First  Prev  113  114  115  116  117  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  125  Next  Last
Post Reply Gay Marriage
3416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 8/24/13 , edited 8/24/13

dougeprofile
You are quoting lots of left wing sources - unbiased they are not; persecution is a strong word; homosexuals as a group are more prosperous than heterosexuals - the word certainly does not apply.


What the source is does not change the fact that what happened in these cases did in fact happen. Nor do the statistics lie. LGBT youth suicide rate are abominably high compared to non-LGBT youth. That would not be the case if they hadn't been persecuted.

Please do not insult my intelligence by trying to argue something so stupid.




dougeprofile
Well I don't accept the Book of Mormon as Scripture, go argue the point with a Mormon; Mitt Romney is Mormon and I challenge you to prove he thinks it is a sin to be black. And I said Bible, not the book of Mormon.


Wheather you accept the Book of Mormon as scripture or not is so irrelevant that it could not possibly be any more irrelevant.
The point is that there ARE people who regard it as scripture. But that does not excuse those that hold it as scripture from being racists or commiting racist acts.
And in the same way, the scriptures that YOU believe in, do not excuse YOU from being a racist or commiting racist acts.




dougeprofile
"So then you DO agree that it was wrong of the flower girl to not arrange flowers for the homosexual couple. Right?"

No, she did the right thing - if she had murdered the couple I would agree, but she didn't. No one has ever answered me on this point: All they had to do was go to another store - take their money elsewhere; but instead they chose to "persecute" her. She did not harm them - they harmed her.


But she still commited a crime. If it's not okay to commit one type of crime because of religious beliefs, then it's not okay to commit another crime because of religious beliefs.
I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

As for your last point, I already did answer that. What goes on in their minds I don't know.
But they had every right to do so. Racism is racism. Bigotry is bigotry. Even if I personally think it was a bit unnecessary to sue. But that's just me.
64897 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 8/24/13
Syndicaidramon: “Oh is that so? I suppose you have some proof to back up such an outlandish claim?”

If I did, would you believe me? It is not so outlandish a claim.

Syndicaidramon: “Just like gay marriage shouldn't be illegal.”

Agreed. But NOT endorsed by civil marriage either. There is no reason to redefine it.

Syndicaidramon: “And btw, no. It is discrimination. Because it is alienating without reason.”

No, no discrimination as I have already explained. The reason is children.

Syndicaidramon: “As for reason for redefining marriage... well, you don't have to. Marriage is a unity between two concenting adults. Nothing has to change about that. You just have to stop being such elitist douchebags about it. Trying to exclude everyone you don't like from a club that is not even yours.”

That is redefining marriage ...and is an incorrect definition. Marriage is open to all men and women who wish to marry someone of the opposite sex - no one is excluded ...even people I don’t like.

Syndicaidramon: “Well then they DID deny the homosexuals to adopt those children. Are you seriously trying to argue this?”

They would not place children with homosexual couples, but homosexuals had other means to adopt – they just chose to shut down “persecute” those they disagreed with.

Syndicaidramon: “And why is there no question about that? That a heterosexual couple is "best for the child" As you saw from the links I posted earlier, there is no indication what so ever that a homosexual couple would do any worse than a heterosexual couple. Some studies suggested that gay couples might be even BETTER in some cases.
Which means that the only reason that something like this is "obvious" to you is because of your prejudice and bigotry towards homosexuals, and not because of their abilities as parents.

If you think that I have not proven otherwise, then I humbly ask that you provide reason for this, with evidence to back it up. If you can't, then you are wrong.”

Better than abusive parents? Parents on drugs? Law trouble? Yea, probably. All other cases? Children do better with a mother and a father as EVERY study proves. So if I don’t put up a bunch of links and cite lots of studies I am wrong? Fallacious reasoning that does not make your case either ...I don’t accept your links as credible.

Syndicaidramon: “As customers, they have a right to be treated as equal to all other customers. Also, they do in general. Because racism is illegal.
And you might as well stop trying to argue that it's not comparable to race. Because it is.
If she had denied a minority couple flowers because of their skin color, you would not have thought it was okay. Fundamentally, this is no different, even though the reason was different. “

Racism is illegal? Yea, and...what? She didn’t deny them based on race.

She has a right not to arrange flowers for a homosexual wedding.

Nope, still wrong – no comparison; it IS fundamentally different.

