Are u going to leave USA now?

[Revoltingest]

No, but then neither is racial segregation in the same weight class as genocide. As long as you recognize that the central scriptures, celebrated as infallible, are celebrating unequivocally evil things, that's sufficient.

But I would say that murdering male homosexuals (i.e., Leviticus 20:13) is as bad as it gets, because murder is as bad as it gets. And let's be clear: They have positions well beyond opposition to marriage licenses.

I get the impression that you're qualifying opposition to gay marriage for the same level of opposition as murder, genocide & segregation.
Is this reasonable, in light of the rarity of anyone using religion to support those latter items today?

Do you have a response to the first part of my post?

 

[gsa]

I get the impression that you're qualifying opposition to gay marriage for the same level of opposition as murder, genocide & segregation.
Is this reasonable, in light of the rarity of anyone using religion to support those latter items today?

Do you have a response to the first part of my post?

No. Murder and genocide are worse. Segregation? Remember that segregation was defended on the (illusory) principle of separate but equal. Opposition to marriage rights for gays is based on a complete rejection of any self-determination in the area of family and relationships. They did not just oppose marriage, but civil unions and all material benefits of marriage.

Also, do you think it is rare to find people using religion to support genocide, murder and segregation today?

 

[gsa]

There's an advantage in disagreeing in a civil fashion while making cogent arguments.
It's more peaceful, enjoyable, & persuasive to the other side.
Imagine how I would come across if I used words like "stupid" & "evil" when describing
things I consider as bad as opposing gay marriage, eg, electing & re-electing Obama.
Would people take me less seriously than they do now? Nah....t'would be a shouting match.
So posters should consider their goals here....
Is it to express derision towards those beneath you, & create enmity...or have a positive influence thru civil discourse?

I have not, to my knowledge, used stupid, evil or hateful to describe people who oppose legal equality for gay men and lesbians. Perhaps others have. I was merely pointing out that using less incendiary language can convey the same meaning.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have not, to my knowledge, used stupid, evil or hateful to describe people who oppose legal equality for gay men and lesbians. Perhaps others have. I was merely pointing out that using less incendiary language can convey the same meaning.

I don't accuse you of such abuse.

No. Murder and genocide are worse. Segregation? Remember that segregation was defended on the (illusory) principle of separate but equal. Opposition to marriage rights for gays is based on a complete rejection of any self-determination in the area of family and relationships. They did not just oppose marriage, but civil unions and all material benefits of marriage.

That seems an over-statement.
"Complete rejection of self-determination in the area of family & relationships"?
No, lack of marriage still allowed for much liberty in this area.
If prosecutions for sodomy were still as rampant as they were just a few decades ago, you'd have more of a case.

Also, do you think it is rare to find people using religion to support genocide, murder and segregation today?

Yes, in Americastan.
(I'm not addressing oppressive countries elsewhere.)
Is this significant to you in deciding how harsh to be towards all people who oppose gay marriage?
Should you be as harsh as you would towards murderers, genicidists (neologism here) & segregationists?

 

[gsa]

I don't accuse you of such abuse.


That seems an over-statement.
"Complete rejection of self-determination in the area of family & relationships"?
No, lack of marriage still allowed for much liberty in this area.
If prosecutions for sodomy were still as rampant as they were just a few decades ago, you'd have more of a case.

Yes, in Americastan.
(I'm not addressing oppressive countries elsewhere.)
Is this significant to you in deciding how harsh to be towards all people who oppose gay marriage?
Should you be as harsh as you would towards murderers, genicidists (neologism here) & segregationists?

To be clear, what is the liberty violation in segregation then? If you say that there's liberty for same-sex couples without marriage or marriage like rights, what harm attaches to segregation in schooling, the market and marriage, on the basis of race? Still plenty of liberty, is there not?

 

[Revoltingest]

To be clear, what is the liberty violation in segregation then?

Government dictates where one can & cannot live.
This determines the quality of schools one's kids go to.
That's a pretty severe infringement, wouldn't you say?

If you say that there's liberty for same-sex couples without marriage or marriage like rights, what harm attaches to segregation in schooling, the market and marriage, on the basis of race? Still plenty of liberty, is there not?

To reiterate.....
I only reject your claim that opposition to gay marriage is....
" complete rejection of any self-determination in the area of family and relationships"
They'd have no self-determination? Nah, that's an over-statement.

Are you saying that opposition to gay marriage is the moral & practical equivalent of segregation?
If not, then I don't grok your point in pursuing this correlation.

 

[gsa]

Government dictates where one can & cannot live.
This determines the quality of schools one's kids go to.
That's a pretty severe infringement, wouldn't you say?

Actually, that's not how housing discrimination works exactly. The governments in the South enforced restrictive covenants, which were private market actions. Attempts at racial zoning had been deemed unconstitutional. Which raises an interesting point: What are your objections to these kind of private market discrimination strategies? As a libertarian, I don't know that you can have any without ceding internal consistency.

