Bigotry, Gay Marriage, Michael Sam & Tony Dungy

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm pretty sure I have. ISiddiqui usually proves me wrong on SCOTUS cases, and if I haven't admitted that before, I should definitely atone for that now.

Here I retract several statements in a conversation with RA.

Here I apologize to Jim for going to far (although fat good that did for me).

Here I apologize to Senator for mischaracterizing him.

Here I apologize to lynchjm24 for giving him the wrong impression about how I felt about him.

Here I apologize to Cam for being too personal in my attacks.

Here I apologize to SportsDino for being an ass.

Here I apologize to Cam, again, for being an ass.

I feel there's probably more (I know I've apologized to Jon more than once for misunderstanding him, and recently too), but that's the best I can do with the search functionality so far.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Not really. I'm simply asking people to substantiate the assertion that "it is very popular to be anti-god".

from Wiki ...

Majority public support for same-sex marriage has solidified, as polls since 2010 consistently indicate support above 50%.

There's other examples of course but you don't really have to look any farther as far as I'm concerned.

[flere-imsaho]

If you're going to claim that being pro-gay-marriage means you're anti-god then yes, you have a defensible statement, though a faulty assumption.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Here I retract several statements in a conversation with RA.

Here I apologize to Jim for going to far (although fat good that did for me).

Here I apologize to Senator for mischaracterizing him.

Here I apologize to lynchjm24 for giving him the wrong impression about how I felt about him.

Here I apologize to Cam for being too personal in my attacks.

Here I apologize to SportsDino for being an ass.

Here I apologize to Cam, again, for being an ass.

I feel there's probably more (I know I've apologized to Jon more than once for misunderstanding him, and recently too), but that's the best I can do with the search functionality so far.

OK, I stand corrected on that, and apologize for asking a question/making an accusation that was just way too broad. My issue is just with how you respond to my posts individually, I really have no concept of how you relate to anyone else. So it could just be me.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Or redeems him.

Eye of the beholder, etc. etc.

Which I still don't understand? Of all the sinning that goes on in the world, why is being gay the thing that crosses the line? You guys don't treat people who work on the Sabbath in the same demeaning way you treat gay people. You don't try to strip them of their rights and dignity and not working on the Sabbath is one of the ten commandments. You guys don't demean and try to strip the rights of people who divorce, either. Jesus had more to say about divorce than being gay, if I remember my time in Church correctly.

But, being gay and just wanting to live like a normal person is somehow crossing the line.

[Fidatelo]

I'm not sure where I stand on God or religion, but I will say this: for most of my life one of my biggest issues with religion has been the attitude of "I'm right and you're wrong" from many people within those groups. IE if you don't believe in God, or you don't follow the same beliefs as I do, you're in idiot.

Now? The pendulum has swung. Most religious folks I meet nowadays seem to keep it pretty close to the vest. Conversely, there has been a massive rise in Atheist or anti-religious folks spouting how anyone who believes in God or religion is in idiot.

My opinion? You're probably an idiot either way if you so strongly think your answer is any more right than anyone else.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If you're going to claim that being pro-gay-marriage means you're anti-god then yes, you have a defensible statement, though a faulty assumption.

That's not an assumption, it's pure fact as far as I'm concerned. What I find indefensible, just bluntly, is anyone supporting it that then claims they're anything other than pro-sin.

That's really where a lot of the vehemence against the lobby comes from IMO. There's all manner of sins, there just aren't many that have such a vocal lobby pretending that they're not doing anything wrong.

I mean, there's not nearly as big a pro-murder lobby or pro-adultery lobby or pro-idolatry lobby. There's not this false pretense to defend those things, there's not a TV series devoted to showing the fun you can have via a thinly disguised knockoff of AshleyMadison dot com or something.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by molson

Your response was to mock me for things I didn't say, and to generally be pretty hostile. There were other hostile responses too. People get irrationally pissed and can't even read clearly when you state anything other than the "correct" black and white view on this.

Kinda sucks when people do this, doesn't it? And no one ever apologizes for it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Kinda sucks when people do this, doesn't it? And no one ever apologizes for it.

This debate here would be a lot different if 98% of scholarly papers were on one side of things. I am hostile to the idea that that's a fraud, or that the holocaust didn't happen, or that smoking doesn't cause cancer, or that 9/11 was an inside job. If I come off too harsh in expressing that bewilderment about the attacks to such an overwhelming consensus, I apologize. But I can't apologize for being bewildered.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Which I still don't understand? Of all the sinning that goes on in the world, why is being gay the thing that crosses the line?