Syndicaidramon: “I suppose those of us that are lucky enough to live in a primarily secular society have it so good that we tend to lose perspective.
But still, regardless of wheather it is theocracy or not, religion has no business within politics, and should stay far away from it.

Why? Because religion is dogmatic. It is a set of beliefs that does not change according to new knowledge. It is outdated. It is discriminatory. It is barbaric, and it is extremely biased. Which are all the exact opposite of what democracy is supposed to represent.
I don't understand why you're bringing atheism into this, as atheism has no set of rules or dogmas as religion does. Atheism is merely the absence of religious faith.

Every time you try to enforce your religious beliefs via politics, and make other people's lives miserable because of what you believe, you are forcing your beliefs on others. The exact same thing as you have been repeatedly rallying against here in this thread.
You are such a massive hypocrite.

If you are unwilling to leave out religion out of the political area of your life, then you should stay away from politics altogether.”

America has always been a Christian nation with a civil government; one religious sect should not dominate government but religious people should be actively involved in government. Religion isn’t the only thing that can be dogmatic – liberals are VERY dogmatic. “According to new knowledge"? Some things never change and new knowledge proves it. Religion may become outdated – but not Biblical Christianity. Discriminatory, so discrimination isn’t always wrong. Biased – everyone is biased ...some people just pretend they are not.

Christianity gave rise to the greatest democratic republic in human history, incompatible with democracy it is not.

Atheism is not an absence of religious faith – it very dogmatically claims there is no God.

Force? I have never forced my beliefs onto another. But neither will I cease my political involvement because you disapprove of my views. I wouldn’t think of asking you to so. Fell free to take your own advice and tell others to do the same ...then traditional marriage won’t be attacked so much, a very good thing.

Syndicaidramon: “Please do not insult my intelligence by trying to argue something so stupid.”

Stats can lie based on how they are reported; I don’t question the tragedy of suicide merely the sole cause you cite.

Syndicaidramon: “But that does not excuse those that hold it as scripture from being racists or committing racist acts.
And in the same way, the scriptures that YOU believe in, do not excuse YOU from being a racist or committing racist acts.”

Cite one Mormon who acts on the passage in the book of Mormon you have so much trouble with; the Mormon church officially repudiated that passage years ago, thus it is an invalid point. True, my Scripture forbids me from being a racist or committing racist acts ...and I have never been a racist or committed racist acts – all clear there!

Syndicaidramon: “But she still committed a crime. If it's not okay to commit one type of crime because of religious beliefs, then it's not okay to commit another crime because of religious beliefs.
I can't believe I have to explain this to you.”

The law itself was a crime and is unconstitutional if it violated her faith (which it does). Ever hear of civil disobedience? It is not always wrong to break the law (usually yes, but not in all cases). Religious beliefs have never been accepted in this country as an excuse to break the law (you just have to suffer the consequences). For example: human sacrifice because of belief? Not a chance. Of course that one will get the death penalty, wouldn’t recommend it.

Don’t buy those “explanations”
25729 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Urban South
Offline
Posted 8/24/13
Moved from the homophobia/gay man thread:

dougeprofile wrote:
To be honest, I have not studied his views extensively; I don't agree with everything he says but you won't convince me he is a hater and I won't convince you.

When you speak, you should do so with authority. Scott Lively, who is responsible for the California branch of Bryan Fischer's hate group (the American Family Association) is being charged with crimes against humanity for his influence in creating Uganda's homosexual death penalty.

I don't need to convince you to like me, accept me, or tolerate me. But it is shameful for anyone to align themselves with evil due to willful ignorance.
2843 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Colorado Springs,...
Offline
Posted 8/24/13 , edited 8/24/13


Are you sure it's willful?

Edit: Btw, I'm not attempting to be insulting. I'm actually making a point.

Do you think people are capable of following an illogical perspective if they don't have experience or "reason" for adhering or advocating the perspective?

I genuinely don't think most individuals would choose hatred or violence over love and peace. I think people have genuine experience that justifies their perspective. It might not be relevant to a bigger picture or unbiased, but it is definitely experience that justifies their beliefs. You have to imagine, dozens of dozens of people they love are probably Christian. And in their eyes, they perceive these people as loved ones while listening to the information these people express. People oftentimes overlook the animal factor in the human species. We are individuals that are subject to influence by our surroundings, like any other animal. Humans are no different.
3416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 8/24/13

dougeprofile
If I did, would you believe me? It is not so outlandish a claim.