To reiterate.....
I only reject your claim that opposition to gay marriage is....
" complete rejection of any self-determination in the area of family and relationships"
They'd have no self-determination? Nah, that's an over-statement.

Are you saying that opposition to gay marriage is the moral & practical equivalent of segregation?
If not, then I don't grok your point in pursuing this correlation.

No. In some ways it is worse, in some ways it is not as bad. It is a kind of nuanced distinction really, because the legal and practical effects vary. Let's settle the issue of what segregation is, and how it was enforced, and then discuss whether it is comparable.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, that's not how housing discrimination works exactly. The governments in the South enforced restrictive covenants, which were private market actions. Attempts at racial zoning had been deemed unconstitutional. Which raises an interesting point: What are your objections to these kind of private market discrimination strategies? As a libertarian, I don't know that you can have any without ceding internal consistency.

No. In some ways it is worse, in some ways it is not as bad. It is a kind of nuanced distinction really, because the legal and practical effects vary. Let's settle the issue of what segregation is, and how it was enforced, and then discuss whether it is comparable.

At this point, I'm lost regarding how this vague inclusion of other issues relates to people being abusive towards anti-gay marriage types.
I see the abuse. I don't like it. That's all I got.

 

[leibowde84]

Thank you, I enjoyed reading you response.

We won't be agreeing on the validity of Genesis, but I guess we all know that the media is not known for objectivity, especially when there are different versions of what Obama said from different sources. I'll have to back off and withhold judgment on it.

Fair enough. I linked to the actual transcript from Obama, so if it isn't in there, it is likely that Obama never said it.

 

[sojourner]

I dont think you should be tarring everyone with the same brush.

Not all Christians against homosexual practices are violently opposed. If i say i dont approve of it, that is not violent opposition.

If I say it is against Gods law, that is also not violent opposition.

To say that you "don't approve" of homosexual practices is to say that you "don't approve" of some people acting upon who they are. It's the same thing as saying, "I don't approve of Jews not eating pork." That disapproval, in and of itself, is systemic violence, because that disapproval serves to dehumanize some. Violence doesn't always mean fists, guns, burning crosses and shallow graves. Many times violence is far more subtle and pervasive, such as saying, "I believe you're less than human."

The fact is, Pegg, you don't know that homosexuality is "against God's law," as I pointed out above (and which you patently seem to have ignored). You may think you know; you may believe -- but belief isn't knowledge. In this case, your "I know" is nothing more than Chicken Little "knowing" that the sky was falling. So, to further propagate the violence, you pack on religious shame to the already heavy baggage of social ostracism.

If you don't like homosexuality -- if it's "not for you," that's fine. And you can believe all you want to that God disapproves of it. But you don't need to broadcast it to the world. Nobody cares what violence you assign to God, and to voice that violence is to be complicit in the violence.

 

[sojourner]

No, but then neither is racial segregation in the same weight class as genocide. As long as you recognize that the central scriptures, celebrated as infallible, are celebrating unequivocally evil things, that's sufficient.

But I would say that murdering male homosexuals (i.e., Leviticus 20:13) is as bad as it gets, because murder is as bad as it gets. And let's be clear: They have positions well beyond opposition to marriage licenses.

Leviticus says nothing about "murdering male homosexuals." At all. And to spin it that way just to discredit the religion is disinenuous, petty, and irresponsible.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

To say that you "don't approve" of homosexual practices is to say that you "don't approve" of some people acting upon who they are. It's the same thing as saying, "I don't approve of Jews not eating pork." That disapproval, in and of itself, is systemic violence, because that disapproval serves to dehumanize some. Violence doesn't always mean fists, guns, burning crosses and shallow graves. Many times violence is far more subtle and pervasive, such as saying, "I believe you're less than human."

The fact is, Pegg, you don't know that homosexuality is "against God's law," as I pointed out above (and which you patently seem to have ignored). You may think you know; you may believe -- but belief isn't knowledge. In this case, your "I know" is nothing more than Chicken Little "knowing" that the sky was falling. So, to further propagate the violence, you pack on religious shame to the already heavy baggage of social ostracism.

If you don't like homosexuality -- if it's "not for you," that's fine. And you can believe all you want to that God disapproves of it. But you don't need to broadcast it to the world. Nobody cares what violence you assign to God, and to voice that violence is to be complicit in the violence.

Really?! So in other words you're saying that the only opinions that should be voiced on the subject are opinions that match yours? How totalitarian! So someone disagreeing with someone and them possibly getting their feelings hurt is "violence"? I think it's just life and they need to grow up and accept that not everyone agrees with them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hi, I'm a fanatical Christian. I actually thought about leaving the USA way back, or at least casually thought about it. But where is there to go in the world today that would be any better, all things considered? The only place where everything is perfect is not in this world.

