Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

[BigBallinStalin]

I still don't understand the following with the issue on gay marriage:


(1) No religion has the legitimate right to define what a marriage is in the US. No single religion enjoys that jurisdiction. So, why do people continue to think that their own particular religion somehow has the right to define what a marriage is over an entire country? (that screams of theocracy to me).

Okay, let's clear up a confusion. There's "religious marriage" and "legal marriage" (a.k.a. civil union). I'm talking about legal marriage and religious marriages, which differ across religions (which further compounds the problem of #1). A religion can define marriage and regulate marriage, but only within in its own jurisdictions (churches, but not across the entire country), hence a "religious marriage."

(2) Suppose the US legalizes gay marriage and requires people to recognize it as a legitimate marriage (in regard to contract laws, etc.). However, the US does not force religious organizations to oversee the marriage of gay couples because those organizations are free to deny their services (e.g. no gays in the Boy Scouts case). If (2) is true, then why would people oppose gay marriage?

[InkL0sed]

You don't understand. Gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage and call God's fury upon our nation. We have a responsibility to crucify the gays, for the sake of our children. And puppies.

[BigBallinStalin]

You don't understand. Gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage and call God's fury upon our nation. We have a responsibility to crucify the gays, for the sake of our children. And puppies.

I fully support your campaign to crucify puppies. Let God Help us, in our quest to remove this scourge from the face of the Earth.

[GreecePwns]

The answer to #2 will probably be the belief you bring up in #1. The answer to #1 will probably involve a belief that their particular morality is the one, only and correct morality.

Then, when asked about other sects within the same religion (in other words, differing interpretation of the same literature), the answer to #1 is probably repeated.

Then, when asked about the existence of a god, or more specifically, the existence of a god that is exactly as their interpretation of a particular piece of literature describes, the conversation goes in circles.

Then BBS breaks out the wheel and the discussion ends. I don't think I've seen anyone post a defense against that thing.

[Nola_Lifer]

This must be the thread to find all the bigots on the CC forum. Too bad we already know who they are.

[MegaProphet]

Some might argue that the US is essentially a Christian nation and its laws should uphold Christian beliefs. I think they are wrong.

[PLAYER57832]

Some might argue that the US is essentially a Christian nation and its laws should uphold Christian beliefs. I think they are wrong.

Even if true, why does that mean homosexuality should be disallowed or gay marriage not allowed? Some Christian churches very much do acknowledge the right?

[MegaProphet]

Some might argue that the US is essentially a Christian nation and its laws should uphold Christian beliefs. I think they are wrong.

Even if true, why does that mean homosexuality should be disallowed or gay marriage not allowed? Some Christian churches very much do acknowledge the right?

Yes, but it's quite easy for the opposition to say that those churches aren't 'true' Christian churches just like I would say that the Westboro Baptist church is a subversion of the Christian faith.

[PLAYER57832]

Some might argue that the US is essentially a Christian nation and its laws should uphold Christian beliefs. I think they are wrong.

Even if true, why does that mean homosexuality should be disallowed or gay marriage not allowed? Some Christian churches very much do acknowledge the right?

Yes, but it's quite easy for the opposition to say that those churches aren't 'true' Christian churches just like I would say that the Westboro Baptist church is a subversion of the Christian faith.

And there we have the crux... which church gets to decide.

At the time of our founding, for some time after, there were major wars waged between the Roman Catholics and Protestant churches. Greek Orthodoxy, Russian Orthodoxy... etc, etc, etc.

I know you said that you disagree that our nation was set up as a Christian nation, and I think you acknowledge the above is part of why that is very much the case.

[MegaProphet]

Some might argue that the US is essentially a Christian nation and its laws should uphold Christian beliefs. I think they are wrong.

Even if true, why does that mean homosexuality should be disallowed or gay marriage not allowed? Some Christian churches very much do acknowledge the right?

Yes, but it's quite easy for the opposition to say that those churches aren't 'true' Christian churches just like I would say that the Westboro Baptist church is a subversion of the Christian faith.

And there we have the crux... which church gets to decide.