I subsequently hit on that very thing about two posts later (hadn't seen you ask or I would have quoted you there). I think I covered it though, it's a fair question afaic, one I have no problem at least attempting to offer an answer for.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I subsequently hit on that very thing about two posts later (hadn't seen you ask or I would have quoted you there). I think I covered it though, it's a fair question afaic, one I have no problem at least attempting to offer an answer for.

But there are Christians who break the Ten Commandments every single week by working and yet I see no concerted effort to strip them of their rights. It just seems like a massive disconnect. You've taken to trying to strip people of rights because it is mentioned to be wrong a few times in the Bible, yet completely ignore the millions who break one of the ten commandments continuously.

I think I would have less issue with Christians if they followed more of the Bible with the same passion they persecute gay people. I'd still think they were fucking looney, but, at least, they would be consistently looney.

In my opinion though, I think the worry is more that the "gay" will somehow rub off on red-blooded Americans. I think they hide behind the Bible.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's not an assumption, it's pure fact as far as I'm concerned. What I find indefensible, just bluntly, is anyone supporting it that then claims they're anything other than pro-sin.

That's really where a lot of the vehemence against the lobby comes from IMO. There's all manner of sins, there just aren't many that have such a vocal lobby pretending that they're not doing anything wrong.

I mean, there's not nearly as big a pro-murder lobby or pro-adultery lobby or pro-idolatry lobby. There's not this false pretense to defend those things, there's not a TV series devoted to showing the fun you can have via a thinly disguised knockoff of AshleyMadison dot com or something.

Did you mean lump homosexuality in with the 10 commandments?

Some would say the pro-choice movement and NRA are pro-murder lobby's

If you are saying homosexuality is a sin because of lust then there are lots of media that actively portrays that. Desperate housewives comes to mind.

Btw, there is an organization that shows how much fun you can have on the sabbath... SEC.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

It just seems like a massive disconnect. You've taken to trying to strip people of rights because it is mentioned to be wrong a few times in the Bible, yet completely ignore the millions who break one of the ten commandments continuously.

Among the biggest falacies with the entire pro-gay lobby is the notion that there is some sort of "right" that exists (re: marriage). The right to marry "whomever you want" does not exist, has never existed. I am very much in the "they can marry whatever person of the opposite gender they like" camp.

Honestly, I've taken this particular topic as the obvious one on the whole "pro-God / anti-God" popularity sidebar because it seems to be the obvious one giving the thread topic. Personally the whole "gay marriage" thing offends me exponentially more -- and the word choice is intentional there, it's not even close -- on an intellectual level than on a spiritual/religious level.

Calling a gay couple "married" is an absurdity on par with passing a law that redefines oxygen as being "a manmade substance commonly used as a taco seasoning". You can rename/relabel something until the cows come home but it still doesn't change what something actually IS.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

But there are Christians who break the Ten Commandments every single week by working and yet I see no concerted effort to strip them of their rights. It just seems like a massive disconnect. You've taken to trying to strip people of rights because it is mentioned to be wrong a few times in the Bible, yet completely ignore the millions who break one of the ten commandments continuously.

I think I would have less issue with Christians if they followed more of the Bible with the same passion they persecute gay people. I'd still think they were fucking looney, but, at least, they would be consistently looney.

In my opinion though, I think the worry is more that the "gay" will somehow rub off on red-blooded Americans. I think they hide behind the Bible.

I think the idea is that all people sin. It really doesn't matter if you break the 10 Commandments every week if you recognize the sinful behavior, and seek forgiveness. But embracing the sin, being proud of the sin - that's something else entirely. That's why the Vick comparisons don't hold up for me. Redemption from sin is the entire deal. There's nothing more Christian that giving a sinner a chance for redemption. That's literally doing god-like work. If Michael Vick continued to proudly kill dogs (assuming that's a sin, I really have no idea), that angle isn't there at all.

(P.S. I'm a terrible Christian for a lot of reasons, but one would be because I'd want Michael Vick thrown into this own dog fight pits.)

And since we're only allowed to state opinions with statistical backing, I'll throw this out too. Most people in the U.S. support gay marriage, and most also believe in god. There's a lot more overlap between those groups than you'd think. And (this one I don't have a survey for, but I don't think it's controversial), of those who believe in god but don't yet support gay marriage, only some portion of them are actively "persecuting gay people", or have real hate in their heart. It's not black and white, there's more than two teams here.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Among the biggest falacies with the entire pro-gay lobby is the notion that there is some sort of "right" that exists (re: marriage). The right to marry "whomever you want" does not exist, has never existed. I am very much in the "they can marry whatever person of the opposite gender they like" camp.