You allude to an important point: respect and tolerance strongly correlate with quality of life. Funny, that.

I would never defend Islam and the atrocities associated with it, but I'll admit that I see less and less in the United States to defend either. We really are becoming a nation of sinners. God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah for the very same things we are doing now, not only with the consent of our government, but by the power of Federal law.

I always find it interesting when Christians point to a story about threatened same-sex gang rape and argue that the problem was the "same-sex" part and not the "gang rape" part. It's very telling. It's basically a big red flag that the person's moral sense is so out of whack that he isn't qualified to judge right from wrong.

As far as we know, Christians may soon be defending themselves against the U.S. Government. Obama has already said that those with religious objections to same-sex marriage need to change their religious views to be more like the progressives who accept it.

Direct quote, please.

 

[Aquitaine]

I dont believe that and we certainly dont preach it.
We preach Gods purpose for mankind. Everlasting life in an earthly paradise as he originally designed. Doen't sound very apocalyptic to me.

I heard that all people alive would live through an apocalypse on Earth (still governed by Satan), only then will Jehovah decide to remove them Demon he placed in-charge of Earth, give everyone on Earth eternal life (hell) and grant heavenly access to 144,000 descendants of Jesus.

Doesn't sound too nice to me. I'd much rather have gays getting married.

 

[sojourner]

Really?! So in other words you're saying that the only opinions that should be voiced on the subject are opinions that match yours? How totalitarian! So someone disagreeing with someone and them possibly getting their feelings hurt is "violence"? I think it's just life and they need to grow up and accept that not everyone agrees with them.

You're totally missing the point. What I'm saying is that voicing disapproval of who someone is by nature -- simply because they're different from you, or especially because they think "the bible says so," is dehumanizing. And dehumanization is violence. It has nothing to do with "what Sojourner believes," with opinions, or with "getting one's feelings hurt." It has nothing to do with disagreement. This has everything to do with societal norms that systematically dehumanize groups and individuals based solely on who they are. Pegg's religion is a society that voices such norms. They're the same norms, BTW, that enacted Jim Crow and propagated the "separate but equal" nonsense.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You're totally missing the point. What I'm saying is that voicing disapproval of who someone is by nature -- simply because they're different from you, or especially because they think "the bible says so," is dehumanizing. And dehumanization is violence. It has nothing to do with "what Sojourner believes," with opinions, or with "getting one's feelings hurt." It has nothing to do with disagreement. This has everything to do with societal norms that systematically dehumanize groups and individuals based solely on who they are. Pegg's religion is a society that voices such norms. They're the same norms, BTW, that enacted Jim Crow and propagated the "separate but equal" nonsense.

That's a crappy argument because you could make the argument that anything people do is "by nature" and so we shouldn't voice disapproval of anything. Killing each other is part of our nature, going to war is part of our nature, xenophobia is part of our nature, anti-homosexual attitudes are part of our nature (especially among males), rape is part of our nature and so on and so forth. There's scientific evidence for all of those things. So let's not use that argument because I assure you that you will not like where it leads.

It doesn't really have to do with someone merely being different, either. That's a red herring. When it comes to homosexual sex, it's specific reasons why people tend to be against it.

 

[Jainarayan]

it's specific reasons why people tend to be against it.

Without the "ick" and religious factors, which are subjective, what are those reasons?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Without the "ick" and religious factors, which are subjective, what are those reasons?

The rate of disease, mental illness, promiscuity, drug abuse, domestic violence, etc. are all higher among homosexual men than in the general population. Then there's also the Natural Law view that such acts (i.e. anal sex, aka sodomy) violate the natural order of sexuality, which is ordered towards procreation and bonding between a married man and woman.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The rate of disease, mental illness, promiscuity, drug abuse, domestic violence, etc. are all higher among homosexual men than in the general population.

Firstly, you will need to show studies demonstrating this.

Secondly, is it any surprise that most of those things could be higher in a minority group who are persecuted, insulted, degraded and otherwise regarded as sub-human and forced to live on the fringes by a large portion of the society they live in? What if all of those things were also true of black or Hispanic communities in America? Would you therefore be against black or Hispanic people, or would you believe there was some explanation other than the fact that they were black or Hispanic?

Then there's also the Natural Law view that such acts (i.e. anal sex, aka sodomy) violate the natural order of sexuality, which is ordered towards procreation and bonding between a married man and woman.

Making up a "law" isn't a reasonable argument.

 

[Jainarayan]

The rate of disease, mental illness, promiscuity, drug abuse, domestic violence, etc. are all higher among homosexual men than in the general population.

Reading Paul Cameron? Please cite credible sources, not hearsay or the writings of a thoroughly discredited fraud.

Then there's also the Natural Law view that such acts (i.e. anal sex, aka sodomy) violate the natural order of sexuality, which is ordered towards procreation and bonding between a married man and woman.

Based on religion which I excluded from the reasons.