At the time of our founding, for some time after, there were major wars waged between the Roman Catholics and Protestant churches. Greek Orthodoxy, Russian Orthodoxy... etc, etc, etc.

I know you said that you disagree that our nation was set up as a Christian nation, and I think you acknowledge the above is part of why that is very much the case.

Yes, I think that the country was founded more on freedom from religious prosecution than on any one religion

[BigBallinStalin]

The answer to #2 will probably be the belief you bring up in #1. The answer to #1 will probably involve a belief that their particular morality is the one, only and correct morality.

Then, when asked about other sects within the same religion (in other words, differing interpretation of the same literature), the answer to #1 is probably repeated.

Then, when asked about the existence of a god, or more specifically, the existence of a god that is exactly as their interpretation of a particular piece of literature describes, the conversation goes in circles.

Then BBS breaks out the wheel and the discussion ends. I don't think I've seen anyone post a defense against that thing.

puppydog argued against empiricism, or sensual experience, but to me and Wittgenstein those who sincerely doubt the existence of the door knob before they turn it have mental problems.

[saxitoxin]

At the time of our founding, for some time after, there were major wars waged between the Roman Catholics and Protestant churches. Greek Orthodoxy, Russian Orthodoxy... etc, etc, etc.

Ah yes, the epic battles between the Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox churches in colonial Delaware. Who can forget the particularly bloody campaign between the forces of Ben Franklonopolous and Tom Jeffersonovitch? Those were sad times, indeed.

[Army of GOD]

(3) Those who oppose gay marriage often cite the Bible as to why they are against it. Yet, they seemingly ignore other facets of the Bible (such as stoning a woman who has had sex before marriage) that are considered obsolete socially. Which parts of the Bible are to be taken literally and which aren't?

[Dukasaur]

Some might argue that the US is essentially a Christian nation and its laws should uphold Christian beliefs. I think they are wrong.

Even if true, why does that mean homosexuality should be disallowed or gay marriage not allowed? Some Christian churches very much do acknowledge the right?

They can't if they want to be consistent with their teachings. Even if you ignore the ten or more Old Testament injunctions, there's plenty in the New Testament. Paul's letters are quite unequivocal on the subject. He returns to the subject no less than three times: Romans 1:26, 1Corinthians 6:9, and 1Timothy 1:10. Those are just the undisputed passages, there's more that could be interpreted to touch on the subject also.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not a practising Christian although I respect the Christian background of our civilization. And personally, I don't give a rat's ass where other people stick their dicks, as long as it's not into me or any member of my immediate family. But I do expect people to show consistency with their professed beliefs and not cherry pick which part of their "faith" they're going to follow. If you want to be a Christiam and you accept the New Testament as truth then that includes Paul whether or not it's inconvenient for you.

[Phatscotty]

OMG? Another gay marriage thread? Are you serious? Because that's what this forum needed...right?

[GreecePwns]

I would really like to see the answers to BBS questions, but as an aside, I have read an article suggesting that Moses was high as a kite when he claimed to have received the Ten Commandments.

I wouldn't be surprised. That and schizophrenia are both possibilities.

[Nola_Lifer]

OMG? Another gay marriage thread? Are you serious? Because that's what this forum needed...right?

2+2=5

[BigBallinStalin]

OMG? Another gay marriage thread? Are you serious? Because that's what this forum needed...right?

This forum needs less Phatism.


But hey, here's an opportunity to be less Phatist! You could answer the questions in the OP. Since you talk so much about this issue, we could reasonably assume that you're knowledgeable enough to answer those simple questions.

[puppydog85]

Well BBS, just a quick one- you said you are an empiricist and then promptly backtracked and stated your belief in foundationalism. Which is to say, "I believe only what my eyes tell me, except of course for those things that I believe that my eyes cannot see." Strict empiricism cannot account for laws or logic. I am not saying that the doorknob does not exist, I am saying that if what you say is true you cannot account for the existential.

