[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The loudest protestation. Not a legit source, just observation. The groups I can recall fighting marriage equality all have some significant funding from religious groups.

I see it a bit differently; using religion (or atheism, for that matter) as a tool and justification for intolerance does not define that "sector" as the intolerances' origin. You can cite examples from every part of the world, and here at home on both sides of the issues to demonstrate my point.

I do not think we'll get past the intolerance unless we stop using stereotyping to fight discrimination (one, by definition, feeds the other).

Media coverage of the issue isn't helping either, as the "loudest protestations" are hand-picked by editors and executives at the respective media organizations.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

using religion (or atheism, for that matter) as a tool and justification for intolerance does not define that "sector" as the intolerances' origin.

I didn't say it was origin. I was saying it was the impetus.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I meant examples, but whatever. It's a stupid point because once again, rights are not dependent on our liking the people involved. In fact, I think this qualifies as victim blaming. "The gays wouldn't have so much opposition if they were more likable!"

BTW, don't think I've heard this reasoning before:
Federal appeals court overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage - Los Angeles Times


This is something I brought up back when DOMA was at the SCOTUS. Probably won't mean shit int he long run, but its nice to see it acknowledged, by a judge no less.

I didn't say anything about "likeable", but I will say that how you treat each other will color how others outside your "community" treat you. Gays, as a group, have caused a lot of their own problems. One example is nudity and open sexual themes in local Pride parades, hetero couples and groups don't "push boundaries" like gays do, and that lands them into hot water and causes bad mojo. A street gathering isn't a place to pull out your junk, leave it holstered, cowboy.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I didn't say it was origin. I was saying it was the impetus.

Not to be nit picky, but you said "comes from the religious sector".

Even with the clarification, you're saying religion is the driving force of the intolerance. I am taking issue with that. Some are using religion as a pretext for the intolerance, but that's nothing new to humanity.

If we really wanna drive equality and unity among our citizenry, we must dispose of the stereotypes and call it what it is - fear of those who are different than you and a groupthink trap that serves only to divide.

Fighting Fire with Fire in this instance will only make this division a larger fire.

[Waragainstsleep]

Fair to say that there are plenty of religious people who are pro gay marriage (IMO these are the ones with the right interpretation of their religious books) but most of the outspoken resistance also comes from religious people. I suppose you could argue that its conservatism rather than belief driving the resistance, or that when a republican comes out against gay marriage that he does so from a political standpoint and not because he also happens to be religious (and conservative), but we all know that religious fundamentalism is a big driver when it comes to anything homophobic, serving to incite, spread and indoctrinate that behaviour in others.

[subego]

Really? You interpret, say, the Old Testament, as being pro-gay marriage, and the problem is people aren't interpreting it properly?

My knee-jerk, stuff words in your mouth reaction is you want the books to be that way, but IME, they're just not. You can soften them up if you like, I certainly would, but that puts me (and you) a reformer.

As I imply above, reform is fine by me, but it's by definition not what the books say.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's interesting. In the US most of the distaste for homosexuals comes from the religious sector, though obviously not all of those claiming religious reasons are being honest – a good many people just find the concept disgusting. Still, I don't think disgust is that great a motivator, and if religious opposition were to dry up overnight, I'm pretty sure the question would be relegated to a very small minority, and one that likely wouldn't hold much sway.

I agree that much of the religious sensitivity is feigned, but I disagree that disgust is not that powerful a motivator. Disgust is so powerful that it will ensure consanguineous relationships for example, remain illegal for decades to come with virtually no one championing their right to equal marriage.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Fair to say that there are plenty of religious people who are pro gay marriage (IMO these are the ones with the right interpretation of their religious books) but most of the outspoken resistance also comes from religious people. I suppose you could argue that its conservatism rather than belief driving the resistance, or that when a republican comes out against gay marriage that he does so from a political standpoint and not because he also happens to be religious (and conservative), but we all know that religious fundamentalism is a big driver when it comes to anything homophobic, serving to incite, spread and indoctrinate that behaviour in others.