Honestly, I've taken this particular topic as the obvious one on the whole "pro-God / anti-God" popularity sidebar because it seems to be the obvious one giving the thread topic. Personally the whole "gay marriage" thing offends me exponentially more -- and the word choice is intentional there, it's not even close -- on an intellectual level than on a spiritual/religious level.

Calling a gay couple "married" is an absurdity on par with passing a law that redefines oxygen as being "a manmade substance commonly used as a taco seasoning". You can rename/relabel something until the cows come home but it still doesn't change what something actually IS.

You really haven't answered my questions, at all. But that's your right.

I do wonder why Christians are so against gay marriage though? The marriage we're talking about is defined by the State not by the Bible. Are you afraid you might have an inkling to take on some husky bear because you see two guys next door that are married and having fun?

[Arles]

I am not a religious person, but I would say I am very spiritual and pray regularly. I just don't go to one church or adhere to one specific religion. I don't judge those who do or don't, but the one thing that does bother me is this tendency by somewhat "anti-religion" people to equate all acts against "what is in the bible" or "what Jesus what would do". I don't think that someone is a hypocrite if they drink a couple beers every Friday night with a cheeseburger, work on Sunday - but also feel that they can't support gay marriage or abortion for religious reasons. Not everyone who is part of a specific religion needs to accept 100% of the history of that religion to not be a hypocrite. That's my biggest beef in all this.

The irony in all this is that the person who does work on Sunday, eat meat on Friday, drink a beer, is OK with interracial marriage and not agree that stoning is a great punishment is doing exactly what the anti-religion side should want. They are using their own sensibilities to determine what aspects of their religion they feel comfortable supporting and what they think isn't valid in today's culture. That type of behavior should be encouraged by the pro-gay marriage side as it will eventually end up with most religious people agreeing that gay marriage is OK in today's society. If every religious person was "not a hypocrite", the country would be in a much worse situation. There would be weekly stoning, a ton of preaching, crazy laws and no football on Sunday (and probably no FOF central ). Accepting that religious people have the freedom to pick and choose what aspects of religion/the bible make sense and work for them allows us non-religious people to have a chance at them eventually coming to the more progressive side. The last thing you should want to do is belittle them for using reason in regards to their religion.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Arles

The irony in all this is that the person who does work on Sunday, eat meat on Friday, drink a beer, is OK with interracial marriage and not agree that stoning is a great punishment is doing exactly what the anti-religious side wants. They are using their own sensibilities to determine what aspects of their religion they feel comfortable supporting and what they think isn't valid in today's culture. That type of behavior should be encouraged by the pro-gay marriage side as it will eventually end up with most religious people agreeing that gay marriage is OK in today's society. If every religious person was "not a hypocrite", the country would be in a much worse situation. There would be weekly stoning, a ton of preaching, crazy laws and no football on Sunday (and probably no FOF central ). Accepting that religious people have the freedom to pick and choose what aspects of religion/the bible make sense and work for them allows us non-religious people to have a chance at them eventually coming to the more progressive side. The last thing you should want to do is belittle them for using reason in regards to their religion.

That reminds me of how the hobby lobby was criticized for giving their employees the option to purchase mutual funds that contain stocks for contraceptive companies, rather than restricting them to the more fee-laden funds that didn't have them. And the scrutiny in breaking down the 16 contraceptives they were willing to purchase v. the 4 they weren't, and how consistent that line was. If you're not "all in", some will see you as a hypocrite. But there's an infinite number of ways to find value in religion or spirituality and its your right to define that individually.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by molson

I think the idea is that all people sin. It really doesn't matter if you break the 10 Commandments every week if you recognize the sinful behavior, and seek forgiveness. But embracing the sin, being proud of the sin - that's something else entirely.

So Michael Vick would be okay to continually torture and execute dogs as long as he's not proud of it and asks for forgiveness after each time he does it? If someone continues to break a commandment, it would seem they really have no issue with it or think the commandment is stupid. I want to see the same concerted effort to destroy the lives of people who break any of the ten commandments on a regular basis. I'd love to see an actual religious politician start on the Sunday talk show circuit, talking about how working on Sunday is an affront to God and destroying America. That those people who do it should have their rights stripped from them. Of course, his funding would dry up immediately.

Things like the above is why Christianity never made a lick of sense to me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

You really haven't answered my questions, at all.

