Respect for Marriage Act makes Congresswoman cry real tears.

[TLK Valentine]

I am in a position where people complain if I don't acknowledge/accept all marriages. If I could choose, I would choose to ignore some of them totally, but people don't allow me to "give a rat's tiny hiney who they marry or not". This is why I think it is ridiculously stupid to blame me for caring about it, when at the same time I am demanded to care about it.

Their complaints obviously matter to you... Why?

 

[Sand Dancer]

Just recently my mom saw a gay couple on TV and of course just had to make a comment. I looked at her and said, "If you think it's wrong to be gay, then you probably shouldn't be gay. But you don't get to ban anyone else from being gay any more than Muslims and Jews get to ban us from eating pork."

Her reply was basically "But I have the Bible and God's word, so I'm right."

One thing I noticed years ago was that a lot of fundamentalists seem to lack the ability to put themselves in someone else's shoes and see things from a different POV. They only know their perspective and they expect everyone else to fall in line with it.

They don't seem to want take Jesus' advice, but want to go by the OT instead.

 

[stvdv]

There's a much easier way to say all this: "The more people there are who don't believe what I believe makes me afraid that I could possibly be wrong -- and I can't (can I?)."

There is even an easier way to say it:
"Lack of Self Confidence"

That is the root cause. This has nothing to do with other people's (dis)belief

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Lack of empathy is a major indicator of a sociopath.

LOL...she isn't lacking in empathy dude.

Yeah, that's why we don't play armchair psychiatrist.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You don't accept that I like classical piano music, or insist that I change to enjoying heavy metal

Well, there does tend to be a lot of overlap in fans of those two genres.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Criticizing faith (beliefs, thoughts) of others is clearly mental craziness.

Thomas Paine did a good job at it.
And it could rather just be people aren't afraid of your taboos (we don't play armchair psych. It's mental nothing). It doesn't make them crazy, it doesn't put them on god's seat, it just means the two views are incongruent.

 

[1213]

Their complaints obviously matter to you... Why?

Because I hear them.

 

[1213]

Who demands that you "care?" If I tell you I like Pralines and Cream ice cream, can't you just accept me at my word? Do you need to care? If I tell you I enjoy classical piano music, do you need to care, or can you just accept it as a statement about myself? And if I tell you I consider myself married to my partner of 30 years -- because the Canadian government considers us "equivalent to married for tax and legal purposes -- do you need to care, or just say, "okay?"
...

Why tell it at all, if you don't want some people to care about it?

 

[stvdv]

Thomas Paine did a good job at it.
And it could rather just be people aren't afraid of your taboos (we don't play armchair psych. It's mental nothing). It doesn't make them crazy, it doesn't put them on god's seat,

it just means the two views are incongruent.

Seems we disagree on this

Criticizing thoughts of other I call crazy
Criticizing actions (hurtful) is fine

 

[wellwisher]

Vicky Hartzler (R, Missouri) cried real tears as she begged her congressional comrades not to pass the bill, which she called "misguided and dangerous." Thank goodness, her own nephew, who is gay, had the cojones to to put her firmly in her place.

Why, I really have to ask, does she, or anybody else in the world give a rat's tiny hiney who I marry, who you marry, or whether we marry or not?

Why does she think -- AND I WOULD REALLY LIKE AN ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION FROM RELIGIOUS PEOPLE -- that it is robbing her of her "religious freedom" to deny soimebody else the right to live their life as they see fit? Is "religious freedom" really about the freedom to order other people to do what you want them to, and not to do what you don't want them to?

If has to do with the word "marriage" coming from religion and meaning the union of a man and women. This particular union is the most efficient union in terms of social order for adults, children and the elderly. The Government, which is not supposed to establish a religion, is redefining this optimized religious term into its own form of second string religion.

