accurate: there are no argument against gay marriage that aren't obviously moronic.

I don't advocating forcing anyone to do anything, but I don't think you can deny that if I believe (either correctly or incorrectly, that is irrelevant) that a conservative society is better, then a liberal one will be worse. Now, that doesn't imply that I want to strong-arm anyone to do what I believe is beneficial, but I should likewise not be told that I cannot believe something is worse. That intolerance is just as bad as the intolerance which people claim is being committed by some Christians. Forcing someone to do what I believe is right is not necessarily conducive to a better society, but that doesn't mean that what I believe is right ceases from being right.

Why do Christians feel the need to legislate, or why do they feel that a society is better if it follows a specific value-system? This is not simply a Christian ideology, it can be seen throughout this thread, that a different view is necessarily wrong and intolerant, while still maintaining that their side is tolerant.

I think this stems from some conflation, I believe, between not agreeing with an action, and not agreeing with those who commit the action. If I am against legalizing pot, do I discriminate against potheads? This is what is being said, that the only reason must be either rooted in, directly or indirectly, again the PERSON who smokes pot, NOT the consequences of the behaviour. That's why it's easy to claim that anyone who does not agree with smoking pot is a bigot against PERSONS, not actions. I understand that gay people will obviously be affected, but that doesn't mean that the ONLY reason of objection must be against gay people, if one wants to take that line, he must also realize that it applies to his side as well, that being against conservative values must mean he is attacking the Christian who holds the views.

The conflation is between marriage equality, or employment equality, and some generalised conservative values without explaining why proscribing same sex marriage results in a better society than allowing it.

Your analogies with weed aren't relevant

If I say that I don't think pot should be legal, why don't you accuse me of being a bigot, and that I'm discriminating against pot-smokers? I still have not stated a reason to why I am against pot being legal.

The reasons are subjective either way. If I say that I believe that society functions better with conservative values, that is my reason. That reason is not bigoted in nature, even if incorrect. My point is that IF you conclude that one of these is me being discriminatory, as you have defined it, you should conclude the same for the other, but you likely don't.

dogg: I'm not going to read your post in it's entirety just now, but a few things

First of all it's clearly wrong to characterize gay marriage as being only about sex. Gay people care about more than just sex. Surprise! But lets replace it with "romantic love", in which case this replacement of fecundity is already an established fact. We don't forbid old or infertile people from getting married.

The slippery slope argument. This is unpersuasive because many laws involve somewhat ad hoc boundaries: drinking age, voting age, age of consent, DUI laws in regard to BAC, and many others. Legalizing gay marriage does not necessitate legalizing polygamy, and the actual substantive arguments for and against either are going to look very different, and may be easily considered separately.

This isn't even an argument, it's just dismissal in the form of "your emotional need to not feel like a second class citizen is trumped by my emotional need to have my beliefs enshrined into law."

No proponent for gay marriage would deny that a legal regime that provides marriage-like rights would be better than a discriminatory status quo in many places. But full recognition of equality before the law and as a citizen of your country is a very powerful thing, even to the extent that it becomes, in the extreme, mostly symbolic. Although it's important to note it's far from being only symbolic now.

This ignores the fact that gay couples can and will (and already do) adopt children and provide loving homes for them. There is also a completely unfounded assumption that somehow the existence of gay married people is deleterious to the positive benefits of marriage where it involves child-rearing heterosexual people. But this is nonsensical and you haven't actually made an argument for it.

Because there are available reasons for wanting pot criminalised that do not require you be bigoted. You'll notice that the working definition I took from wiki doesn't have pot smokers, or murderers, or drunk divers or jaywalkers as a protected class.

You'll also notice I've posted previously given your statements regarding not minding if gay people get married preclude you from answering a claim of bigotry.

However you continue to use weed as an analogy and I'm done it's not relevant and your refusal to say how a society with same sex marriage, or employment equality is worse than one without should give you a clue.

My reasons to not legalize pot are the same for which I do not support same-sex unions. It instills in society the acceptance for something, and a general way of life, that undermines what I believe to be the desire of God and his absolute moral code. Children are taught that certain things are right and acceptable, which I do not believe are so, and that will affect future generations, including people and children I care about. A country where pot is legal tells children that pot is okay, just like a country that celebrates same-sex unions tells children that same-sex relationships are okay. IF I believe they are not okay (morally speaking) then I would rather they not be legalized or encouraged.

It doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong, this is my perspective, just like it's your perspective that these things are okay. And that's fine, these things are subjective, my only dog in this fight is that I do not hate anyone, and it's silly to suggest that the only reasons are rooted in hate.

You clarified what you've meant along the way, I don't say this to include you, necessarily, just in general terms. This was originally a response to kermit, which morphed a bit. I respect your views as reasonable, and I understand the equality argument, and if I implied that I want to force anyone to do anything, I take it back.

Edit: I'm on my way out, and just because it's hard to convey tone, I would like to say no hard feelings. It's one of the reasons which I don't like to address these things, it's a sensitive topic. Ironically, I may have made it worse by not explaining myself.

So basically the argument now is that a bunch of not true Christians (minimum of 64 million) have been led astray by a powerful anti-Christian lobby that lacks moral fibre.

Solid.

I think when we are talking about equality legislation it's helpful to be more specific regarding our objections. You talk about an absolute moral code yet you don't advocate it absolutely. That said I reject your moral framework in it's entirety though I respect your not wanting to force it on anyone.

Consider for a minute the question of homosexuality in terms of Euthyphro. Is homosexuality wrong because god dislikes it or does god dislike it because it is wrong. If the first where is this made clear and how and do you then defend that perspective consistently. If you wish to extend this to weed feel free I'm interested in how you fare. If God dislikes homosexuality because it is wrong what is wrong about it, what property of homosexuality is wrong.

I think it's important to tell children who will have homosexual relationships that those relationships are okay. I don't think it's of any benefit to make people feel badly about themselves due to non harming entirely natural feelings. There may be an argument that legalising homosexuality has resulted in an increase of people identifying as homosexual but unless people wish to demonstrate a harm this is better than people being criminalised for entirely natural feelings.

See it does matter, it matters to those people who currently face discrimination, and this isn't consistent with you claiming gods moral absolutism, it seems lacking conviction which again isn't a bad thing.

Cool.

No hard feelings at all.

In fairness N_R you've mentioned previously that you consider yourself an agnostic theist. Given this I think your belief comes from your theism and your conviction (or lack of) from your agnosticism, this seems to me consistent with holding those beliefs but not wanting them to force them on anyone and so I'm withdrawing the claim that your beliefs seem inconsistent.

I'm showing you the consequences of your definition. If you take the definition to be "well, if your position results in policies I don't like, then I can call you bigoted" then this is the consequence.

I never implied that you were bigoted. I implied (well, outright stated) that I think your use of the word "bigoted" is wrong.

I was simply noting that dictionaries are not entirely consistent on the meaning of the word "bigoted" and I was asking you to clarify your particular usage of it.

I never claimed that this had nothing to do with discrimination. I've even noted that bigotry implies discrimination. My position is that the opposite implication is false, that discrimination does not actually imply bigotry.

I'll note that "Religious discrimination" is also linked in the same area. Does that mean that any form of religious discrimination is bigotry?

I've read it again, and my assessment remains the same.

But I want you to note the increasing level of defensiveness you've taken since the point that you (apparently) thought I called you a bigot. I've noted the problematic nature of you using that word to characterize your viewpoint, and that it is not productive in advancing conversation:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...5&postcount=54

You're basically demonstrating for me the correctness of my analysis. Because you have perceived that I've called you a bigot (which I haven't), you've engaged in a defensive positioning trying to use all sorts of things in order to justify the usage of your word (which I still maintain is wrong). And you've convoluted your position to things as trivial as "Look! Wikipedia includes a link to discrimination on its bigotry page, therefore I'm justified in calling someone a bigot if they discriminate."

I've noted repeatedly that there are other words that describe discrimination, such as "discrimination." That you want to impute a secret hatred on behalf people who have a different policy position than you is not a good way to approach the subject, and an exceedingly difficult way to have a productive conversation.

Quoting for a demonstration of the emotional effect of the "bigot" label:

I presented those potential definitions as an inquiry into your definition and have never used that definition to actually describe someone as a bigot. I'll note again that there is not a single place in which I've accused you of being a bigot.