I genuinely thought I had (although my last post did take a sidetrip).

I do wonder why Christians are so against gay marriage though? The marriage we're talking about is defined by the State not by the Bible.

There's no shortage of Christians who oppose government sanction of sin.

I mean, the most obvious would be those with a religious objection to abortion. And there's still a fair number of "dry" counties out there too. (Again, not attempting a comprehensive list here, just throwing out some obvious examples)

Are you afraid you might have an inkling to take on some husky bear because you see two guys next door that are married and having fun?

"Fear" is one of the better strawmen created by the lobbiest.
Oppose <> Fear

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Arles

The irony in all this is that the person who does work on Sunday, eat meat on Friday, drink a beer, is OK with interracial marriage and not agree that stoning is a great punishment is doing exactly what the anti-religious side wants.

Problem being, that not working on the Sabbath supposedly comes from God himself. I'm not sure how those particular pieces of religion would be up for any kind of debate/interpretation?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

The hate I see on both sides of the discussion is equivalent in my mind, yes. In this thread, in fact, I see a lot more intolerance from the anti-Dungy crowd than the religious side.

I meant my statement literally. Again, you can attach your own interpretations if you like, but that is on you, not me.

I have intolerance for people who are against gay marriage, against Michael Sam playing in the NFL, against gays in the military, benefits for gay couples, etc. My intolerance for them has zero to do with their religion.

Person A: Against gay marriage because it's "icky".
Person B: Against gay marriage because (insert bible verse).

I have equal intolerance for these two people. Stop making it about religion. It's about specific views, which not all religious people hold.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

So Michael Vick would be okay to continually torture and execute dogs as long as he's not proud of it and asks for forgiveness after each time he does it?

In a Christian sense, yes. If he had an addiction to dog killing, and was trying to stop, then sure, he'd find no shortage of people in a church willing to help him and pray for him and facilitate his repentance. Society would lock him up of course, but even in prison, the prison chaplin would not turn him away. Just like a prison chaplin wouldn't turn away a sexual sinner who wanted to repent. There is no sin salary cap. Murdering child rapists have priests with them when they're being executed.

Originally Posted by BillJasper

So Michael Vick would be okay to continually torture and execute dogs as long as he's not proud of it and asks for forgiveness after each time he does it?

I'd love to see an actual religious politician start on the Sunday talk show circuit, talking about how working on Sunday is an affront to God and destroying America. That those people who do it should have their rights stripped from them. Of course, his funding would dry up immediately.

I've never quite understood the sabbath thing. I'm not sure how much it really comes up in the New Testament, if at all, or if Jesus chimed in. But I'd rather ask a religious pro football player than just assume that this proves all Christians are looney hypocrites. But I know there's plenty of Christians who believe the bible was written by man, and the concept of sin can evolve, and that sin is ultimately just whatever is damaging to your soul or to others.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Problem being, that not working on the Sabbath supposedly comes from God himself. I'm not sure how those particular pieces of religion would be up for any kind of debate/interpretation?

Do you think "God himself" would be against shooting someone who broke into your house and had your daughter at gun point? "Thou shall not kill" is in the bible. Working on Sunday has become a somewhat necessary act for many who seek employment in today's culture. I think that even the most ardent of Bible supporters would agree that certain aspects of the Bible need some interpretation. I think it's on the individual as to what aspects of the Bible they can "massage" and still be consistent with that religion's message.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by molson

I've never quite understood the sabbath thing. I'm not sure how much it really comes up in the New Testament, if at all, or if Jesus chimed in. But I'd rather ask a religious pro football player than just assume that this proves all Christians are looney hypocrites.

Like I said before, not working on the Sabbath is suppose to come from God himself. He wrote it down and passed it onto us for some reason? Put it in the same text as murder and adultery. Seemed like it was mighty important to him.

Of course, we know the almighty dollar is far more important than most of the ten commandments.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Like I said before, not working on the Sabbath is suppose to come from God himself. He wrote it down and passed it onto us for some reason? Put it in the same text as murder and adultery. Seemed like it was mighty important to him.

Not all Christians believe God "wrote" the 10 Commandments. And the commandments are not the cornerstone of a lot of denominations. A lot of Christians are a lot more inspired by the Jesus and the Gospels and not so much the old jewish law which includes a ton of stuff beyond the Commandments.

And just educating myself on this, I saw this in wikipedia: "Moral imperatives mirroring nine of the Ten Commandments are repeated in the New Testament, but the commandment regarding the Sabbath is notably absent". So even by 2,000 years ago, the Sabbath thing was not a cornerstone of Christianity. The opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage is already not a cornerstone, or even a thing at all, for several denominations today. You can find a presbyterian church to get married in right now.