If you do have proof, then present it. Whether I believe it or not depends on the evidence and its credibility.







dougeprofile
Agreed. But NOT endorsed by civil marriage either. There is no reason to redefine it.


Actually, there is. Redefining it will help break down the wall that is seperating LGBT from non-LGBT.
What there is no reason to do is NOT redifining it.





dougeprofile
No, no discrimination as I have already explained. The reason is children.


And as I have explained, with sources and studies to back it up, you are wrong.




dougeprofile
That is redefining marriage ...and is an incorrect definition. Marriage is open to all men and women who wish to marry someone of the opposite sex - no one is excluded ...even people I don’t like.


Who has decided that definition? Where is it defined and why?
It's not the definition in Scandinavia. It's not the definition in Canada. It's not the definition many places. The "opposite sex" part is merely a detail in your version of a concept that has a wider basic definition. Ergo, "opposite sex" is not part of the definition of marriage. Merely an added detail to some people's percieved meaning of marriage.





dougeprofile
They would not place children with homosexual couples, but homosexuals had other means to adopt – they just chose to shut down “persecute” those they disagreed with.


And the ministry chose to be shut down rather than to adopt away to homosexuals. Seems rather inconsiderate for the children.
The church is just as much to blame for that. Even more so in fact, since they had no right to deny these homosexuals the right to adopt the children that they had up for adoption and since that when faced with opposition, they put their own beliefs over the well being of the children.
If anyone is a villain in that story, it's the ministry, for being so selfish and proud.

What if the homosexuals found a child amongst those within the ministry that they wanted? They couldn't go elsewhere in order to adopt that child.
Also, discriminating based on sexual orientation is illegal.




dougeprofile
Better than abusive parents? Parents on drugs? Law trouble? Yea, probably. All other cases? Children do better with a mother and a father as EVERY study proves. So if I don’t put up a bunch of links and cite lots of studies I am wrong? Fallacious reasoning that does not make your case either ...I don’t accept your links as credible.


Why don't you accept my links as credible? Because they clashed with your pre-conieved notions?
Because they might force you to change your opinion on something if you accept them as credible?

And yes. If you cannot disprove my proof that disprove your original claim, then your original claim remains disproven.




dougeprofile
Racism is illegal? Yea, and...what? She didn’t deny them based on race.


Let's rephrase that... Discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal. Thus, what she did was illegal.




dougeprofile
She has a right not to arrange flowers for a homosexual wedding.


No. Because that is discrimination based on sexual orientation. Which is illegal.




dougeprofile
Nope, still wrong – no comparison; it IS fundamentally different.


The act of discriminating against someone for some shallow irrelevant reason does not change depending on what that reason is.
It is still discrimination based on an irrelevant reason.





dougeprofile
America has always been a Christian nation with a civil government; one religious sect should not dominate government but religious people should be actively involved in government. Religion isn’t the only thing that can be dogmatic – liberals are VERY dogmatic. “According to new knowledge"? Some things never change and new knowledge proves it. Religion may become outdated – but not Biblical Christianity. Discriminatory, so discrimination isn’t always wrong. Biased – everyone is biased ...some people just pretend they are not.


Like what? Give me an example and explain how it is relevant.
And yes. We've both greed that discrimination isn't always wrong. Discrimination against homosexuals however, is wrong. They have done nothing to deserve being discriminated against. There is no reason for discriminating against them.

And yes. Most people are biased. But the LAW should NOT be biased.




dougeprofile
Atheism is not an absence of religious faith – it very dogmatically claims there is no God.


No. It is not. Some atheists do claim that there is no god, but atheism as defined is merely the lack of belief in the existence of a god. Nothing more.




dougeprofile
Force? I have never forced my beliefs onto another. But neither will I cease my political involvement because you disapprove of my views. I wouldn’t think of asking you to so. Fell free to take your own advice and tell others to do the same ...then traditional marriage won’t be attacked so much, a very good thing.


By claiming that it is right for people to discriminate against others based on religious grounds, you are saying that it's okay to force your religious beliefs on others.




dougeprofile
Stats can lie based on how they are reported; I don’t question the tragedy of suicide merely the sole cause you cite.