But to answer your questions. Question 1. What's wrong with a theocracy? Laws have to come from somewhere and if you think a perfect being has given laws for the world you might as well use them. A quick aside, this is the view of most of the founder's. Blackstone was the most quoted of all documents by the founders (after the Bible) and a quick read of him clearly assigns all law as coming from God. I can dig up quotes and stats if anyone really wants them.
Question 2. Because most Christians have this thing with having to tell the world what is right. Something called the "great commission".
But seriously, what you described is precisely what Hitler did. Leave me alone and I will leave you alone, is more or less what he told the Christians. And you would rightly get all indignant if someone offered you that. Well, for some Christians homosexuality ranks with murder.


Something tells me this post should go over big. Open fire people, but I might take some time to respond, currently I am mulling over what to say to Player about evolution and that is taking up my mental resources.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I would really like to see the answers to BBS questions, but as an aside, I have read an article suggesting that Moses was high as a kite when he claimed to have received the Ten Commandments.

I wouldn't be surprised. That and schizophrenia are both possibilities.

*cough* Already did it *cough*

[Phatscotty]

OMG? Another gay marriage thread? Are you serious? Because that's what this forum needed...right?

This forum needs less Phatism.


But hey, here's an opportunity to be less Phatist! You could answer the questions in the OP. Since you talk so much about this issue, we could reasonably assume that you're knowledgeable enough to answer those simple questions.

I don't think I'm ready to forgive you for being a giant doosh just yet, but I want to say you really sound a lot like me now

[jay_a2j]

I still don't understand the following with the issue on gay marriage:


(1) No religion has the legitimate right to define what a marriage is in the US. No single religion enjoys that jurisdiction. So, why do people continue to think that their own particular religion somehow has the right to define what a marriage is over an entire country? (that screams of theocracy to me).

Okay, let's clear up a confusion. There's "religious marriage" and "legal marriage" (a.k.a. civil union). I'm talking about legal marriage and religious marriages, which differ across religions (which further compounds the problem of #1). A religion can define marriage and regulate marriage, but only within in its own jurisdictions (churches, but not across the entire country), hence a "religious marriage."

(2) Suppose the US legalizes gay marriage and requires people to recognize it as a legitimate marriage (in regard to contract laws, etc.). However, the US does not force religious organizations to oversee the marriage of gay couples because those organizations are free to deny their services (e.g. no gays in the Boy Scouts case). If (2) is true, then why would people oppose gay marriage?

The problem with legalizing gay marriage is freedom of religion. Because you know as well as I, as soon as it's legal some gay couple will sue some pastor who refuses to marry them based on HIS religious beliefs. Then what? He goes to jail for not complying with mans laws because he refuses to be a part of breaking God's laws?

[GreecePwns]

No, he just doesn't marry the couple, who can pursue other methods of getting married. No one ever implied that. You're imagining a slippery slope.

[jonesthecurl]

Just because divorce is legal doesn't mean that an individual church can't refuse to marry divorcees, if their interpretation of the Bible is that this is against God's will.

[Frigidus]

I still don't understand the following with the issue on gay marriage:


(1) No religion has the legitimate right to define what a marriage is in the US. No single religion enjoys that jurisdiction. So, why do people continue to think that their own particular religion somehow has the right to define what a marriage is over an entire country? (that screams of theocracy to me).

Okay, let's clear up a confusion. There's "religious marriage" and "legal marriage" (a.k.a. civil union). I'm talking about legal marriage and religious marriages, which differ across religions (which further compounds the problem of #1). A religion can define marriage and regulate marriage, but only within in its own jurisdictions (churches, but not across the entire country), hence a "religious marriage."

(2) Suppose the US legalizes gay marriage and requires people to recognize it as a legitimate marriage (in regard to contract laws, etc.). However, the US does not force religious organizations to oversee the marriage of gay couples because those organizations are free to deny their services (e.g. no gays in the Boy Scouts case). If (2) is true, then why would people oppose gay marriage?

The problem with legalizing gay marriage is freedom of religion. Because you know as well as I, as soon as it's legal some gay couple will sue some pastor who refuses to marry them based on HIS religious beliefs. Then what?

Then the case is laughed out of court, as the First Amendment clearly protects him.