Edit: I know that all bugs people and I understand why. But every Christian and every church is different. Many, probably most, don't think that humanity had perfect connection to god and the universe 4,000 years ago. The understanding, and humans, will evolve. We'll always fall short, that's part of the gimmick.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Arles

Do you think "God himself" would be against shooting someone who broke into your house and had your daughter at gun point? "Thou shall not kill" is in the bible. Working on Sunday has become a somewhat necessary act for many who seek employment in today's culture. I think that even the most ardent of Bible supporters would agree that certain aspects of the Bible need some interpretation. I think it's on the individual as to what aspects of the Bible they can "massage" and still be consistent with that religion's message.

But that's exactly the problem I have with many people who have made that choice. I am a Christian and I definitely don't follow everything literally. And if I'm not going to follow everything, then I'm certainly not going to pick something that is hurtful and discriminatory to others. By working on Sunday, these people have clearly acknowledged they can make a choice. I agree with that choice. But if they can make a choice and they choose to fight against equal rights for gays, then that's where I lose respect for them.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think it's on the individual as to what aspects of the Bible they can "massage" and still be consistent with that religion's message.

Then it's, basically, all non-sense? That can be tweaked whenever someone has an agenda or finds something in it inconvenient?

I'm not trying to anger anyone here. But, the feel I get is that people only follow the Bible when it's convenient to their lives. It makes it all the harder for me to take their position on gay people and gay marriage seriously. How can portions of something that is supposed to be a chronicle of God and his son be written off easily, yet be used to deprive people of rights?

I don't like gay people, I start the Bible fire and brimstone speeches. I like shellfish and the NFL on Sundays, well, we'll just ignore that part.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Among the biggest falacies with the entire pro-gay lobby is the notion that there is some sort of "right" that exists (re: marriage). The right to marry "whomever you want" does not exist, has never existed. I am very much in the "they can marry whatever person of the opposite gender they like" camp.

Honestly, I've taken this particular topic as the obvious one on the whole "pro-God / anti-God" popularity sidebar because it seems to be the obvious one giving the thread topic. Personally the whole "gay marriage" thing offends me exponentially more -- and the word choice is intentional there, it's not even close -- on an intellectual level than on a spiritual/religious level.

Calling a gay couple "married" is an absurdity on par with passing a law that redefines oxygen as being "a manmade substance commonly used as a taco seasoning". You can rename/relabel something until the cows come home but it still doesn't change what something actually IS.

What I don't understand in these situations is why people get worked up about gay marriage, to use this example? I don't understand how two men/women getting married actually directly affects the anti-gay marriage activist's life in any way?

[molson]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Then it's, basically, all non-sense? That can be tweaked whenever someone has an agenda or finds something in it inconvenient?

I'm not trying to anger anyone here. But, the feel I get is that people only follow the Bible when it's convenient to their lives. It makes it all the harder for me to take their position on gay people and gay marriage seriously. How can portions of something that is supposed to be a chronicle of God and his son be written off easily, yet be used to deprive people of rights?

I don't like gay people, I start the Bible fire and brimstone speeches. I like shellfish and the NFL on Sundays, well, we'll just ignore that part.

You're talking to three Christians right now who do not support depriving gay people of rights.

As for those who do, they're not perfect. You and I aren't either. That's the gimmick. We're not god. We're going to be way off on some shit.

I'm a Christian because of the way I was raised, the way I connect with a lot of the philosophies expressed there, they way I feel it gives me strength to be a better person and get through things. I always liked the quote from that South Park Mormon episode:

"Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I have a great life, and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don't care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the church teaches now is loving your family, being nice and helping people. And even though people in this town might think that's stupid, I still choose to believe in it."

I feel like that kid in that episode sometimes. That some people think you're some kind of "looney" for having certain beliefs and values, and so they just can't see past that.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by AlexB

What I don't understand in these situations is why people get worked up about gay marriage, to use this example? I don't understand how two men/women getting married actually directly affects the anti-gay marriage activist's life in any way?

I think having someone to hate is an important part in lots of people's lives (I hate the New York Jets). It makes them feel like they're working towards something that, in their skewed worldview, makes the world better.

A century ago, it was black people (though for some it still is), the Nazi's used it to incredible effect essentially turning a good portion of the German population against people of Jewish faith/ancestry and today we have folks focusing that hate on gay people.