There are taboos words which the Left will censor for each of its whiny groups. The term marriage is the same type of thing. The new definition is insulting for some on the Right, and they get whiny the same way to something that may not bother others. We may need to suppress this new definition to spare feelings. This is why we need free speech, so anyone can say anything, without one side having all the rules stacked in it favor; Twitter files.

For example, say A conservative government decided to lump all the members of the LBGTQ community into the new legal term, bestiality. The term bestiality currently means humans and beasts. By calling the LBGTQ community that, it would lead to purposeful confusion and will be seen by many as an insult. This is what has happened in terms of the word marriage. The anger on the Right is defensive.

When this all began, terms like civil unions were bounced around, which amounted to the same end result as marriage. This term did not try to commandeer a religious term that everyone knew would create a backslash. Everyone on both sides knew that commandeering the term marriage, would be like making a radical slur against the religious people. Why did the Left not care about the feelings of others? Because they are hypocrites. Not all the religious people will turn the other cheek and take it, like expected. Like the Twitter files are showing, we were dealing with some very shady biased characters in places of power and influence. They may need to answer for their dual standards. One standard may be the end result.

My feeling is the push toward civil unions; non religious; non socially optimized unions, is really there like abortion. It is there to help clean up the mess that was created by the social experiments of the Left. The LBGTQ free for all is a major source of disease. Civil unions by breaking up the free for all mentality, would help limit the spawning and spread of disease, just as abortion limits the number of unwanted children that would create a further deficit in terms of civil efficiency.

The term civil union may not have been strong enough to overcome the free for all mentality, that the Left had originality used to prime the pump. Marriage, due to the taboo nature to this slur definition, is like the Deficit Reduction Act, having nothing to do with the Deficit, but is more like a sugar coat for something more sinister; mop.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am in a position where people complain if I don't acknowledge/accept all marriages. If I could choose, I would choose to ignore some of them totally, but people don't allow me to "give a rat's tiny hiney who they marry or not". This is why I think it is ridiculously stupid to blame me for caring about it, when at the same time I am demanded to care about it.

Are you talking about some duty of your job?

Does your professional work require you to be involved with - or at least acknowledge - same-sex or interracial marriage in some way?

 

[Father Heathen]

Bout my thoughts on the matter.

Useless bills for useless politictions.

I'm not surprised that you would consider safeguarding rights and freedom "useless".

Did you conveniently forget that women lost their right to bodily autonomy earlier this year?

 

[Father Heathen]

I am in a position where people complain if I don't acknowledge/accept all marriages. If I could choose, I would choose to ignore some of them totally, but people don't allow me to "give a rat's tiny hiney who they marry or not". This is why I think it is ridiculously stupid to blame me for caring about it, when at the same time I am demanded to care about it.

Nobody is forcing you to care about or accept anything, but your feelings aren't justification for curtailing freedom.

 

[Father Heathen]

If has to do with the word "marriage" coming from religion and meaning the union of a man and women. This particular union is the most efficient union in terms of social order for adults, children and the elderly. The Government, which is not supposed to establish a religion, is redefining this optimized religious term into its own form of second string religion.

There are taboos words which the Left will censor for each of its whiny groups. The term marriage is the same type of thing. The new definition is insulting for some on the Right, and they get whiny the same way to something that may not bother others. We may need to suppress this new definition to spare feelings. This is why we need free speech, so anyone can say anything, without one side having all the rules stacked in it favor; Twitter files.

For example, say A conservative government decided to lump all the members of the LBGTQ community into the new legal term, bestiality. The term bestiality currently means humans and beasts. By calling the LBGTQ community that, it would lead to purposeful confusion and will be seen by many as an insult. This is what has happened in terms of the word marriage. The anger on the Right is defensive.

When this all began, terms like civil unions were bounced around, which amounted to the same end result as marriage. This term did not try to commandeer a religious term that everyone knew would create a backslash. Everyone on both sides knew that commandeering the term marriage, would be like making a radical slur against the religious people. Why did the Left not care about the feelings of others? Because they are hypocrites. Not all the religious people will turn the other cheek and take it, like expected. Like the Twitter files are showing, we were dealing with some very shady biased characters in places of power and influence. They may need to answer for their dual standards. One standard may be the end result.

