Opposing gay marriage 'isn't unfairness'

[Darwinsbulldog]

Originally Posted by rayne

Hmmm interesting thought. I was meaning more along the lines of, if say a Christian was preaching against gays and believed they shouldn't be married. The concept of gays marrying might be wrong and an icky thought for them but it should also only apply to them. Namely they themselves can't be in a gay relationship if they think it's wrong. Though indoctrination does present an issue of consent, if you're brainwashed into believing being gay is wrong, how does one make a fully informed choice to not be in a gay relationship or act on any same sex attraction? Brainwashed self hating gays don't have the capacity of informed consent because of years of brainwashing, they may chose to repress same sex attraction but under the threat of hell or an angry god.

I think 3 would be more accurate stating "Don't impose your beliefs or worldviews on others. Doctrine should only apply to those who accept it"

Sorry, jist nit-picking!

[Goldenmane]

Originally Posted by Mithridates

@Goldenmane

Thanks for your reply

I didn't realise that some people were trying to rationalise that one away by pretending it means prostitution rather than homosexuality. I think if that were the intention of the passage, some reference to payment or prostitutes would surely have been included? Seems to me like some straws are being grasped at.

Strange that a perfect God could not express himself clearly and succinctly enough to be understood without confusion. He needs some lessons from the Spartans. During the Peloponnesian War, a newly-appointed Spartan Admiral sent a message to his Athenian opponent : I'm going to put an end to your fucking with the Sea. She belongs to me."

Not much confusion there!

regards

Mith.

1) Of course their god doesn't express himself clearly. He's the product of limited imaginations.

2) What's interesting about this sort of discussion (re: what Leviticus is supposed to mean, for example) is that we have such a tendency to talk about it as though we have the inside track on what the silly fuckers who wrote it were on about. I don't know if the person who wrote Leviticus (or even the many persons - I don't know) was actually hating on gays, or just saying that some things you can do with your cock screw up the magic. That's the fun of magic, really.

3) I'd be willing to bet I could come up with internally-consistent piles of bullshit that people would pay me money for. However, I'm not a complete arsehole, so ymmv.

[StrangeControl]

Given that his part in the marriage is ceremonial only, surely his religion's views on marriage are irrelevant? The Marriage Licence (the legal document) is the only formal document accepted in most cases for evidence.


Using Qld's marriage certificate rules (for an example)

It should be noted that the certificate issued by the celebrant or minister of religion on the day of marriage is ceremonial and will not meet the identity requirements of many government agencies (e.g. Queensland Transport, Passport Office) and financial institutions.

Marriage is a legal issue only. So surely only evidence based legal discussions should be relevant. Religious dogma should not be even entertained.

What really gets me are the people who are anti-gay marriage because it some how ruins the sanctity of the marriage (or the word).... You never see them protesting divorce courts or anything...... maybe they do.

oh no I really hate are the ones that are again' it because it reduces the population 'cause all them gays gittin married..... but think there is nothing wrong with catholic priests or nun's, et al religulous celibates...... or that their god made more women then men....

but..... then it would be open up for two same-sex straight people to get married to allow them to combine assets and get fringe benefits and increase wealth quicker and then it's just a slippery slop to people marrying cars and before you know it's gonna be robots too! (there's a funny Dr Katz episode with a patient discussing two straight guys getting married).

[Logic please]

Discrimination isn't, because teh babble tells 'em so?

Then I guess that the Geneva Conventions must also have it all wrong about treating non-combatants in wartime humanely... if teh babble says different. Just ask the Midanites, for example. And as for who should really get punished in rape cases, well...

Originally Posted by Cosmic Teapot

When will these ass-hats realise that people who aren't members of their religion aren't bound by their religious dogma. When Muslims want Sharia law for Muslims only, Christians get their panties in a bunch even though it wouldn't be applied to them but seem to be happy enough to impose their own bullshit on everyone regardless of what they believe. Fucking hypocrites.

Unfortunately, that small amount of awareness appears completely beyond them, methinks.

One wonders how many LGBT people have been pushed away from religious congregations, and belief, by their bigoted stance on these issues? And bearing in mind that a majority of xtians actually support marriage equality, where do teh xtians think this is going to end up, in practical terms? They haven't carried the day with any other social advance that they've tried to stop. What makes them think this one's gonna be any different?

[melbmatt]

Please someone correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding was that according to the bible, marriage was meant to be between a man, woman and/under god (or some nonsense like that).

If I’m correct, then how do these Christians explain that it's not acceptable for gays to marry, but is acceptable for those without god? or even with other gods? (ie Allah is not there their god, so why is it acceptable to them that Muslims can marry?) Where is the campaign to end atheists & couples of other religions from marrying? Without these concurrent campaigns, it is just pure disgusting discrimination.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

The bible also says to sell everything and follow Jesus. How many do that?
Oh yeah, how about stoning people to death when they work on Sabbath days? It ain't murder if it's in the bible, surely?

I'll start taking these fucking homophobes more seriously if they learn to practice what they preach.
I know some, somewhat reasonable lot, who tell me quite confidently "The Old Testament doesn't apply anymore!" and yet when I ask them what they last did in church, it usually ends up being a book from the old testament.

[DanDare]

Originally Posted by Darwinsbulldog

Sorry, jist nit-picking!

Yes, but a good nitpick. The bigoted crap from religion not only can only be applied to those that accept it but it also must not cross legal boundaries regardless.