[molson]

Originally Posted by AlexB

What I don't understand in these situations is why people get worked up about gay marriage, to use this example? I don't understand how two men/women getting married actually directly affects the anti-gay marriage activist's life in any way?

The concept of sexual sin, or to put it in a non-secular way, sexual unhealthiness, has been around thousands of years. Similar to boozing, or gambling. We're just more liberal today about what's considered unhealthy or sinful. But we still have sexual moral values, they've just evolved.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Then it's, basically, all non-sense? That can be tweaked whenever someone has an agenda or finds something in it inconvenient?

I'm not trying to anger anyone here. But, the feel I get is that people only follow the Bible when it's convenient to their lives. It makes it all the harder for me to take their position on gay people and gay marriage seriously. How can portions of something that is supposed to be a chronicle of God and his son be written off easily, yet be used to deprive people of rights?

I don't like gay people, I start the Bible fire and brimstone speeches. I like shellfish and the NFL on Sundays, well, we'll just ignore that part.

It's no more non-sense than an atheist who is OK with gay marriage, but against late term abortions and adultery. What is his/her logic? non-sense?

Religion seems to act as a guide to most people, giving them a path to try and be better people. It's no different than a "conscience" to people who aren't religious. But, you don't have to agree with the entire old testament to be an acting Christian. I think it's extremely reasonable for some people to feel that abortion is against the tenets of their religion, but that working on Sunday and having an occasional beer is OK. There is no reason to expect every person in a religion to be 100% in lock step with the Bible or even older practices of that religion. Just like there's no reason to expect that every person "with a conscience" should be against abortions or for the death penalty.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by molson

You're talking to three Christians right now who do not support depriving gay people of rights.

I do apologize. I'm not trying to paint everyone with the same brush. But, the face of Christianity today isn't a positive one. The image definitely needs a makeover.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Arles

It's no more non-sense than an atheist who is OK with gay marriage, but against late term abortions and adultery. What is his/her logic? non-sense?

But I'm not trying to claim that I'm following some higher authority.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I do apologize. I'm not trying to paint everyone with the same brush. But, the face of Christianity today isn't a positive one. The image definitely needs a makeover.

It just depends on what Christians have your ear I think. If you're in certain communities, than ya, I get seeing that intolerance as the face of Christianity. If the face of Christianity in your life was ELCA Lutherans, I bet I could even get to you convert, if only for the women (generally descended from Sweden and Germany). Oh, and openly gay pastors.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by molson

It just depends on what Christians have your ear I think. If you're in certain communities, than ya, I get seeing that intolerance as the face of Christianity.

Unfortunately, they are the ones that get the majority of face time on the news and talk shows.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I have intolerance for people who are against gay marriage, against Michael Sam playing in the NFL, against gays in the military, benefits for gay couples, etc. My intolerance for them has zero to do with their religion.

Person A: Against gay marriage because it's "icky".
Person B: Against gay marriage because (insert bible verse).

I have equal intolerance for these two people. Stop making it about religion. It's about specific views, which not all religious people hold.

You understand I am arguing within the context of the Dungy controversy, which is based around a guy who opposes gay marriage on the basis of religion, right? That this entire discussion is based around that?

I don't know why you feel the need to demonize my positon just because I am arguing within the relevant discussion. I didn't create this discussion. I am just a participant, like you.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

You understand I am arguing within the context of the Dungy controversy, which is based around a guy who opposes gay marriage on the basis of religion, right? That this entire discussion is based around that?

I don't know why you feel the need to demonize my positon just because I am arguing within the relevant discussion. I didn't create this discussion. I am just a participant, like you.

I still don't think you're getting my point. I don't care if Dungy's position is because of his religious beliefs or not. You are trying to paint the anti-Dungy people as anti-religion. We are not against religion. We are against this particular view.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I still don't think you're getting my point. I don't care if Dungy's position is because of his religious beliefs or not. You are trying to paint the anti-Dungy people as anti-religion. We are not against religion. We are against this particular view.

And you don't get mine. That you took a statement outside of its context and made it Chief Rum's Opus Statement On All Things Gay Versus Religious. Every post you have made has taken my original statement outside of its context and just made it about what you wanted it to be about.

If you can't argue my statement within the context it was given, I frankly don't want you to respond to it at all.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Among the biggest falacies with the entire pro-gay lobby is the notion that there is some sort of "right" that exists (re: marriage). The right to marry "whomever you want" does not exist, has never existed. I am very much in the "they can marry whatever person of the opposite gender they like" camp.