Okay. Do you have any REASON for believing that it's something other than the one common factor that has relevance to suicide rates among those who share that one common factor having higher suicide rates than those that do not share that one common factor?

Other than your phobia for having to change your views on things I mean...






dougeprofile
Cite one Mormon who acts on the passage in the book of Mormon you have so much trouble with; the Mormon church officially repudiated that passage years ago, thus it is an invalid point. True, my Scripture forbids me from being a racist or committing racist acts ...and I have never been a racist or committed racist acts – all clear there!


Yes. They did. But if they hadn't, that still would not have been an excuse. We're talking principly on things here. It merely a hypothetical scenario to use as a paralell, which is not at all invalid. If you are able to use your brain properly, then you should understand that.

But hey. Fine. Take the muslim's hatered towards the jews instead. Is the hatered for jews justified simply because their holy book says it's okay?
Or hey, even just a muslim extremist's hatered for christians.





dougeprofile
The law itself was a crime and is unconstitutional if it violated her faith (which it does).


So by that logic, preventing muslims from discriminating against christians is wrong because it violates their faith? Right? Because that's what you're saying.
25729 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Urban South
Offline
Posted 8/24/13

cpblair83 wrote:
Are you sure it's willful?

Seems to be. When one chooses to disregard facts because they are uncomfortable or seem to be contrary to previously established belief systems, that is willful ignorance.
63587 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Northeast
Offline
Posted 8/24/13
1) atheism is a lack of belief in a god. That's a fact, not an opinion.
2) Bigoted belief systems expressed from a far right/biblical point of view have a way of sticking around on the internet and in your browser cache. Here's hoping you will be ashamed someday.
3) Anyone who is reading these ignorant, offensive posts… it's the negative folks out there who get all the press. It's all about the bad news. But there are far more good people than bad, we are watching, we are participating, and things are getting better. Don't let the haters and bigots bring you down. There is a simple belief that everyone should get a fair shake and to love whomever they want, and it's winning.

Better get on board now, folks, history is leaving you behind.
20550 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/24/13
Might I suggest the following Biblical verses: 1 Samuel 18:1, 1 Samuel 18:2, 1 Samuel 18:3-4, 1 Samuel 20:41, 2 Samuel 1:26
1631 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27
Offline
Posted 8/25/13 , edited 8/25/13

dougeprofile wrote:


MopZ wrote:

We the people, by the people, and for the people. Many religious groups may not like it, but a 70% majority were shown for Gay Marriage. There is no religion that can own the right, or dictate who gets married in most modern governments, and that is true over here as well. So, It's the state that makes it official here (USA), and not the religion, which makes it more of a ceremonial thing, tbh.


Where? Even in states that passed homosexual "marriage" - the issue of preserving traditional marriage got more votes than Obama.

And, when add in the non-voters? Lots of people don't even vote!
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-08/didn-t-vote-don-t-worry-about-it-.html

There is also a generational gap on this opinion, so the actual support is above 50%, but for Millenialial it's like 70%, srry. Also, I can't believe I used "state" as a opposed to "State and Government"!

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States: "In 2013, polling data provided by Pew signifies at least a few trends. Firstly, there is clearly a generational divide on the issue. 70% of Millennials (those born after 1980) support same-sex marriage. This contrasts with Gen X and Baby Boomer respondents. 49% of Gen X respondents (born 1965-1980) support same-sex marriage, while 38% of Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964) support same-sex marriage. Contrasting levels of support are also apparent when considering political ideology, with those who are liberal or lean liberal expressing more support for same sex marriage than those who are conservative or lean conservative"

USA TODAY: "• By an unprecedented 55%-40%, Americans say marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by law as valid, with the same rights of traditional marriage. That's the highest level of support since Gallup began asking the question in 1996. Then, fewer than half that number, 27%, backed the idea."

And, I've found many more sources like this from Bloomberg, CBS, The Huffington Post, et-cetera. In total, I'd say the opposition to gay marriage is losing as the youth grow older, so legalizing it is probably the most current the US Government policy making has been to the public in years. It's usually like 30-70 years behind the public on these things, IMO.
Posted 8/26/13 , edited 8/26/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:


anti-lambsacrifice
I believe that everything has a meaning, and that each of those things will and should stick with that meaning. My goal would be trying to find out what that meaning is so I can say whether it would be right for 2 people of the same sex to get married or not.

