Redefining Marriage and all that

[Smoke]

But we find bigotry in any demographic. Christians are the largest religious demographic and so we would expect to find the largest proportion of bigotry coming from them.

No, we should expect that the largest number of bigots in our society are Christian, but that proportionally, Christians are no more likely to be bigots than anybody else.

In other words, there is nothing about Christianity that causes this to be so

Of course there is. There are innumerable Christian leaders who make it their business to foster fear and hatred of homosexuals.

 

[Magic Man]

No, we should expect that the largest number of bigots in our society are Christian, but that proportionally, Christians are no more likely to be bigots than anybody else.

Of course there is. There are innumerable Christian leaders who make it their business to foster fear and hatred of homosexuals.

First, I think the original quote said the same thing, just using the wrong word. I took it to mean that because Christianity is the largest religious group in the country, that the largest number of bigots would be Christian, regardless of how he actually said it.

That second point is true, but what he said was that there's no reason Christianity would inherently have more bigots than any other religion. People understand religion in different ways, but that's not the core religion's fault. A lot of people take some Islamic teachings in a way that most would consider wrong, but that doesn't make the actual teaching wrong.

 

[rheff78]

No, we should expect that the largest number of bigots in our society are Christian, but that proportionally, Christians are no more likely to be bigots than anybody else.

Of course there is. There are innumerable Christian leaders who make it their business to foster fear and hatred of homosexuals.

It's not fear, it's pity.

 

[McBell]

It's not fear, it's pity.

IF you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

 

[Smoke]

That second point is true, but what he said was that there's no reason Christianity would inherently have more bigots than any other religion. People understand religion in different ways, but that's not the core religion's fault. A lot of people take some Islamic teachings in a way that most would consider wrong, but that doesn't make the actual teaching wrong.

But there is no such thing as a "core religion" in real life. There are only religions. We call Mormons and Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists and Pentecostals all Christians because they are historically connected and have some beliefs in common, but they're very different, and what matters is how each community plays out on the ground. The interpretation is the religion, for each different Christian community. There is no "core" to be found in the Bible, or in the teachings of Jesus, or anywhere else, that forms the true heart of all of those forms of Christianity.

In fact, if we were to take their actual beliefs and practices and see what they have in common, we would have to conclude that the fear and hatred of homosexuals is, in fact, one of the core beliefs of Christianity. It's certainly one of the aspects of Christianity that is most actively promoted by Christians, and one of the aspects that they feel most strongly about imposing on society in general. Even relatively liberal Christians who think we should have equal rights under the law manage to content themselves with rigid discrimination within the church.

 

[Smoke]

It's not fear, it's pity.

No, pity would be accompanied by some degree of compassion.

When Christians say they are defending traditional marriage from homosexuals, when in fact traditional marriage is not under attack by homosexuals and has never been under attack by homosexuals, what are they doing but fostering fear and hatred? They depict us not only as enemies, but as aggressors determined to destroy their way of life -- a portrait that bears no relation at all to reality. People who feel pity don't behave that way; people who feel fear and hatred do.

 

[rheff78]

Well, in our point of view (being Christians) we believe that trying to get gay marriage IS a challenge to traditional marriage. You are challenging our very definiton of a traditional marriage. So, even though you say you aren't attacking our view of traditional marriage, you still are, in our eyes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, in our point of view (being Christians) we believe that trying to get gay marriage IS a challenge to traditional marriage. You are challenging our very definiton of a traditional marriage. So, even though you say you aren't attacking our view of traditional marriage, you still are, in our eyes.

One group has a definition that's different from yours, and this is an "attack" on "traditional marriage"? Nobody's saying that you should enter into a gay marriage if you don't want to.

Arranged marriage is, IMO, just as different from the "traditional" version of marriage in our culture as same-sex marriage is. Is arranged marriage an "attack" as well?

 

[rheff78]

You're not understanding what I'm saying. Gay people saying they want to get married is still an attack on OUR traditional view of marriage. We don't care if you're saying WE should enter into a gay marriage, your views are still a challenge to our views.

 

[Smoke]

Well, in our point of view (being Christians) we believe that trying to get gay marriage IS a challenge to traditional marriage. You are challenging our very definiton of a traditional marriage. So, even though you say you aren't attacking our view of traditional marriage, you still are, in our eyes.

I understand that; that was my point. You really do see us as aggressors who want to destroy marriage, even though that view doesn't bear the slightest relation to reality. Only irrational fear and hatred could explain such a view.

 

[Draka]

You're not understanding what I'm saying. Gay people saying they want to get married is still an attack on OUR traditional view of marriage. We don't care if you're saying WE should enter into a gay marriage, your views are still a challenge to our views.

And I again have to ask certain questions. You also view marriage as 'holy union" so why aren't you protesting atheists that marry?

Not to mention, that 'traditional views" don't seem to hold up well over time. "Traditionally" a man proposes. Now, a woman may propose. "Traditionally" it is the man responsible for the income and the woman responsible for the home and the kids. Now we have women supporting the families while men stay home and take care of the kids and cook and clean.

Just because something has been "traditionally" done a certain way does not mean that it is appropriate for the times we live in now.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're not understanding what I'm saying. Gay people saying they want to get married is still an attack on OUR traditional view of marriage. We don't care if you're saying WE should enter into a gay marriage, your views are still a challenge to our views.

What definition of the word "attack" are you using?

If I watch a TV program you don't approve of in my own home, is this an "attack" on your view of media standards?

Is the existence of other religions an "attack" on your beliefs?

How on Earth can "I do what I want, you do what you want, and they do what they want" be construed as an attack on you, your views or anything about you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And I again have to ask certain questions. You also view marriage as 'holy union" so why aren't you protesting atheists that marry?

And as a sacrament that requires a priest; what about all those people who get married by officiants who have never received the sacrament of Holy Orders or (gasp) are women?

The only view that same-sex marriage attacks is the view that it is the right of one group to impose their beliefs on another... but this is a hollow view; they never had that right to begin with.

 

[fantome profane]

Well, in our point of view (being Christians) we believe that trying to get gay marriage IS a challenge to traditional marriage. You are challenging our very definiton of a traditional marriage. So, even though you say you aren't attacking our view of traditional marriage, you still are, in our eyes.

You're not understanding what I'm saying. Gay people saying they want to get married is still an attack on OUR traditional view of marriage. We don't care if you're saying WE should enter into a gay marriage, your views are still a challenge to our views.

By the same logic, (and I do mean exactly the same logic) if you choose to put sauerkraut on your hot dog you are attacking my view of traditional condiments.

The logic is patently absurd. And yes I do understand it, I understand how ridiculous it is.

You have the right to any view you wish. But there is no right that protects you from having your views challenged.