Honestly, I've taken this particular topic as the obvious one on the whole "pro-God / anti-God" popularity sidebar because it seems to be the obvious one giving the thread topic. Personally the whole "gay marriage" thing offends me exponentially more -- and the word choice is intentional there, it's not even close -- on an intellectual level than on a spiritual/religious level.

Calling a gay couple "married" is an absurdity on par with passing a law that redefines oxygen as being "a manmade substance commonly used as a taco seasoning". You can rename/relabel something until the cows come home but it still doesn't change what something actually IS.

Of course there is a "right" that exists to get married. And as far as I know, the only limitations surround age and, I guess, species? But it's how I, as a Jewish person, am considered legally married to my wife despite not being a follower of the Bible. We signed a "Ketubah" which is a marriage contract under Jewish law, but in the eyes of the government, we were not legally married until we obtained, signed, and returned a marriage license that the state of NY issued.

The government has a role in recognizing marriage in this country. That's an indisputable fact. Since they do that, there is no reason they should be denying any subset of people the same misera-, I mean, amazing experience. What a religion says should have no role in this. If your church doesn't want to perform or recognize gay marriages, that should be their right.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

And you don't get mine. That you took a statement outside of its context and made it Chief Rum's Opus Statement On All Things Gay Versus Religious. Every post you have made has taken my original statement outside of its context and just made it about what you wanted it to be about.

If you can't argue my statement within the context it was given, I frankly don't want you to respond to it at all.

Okay, let me try to break it down, because I still don't think you're getting it.

You framed the argument like this

in fact, I see a lot more intolerance from the anti-Dungy crowd than the religious side.

My whole point is that you are incorrectly identifying the two sides in this debate. You can be intolerant of Dungy's comments and still be religious. You can be intolerant of Dungy and not intolerant of religion.

I'm not saying you're anti-gay or claiming you're trying to make "Chief Rum's Opus Statement On All Things Gay Versus Religious", so I'm not sure why you're getting so bent out of shape.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Okay, let me try to break it down, because I still don't think you're getting it.

You framed the argument like this



My whole point is that you are incorrectly identifying the two sides in this debate. You can be intolerant of Dungy's comments and still be religious. You can be intolerant of Dungy and not intolerant of religion.

I'm not saying you're anti-gay or claiming you're trying to make "Chief Rum's Opus Statement On All Things Gay Versus Religious", so I'm not sure why you're getting so bent out of shape.

That specific statement you pulled out about anti-Dungy being more intolerant was specifically aimed at the respondents in this thread, and they are definitely anti-Dungy. So that statement is factually accurate, at least with respect to whom it was targeting.

I'm getting in a huff because you're trying to make it out like I am setting this debate as pro-gay versus religion. I am not. I am arguing within the context given. So when you continue to come after me as if I am framing it that way rather than accepting the context given, that can be annoying.

Frankly, I don't even know why that is such a big issue for you, either. Let it go.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by AlexB

What I don't understand in these situations is why people get worked up about gay marriage, to use this example? I don't understand how two men/women getting married actually directly affects the anti-gay marriage activist's life in any way?

To get any shot at understanding you're probably going to have to separate MY biggest objection with that of the large majority of those who have an objection.

For me, it's the tragic/comic absurdity of the repurposing of the word. Genuinely, honestly, sincerely ... calling such a union a "marriage" might be the single most utterly asinine thing I've encountered in 47 years. Opposing it, even being offended beyond description by it, is entirely consistent with my steadfast opposition to things at are ... y'know, there isn't a single polite* way I can come up with to phrase it. "So completely and utterly insane as to make me question the fitness of humanity to remain on the planet" is about as close as I can get.

* "Polite" doesn't really enter into the equation for me all that often, in this case it does because -- for better or worse -- I'm treating your comment as an indication of a genuine attempt to understand the point of view. I'm purposefully trying to avoid having that effort complicated by what might appear to be hyperbole.



I'm pretty sure that I'm in the minority of the opposition in terms of what I find MOST objectionable. But I've also tried to cover most of that point of view in my previous comments in this thread too. Maybe adding something about we're all "directly affected" by things that are wholly inappropriate / society is diminished by such acceptance (something I often end up covering with the phrase "excusing the inexcusable") could shed a little more light.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I agree with that choice. But if they can make a choice and they choose to fight against equal rights for gays, then that's where I lose respect for them.

And that you chose to fight for making sin acceptable is where I lost respect for you.