If indeed marriage must be between 2 people of the opposite sex, I don't think it's fair to say 2 people of the same sex ought to be allowed. But, if that is the case, one could easily call "marriage" with 2 people of the same sex something different.

If there is a club for girls only, you can't force the members to allow boys. You CAN start a club for everyone. And hopefully, if every girl decides an all-girls club is stupid, they won't maintain it, anyway.


But you seem to forget that marriage is a concept made up by humans. Not to mention that it's something that has varied greatly throughout history. Polygamy being an obvious example. There is no single one "correct" way of marriage. There has been so many variations on it throughout history.


There is an original idea of marriage. There has to be because otherwise, it would stem from nothing, would it not? I'm saying that if it must be between a man and woman, it would be impossible for gay people to even get married, because that's not what marriage is in such a case. If that's true, why do you even car? Because other people are part of this institution? But it's a bullshit institution. That's like a black guy wanting to be in the KKK because he lives in a village full of white people who are and it offers benefits to them, regardless of the fact that it involves bashing other people for no goddamn reason.

Instead of forever attempting to force yourself into someone's bullshit idealogy, why not come up with your own ideas and follow through? They do not and should not decide what you will get out of life. Make your own "club" for everyone that is BETTER and fight for your rights. As the saying goes, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet - only minus whatever makes the one next to it funky. If enough of you are pissed off about it, DO SOMETHING about it that doesn't include hurting your own cause.

Or, I'm sorry..is it just easier to aim for the impossible?

3416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 8/26/13

anti-lambsacrifice


There is an original idea of marriage. There has to be because otherwise, it would stem from nothing, would it not? I'm saying that if it must be between a man and woman, it would be impossible for gay people to even get married, because that's not what marriage is in such a case.


Let's say for the sake of argument that you're right. That marriage was originally intended solely between one man and one woman... So what?
Just because something was made to be one way doesn't mean it cannot be changed. And it ABSOLUTELY doesn't mean that it SHOULDN'T be changed.

As time goes by, we gain more knowledge. We become wiser as a collective (usually). And our ways of doing things must change to accomodate for this increased knowledge. Just because we once lived in caves doesn't mean we should keep living in caves. If we can change something for the better -- we SHOULD change it for the better.




anti-lambsacrifice
If that's true, why do you even care? Because other people are part of this institution? But it's a bullshit institution. That's like a black guy wanting to be in the KKK because he lives in a village full of white people who are and it offers benefits to them, regardless of the fact that it involves bashing other people for no goddamn reason.

Instead of forever attempting to force yourself into someone's bullshit idealogy, why not come up with your own ideas and follow through? They do not and should not decide what you will get out of life. Make your own "club" for everyone that is BETTER and fight for your rights.


But gay marriage is not the KKK. It is simply being able to do something that society has romanticized with the person you love.
Big difference.
Whatever your thoughts on marriage are is irrelevant. Because there are people who don't share your views. MANY people. And they deserve the right to be able to marry who they love.

Another reason I care is because there is a gap between those that are LGBT and those that are not. In the minds of the societal superorganism, LGBT and non-LGBT are two different groups with an imaginary wall seperating them. And that is not good.
And the more laws there are that contribute to this mental seperation between LGBT and non-LGBT, the thicker and taller this wall will be.
The only way to tear it down is to remove the gap. And one major part in doing so is to not have laws that discriminate against one party and favors the other.




anti-lambsacrifice
As the saying goes, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet - only minus whatever makes the one next to it funky. If enough of you are pissed off about it, DO SOMETHING about it that doesn't include hurting your own cause.

Or, I'm sorry..is it just easier to aim for the impossible?


What do you mean?
Posted 8/27/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:


anti-lambsacrifice


There is an original idea of marriage. There has to be because otherwise, it would stem from nothing, would it not? I'm saying that if it must be between a man and woman, it would be impossible for gay people to even get married, because that's not what marriage is in such a case.


Let's say for the sake of argument that you're right. That marriage was originally intended solely between one man and one woman... So what?
Just because something was made to be one way doesn't mean it cannot be changed. And it ABSOLUTELY doesn't mean that it SHOULDN'T be changed.