My feeling is the push toward civil unions; non religious; non socially optimized unions, is really there like abortion. It is there to help clean up the mess that was created by the social experiments of the Left. The LBGTQ free for all is a major source of disease. Civil unions by breaking up the free for all mentality, would help limit the spawning and spread of disease, just as abortion limits the number of unwanted children that would create a further deficit in terms of civil efficiency.

The term civil union may not have been strong enough to overcome the free for all mentality, that the Left had originality used to prime the pump. Marriage, due to the taboo nature to this slur definition, is like the Deficit Reduction Act, having nothing to do with the Deficit, but is more like a sugar coat for something more sinister; mop.

I would like to address whatever point you attempted to make, but your post is such a rambling, incoherent screed that I don't know where to begin.
Perhaps you could try again after you've came down from your sweaty, frothing rage?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Seems we disagree on this

Criticizing thoughts of other I call crazy
Criticizing actions (hurtful) is fine

It's not crazy. Like the thoughts amd ideas of Klansmen. Criticizing their thoughts and ideas is the proper way to handle it because their ideas do not deserve to be freely aired unopposed and unchallenged.

 

[Heyo]

If has to do with the word "marriage" coming from religion and meaning the union of a man and women.

The word for a union between two people sanctified by a Christian church is "Holy Matrimony".
"Marriage" is a colloquial/secular word describing the union of two or more people recognized by society, government or any religion.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

This particular union is the most efficient union in terms of social order for adults, children and the elderly.

Have the stats for this?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm not surprised that you would consider safeguarding rights and freedom "useless".

Did you conveniently forget that women lost their right to bodily autonomy earlier this year?

No women didn't lose their rights.

There are states that still allow it.

Stop touting half truths.

 

[Jose Fly]

When I was a kid, going to Catholic school on the weekdays, Baptist church on Sunday, and gorging on Christian entertainment in my off-time, I used to think the Biblical apocalypse where everyone turned away from God was unrealistic.

Why would so many people choose to reject God's love and mercy? Surely they knew that, even if they disagreed or didn't understand God's plan, God has infinite wisdom and is infinitely good, so it's better to just have faith in him.

Even if they were truly wicked, they had to know that they couldn't hope to fight back against God's might. Good always wins; even for the wicked, it's easier to just be good and get some part of paradise.

It didn't occur to me that Christianity wasn't true or that sane people might not believe in it, unless they were deceived like some evil groups off in foreign countries were, but that was a minority, right?

If I still had that mentality, then I would probably see the rapid growth of non-Christian cultures and the popularity of secularization and de-Christianization as an assault by Satan himself, deceiving the entire nation. I would be absolutely terrified that I, too, might be deceived into rationalizing sin or even outright blasphemy or non-belief, because I knew what the consequences of that was. They didn't talk about it in Catholic school, but the Baptists I grew up with were very fond of their hellfire sermons.

What an absolutely terrifying existence. It doesn't surprise me at all that many of these communities are lashing out and becoming more militant. That's what fear does.

Exactly! For those who were or are immersed in fundamentalist Christian culture, the threat of damnation and eternal punishment is ever-present and as such, drives a lot of behaviors. I've no doubt that to my mom, she's actually showing empathy and caring for gays because in her mind, she's trying to save them from hellfire. And as you note, the prospect that that might not actually be true is simply not an option....at all.

And reminding folks like her that not everyone believes in all that and therefore doesn't want to hear it doesn't make a bit of difference. From their POV, they have "God's word" which is always the truth.

 

[Jose Fly]

They don't seem to want take Jesus' advice, but want to go by the OT instead.

And Paul's too. They're really big on Paul's writings.