Those who stand against it will be just fine without your respect, as you'll undoubtedly be nonplussed by not having mine. Life goes on, the wheel in the sky keeps on turning, etc. etc. etc.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

That specific statement you pulled out about anti-Dungy being more intolerant was specifically aimed at the respondents in this thread, and they are definitely anti-Dungy. So that statement is factually accurate, at least with respect to whom it was targeting.

I never said they weren't anti-Dungy. I said they weren't necessarily anti-religious.

I'm getting in a huff because you're trying to make it out like I am setting this debate as pro-gay versus religion. I am not. I am arguing within the context given. So when you continue to come after me as if I am framing it that way rather than accepting the context given, that can be annoying.

And I'm arguing within this context. Your statement still implies that there is an anti-Dungy side and a religious side. And I think that is inaccurate even within the context of the debate in this specific thread.

Frankly, I don't even know why that is such a big issue for you, either. Let it go.

Who said it's "such a big issue for me"? I'm participating in the thread, just like you are.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

To get any shot at understanding you're probably going to have to separate MY biggest objection with that of the large majority of those who have an objection.

For me, it's the tragic/comic absurdity of the repurposing of the word. Genuinely, honestly, sincerely ... calling such a union a "marriage" might be the single most utterly asinine thing I've encountered in 47 years. Opposing it, even being offended beyond description by it, is entirely consistent with my steadfast opposition to things at are ... y'know, there isn't a single polite* way I can come up with to phrase it. "So completely and utterly insane as to make me question the fitness of humanity to remain on the planet" is about as close as I can get.

* "Polite" doesn't really enter into the equation for me all that often, in this case it does because -- for better or worse -- I'm treating your comment as an indication of a genuine attempt to understand the point of view. I'm purposefully trying to avoid having that effort complicated by what might appear to be hyperbole.



I'm pretty sure that I'm in the minority of the opposition in terms of what I find MOST objectionable. But I've also tried to cover most of that point of view in my previous comments in this thread too. Maybe adding something about we're all "directly affected" by things that are wholly inappropriate / society is diminished by such acceptance (something I often end up covering with the phrase "excusing the inexcusable") could shed a little more light.

Genuinely curious...

Do you think Logan and his wife are married? As he described above, he did not have a "Christian" wedding.

What about couples- one man, one woman - who forgo a church wedding, but are wed by a JP? Married or no?

Or my parents - dad was raised Catholic, mom Jewish. Converted before marriage. Are they married?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by AlexB

What I don't understand in these situations is why people get worked up about gay marriage, to use this example? I don't understand how two men/women getting married actually directly affects the anti-gay marriage activist's life in any way?

This is what I can't wrap my head around either. I understand not liking something. I understand finding it deplorable. But if it is between consenting adults and has no impact on my life, who cares?

For instance I think smoking is a grotesque habit. But if some guy down the street wants to smoke 2 packs a day, it has no bearing on my life. I guess I don't understand this need to control other people's lives. It's almost a sign of how pathetic one's must be if they are so concerned with what others do.

[Autumn]

How come you don't hear as much upset over heterosexual anal sex as you do over homosexual sex? As i understand it, a Christian objection to homosexuality is that sex is naturally procreative and that it is deviance from this that is wrong. Isn't it just as wrong for a man and woman to have anal sex? If two men love each other but never have sex is that objectionable? I know this is apart from the particular issue of marriage, but every time I see homosexuality described as sinful I wonder how people make these distinctions. There are a thousand varieties of sexuality, from sadomasochism, to feet fetish, to anal sex. Are all of these sinful? If not, why homosexual sex?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

Genuinely curious...

Do you think Logan and his wife are married? As he described above, he did not have a "Christian" wedding.

What about couples- one man, one woman - who forgo a church wedding, but are wed by a JP? Married or no?

Or my parents - dad was raised Catholic, mom Jewish. Converted before marriage. Are they married?

FTR Jon, feel free to respond and I'll make no judgment on you with your answer. I'll be thinking back to a couple PMs we have exchanged fairly recently and absolutely no hard feelings, as I expressed then.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by Autumn

How come you don't hear as much upset over heterosexual anal sex as you do over homosexual sex? As i understand it, a Christian objection to homosexuality is that sex is naturally procreative and that it is deviance from this that is wrong. Isn't it just as wrong for a man and woman to have anal sex? If two men love each other but never have sex is that objectionable? I know this is apart from the particular issue of marriage, but every time I see homosexuality described as sinful I wonder how people make these distinctions. There are a thousand varieties of sexuality, from sadomasochism, to feet fetish, to anal sex. Are all of these sinful? If not, why homosexual sex?

Because it is awesome