As time goes by, we gain more knowledge. We become wiser as a collective (usually). And our ways of doing things must change to accomodate for this increased knowledge. Just because we once lived in caves doesn't mean we should keep living in caves. If we can change something for the better -- we SHOULD change it for the better.




anti-lambsacrifice
If that's true, why do you even care? Because other people are part of this institution? But it's a bullshit institution. That's like a black guy wanting to be in the KKK because he lives in a village full of white people who are and it offers benefits to them, regardless of the fact that it involves bashing other people for no goddamn reason.

Instead of forever attempting to force yourself into someone's bullshit idealogy, why not come up with your own ideas and follow through? They do not and should not decide what you will get out of life. Make your own "club" for everyone that is BETTER and fight for your rights.


But gay marriage is not the KKK. It is simply being able to do something that society has romanticized with the person you love.
Big difference.
Whatever your thoughts on marriage are is irrelevant. Because there are people who don't share your views. MANY people. And they deserve the right to be able to marry who they love.

Another reason I care is because there is a gap between those that are LGBT and those that are not. In the minds of the societal superorganism, LGBT and non-LGBT are two different groups with an imaginary wall seperating them. And that is not good.
And the more laws there are that contribute to this mental seperation between LGBT and non-LGBT, the thicker and taller this wall will be.
The only way to tear it down is to remove the gap. And one major part in doing so is to not have laws that discriminate against one party and favors the other.




anti-lambsacrifice
As the saying goes, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet - only minus whatever makes the one next to it funky. If enough of you are pissed off about it, DO SOMETHING about it that doesn't include hurting your own cause.

Or, I'm sorry..is it just easier to aim for the impossible?


What do you mean?


I strongly get the impression that you're seeing what you want to see which I cannot work with. I will not be repeating myself. Have a good day.
3416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 8/27/13

anti-lambsacrifice


I strongly get the impression that you're seeing what you want to see which I cannot work with. I will not be repeating myself. Have a good day.


If you mean to say that I'm cherrypicking, then no. Please explain.
Posted 8/27/13 , edited 8/27/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:


anti-lambsacrifice


I strongly get the impression that you're seeing what you want to see which I cannot work with. I will not be repeating myself. Have a good day.


If you mean to say that I'm cherrypicking, then no. Please explain.


You ask "So what?" in regards to my response that marriage may have been intended to be between a man and a woman. I have already told you why I feel that would make a difference and your argument does nothing to tell me why it shouldn't. All you tell me is that it doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be changed but fail to explain why, even though I feel and have told you why it should not. If you want to know why, you'll have to go back and read it again.

You bring up the fact that we gain knowledge with time. I don't recall ever saying we do not and in fact DID say a change probably was needed - just not in the way you seem to think it is.

You say gay marriage is not the KKK, and state that marriage is simply being able to do something that society has romanticized with the person you love. I never said GAY marriage was the KKK or that it was even remotely close to it. If that's all marriage was ("something that society has..",) this would not be an issue, and the example of marriage would not be similar to the example of the KKK I have given. But hypothetically speaking, they are. I never said they were the same. I said they were similar. Again, I give reasons as to why I believe that is so.

You say we must remove the gap between LGBT and non-LGBT members. I have given a means to DO SO, which you also seem to have overlooked.

I really am done here until you give me an argument against everything I have said, and not what you think I've said, should you choose to.








22561 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Northern California
Online
Posted 8/27/13
A quote from Joseph Bottum, formerly an influential advocate against marriage equality, but has since given up the fight. Note that he still is not in favor of marriage equality, it is just that he has come to realize that the demographics and social winds are no longer favorable to that cause.

From the New York Times article here, and it includes a link to the full essay he posted on Friday: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/us/a-conservative-catholic-now-backs-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0


Basic democratic premises like fairness, equal rights and majority rule suggest that the time for same-sex marriage has come, he says. We can agree, Mr. Bottum argues, that Americans are turning in favor of same-sex marriage, and there “is no coherent jurisprudential against it — no principled legal view that can resist it.” Furthermore, the bishops’ campaigns against same-sex marriage “are hurting the church.” Especially for the young, Catholicism is coming to symbolize repression.


Bold emphasis mine, as it's one of the salient points in this issue. Additionally, the repression is just one of the reasons why millenials are leaving behind conservative religion in droves.

I do believe that should the tide turn once again in the religious right's favor, his views would shift back to their former position. This is not an agreement, nor a consensus, but a temporary cease-fire, a concession in the face of mounting opposition.
First  Prev  113  114  115  116  117  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  125  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.