Couple of points in fact; you can support same-sex marriage and be a homophobe just as you can support traditional marriage and not be a homophobe. I think emotions have run amok with both sides of the debate demagoguing the hell out of this issue.

Some religious fundamentalists oppose same-sex marriage and others simply champion traditional marriage. Those of faith may be seeking to preserve what they consider a rite and the secular collective are championing what they consider a right. I do find myself at odds with many of my Christian ilk in the amount of focus placed on this singular issue as first and foremost IMO, same-sex marriage has become the shiny thing that would divert believers' attention from the vastly greater number of dysfunctional heterosexual relationships causing spiritual strife. Secondly, while I believe it is important to dedicate your relationship to God, the power of that bond is not made by a State certification, or even by a church building or minister. It is made by the faithfulness of the two parties in upholding their vows before God.

Once the State conferred privileges upon this relationship through certification, it would eventually place itself in the awkward position of having to answer the question of equal treatment under the law. And while they may have had the noblest of intentions in attempting to engineer a preferred societal condition, let the statistics on marriages ending in divorce render this government action yet another to the dustbin of its failures. If the government must be involved at all, let it merely certify any two consenting adults who wish to commit themselves to one another under a civil statute -- civil union. And let the churches continue to marry whom they may.

And remember, good people can disagree on this issue.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I didn't say anything about "likeable", but I will say that how you treat each other will color how others outside your "community" treat you. Gays, as a group, have caused a lot of their own problems. One example is nudity and open sexual themes in local Pride parades, hetero couples and groups don't "push boundaries" like gays do, and that lands them into hot water and causes bad mojo. A street gathering isn't a place to pull out your junk, leave it holstered, cowboy.

That's a good example, though I don't see the correlation with "how they treat each other." More a problem of indifference to how they are perceived. And while I wouldn't condone it, the psychology behind it seems obvious to me: When society consistently has a negative attitude about who you are and what you do, at some point for the sake of your mental health you have to disregard what they think (That's why gays have higher suicide rates). The downside being, when you stop caring what other people think, well, you apparently think acting like an animal in public is ok because no ones left to tell you you're way over the line.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Not to be nit picky, but you said "comes from the religious sector".

Yes, you're being nitpicky. Someone can come for a place without originating from there.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Even with the clarification, you're saying religion is the driving force of the intolerance. I am taking issue with that.

I found something to cite.
Religion Big Factor for Americans Against Same-Sex Marriage


Damn near a full majority.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

If we really wanna drive equality and unity among our citizenry, we must dispose of the stereotypes and call it what it is - fear of those who are different than you and a groupthink trap that serves only to divide.

Fighting Fire with Fire in this instance will only make this division a larger fire.

I feel like I'm getting lectured because you're bored or just being contrarian. Current opposition to homosexual marriage in the US is firmly rooted in religion, and as people love to point out we have quite a few religious people in the nation. If you think the problem is something else, demonstrate it.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Yes, you're being nitpicky. Someone can come for a place without originating from there.

I found something to cite.
Religion Big Factor for Americans Against Same-Sex Marriage


Damn near a full majority.


I feel like I'm getting lectured because you're bored or just being contrarian. Current opposition to homosexual marriage in the US is firmly rooted in religion, and as people love to point out we have quite a few religious people in the nation. If you think the problem is something else, demonstrate it.

I am trying to help you craft your message as to be appealing to contrarian viewpoints, as frankly now they are not. Why? Because I agree with you in substance here, and there's no better weapons against hate and intolerance than faith in one-another and understanding.

I am not trying to lecture you, simply offer a benign critique that might help both of us understand the gap in our mutual understanding so that we can effectively bridge that gap and make our conversations a little less....tense.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's a good example, though I don't see the correlation with "how they treat each other." More a problem of indifference to how they are perceived. And while I wouldn't condone it, the psychology behind it seems obvious to me: When society consistently has a negative attitude about who you are and what you do, at some point for the sake of your mental health you have to disregard what they think (That's why gays have higher suicide rates). The downside being, when you stop caring what other people think, well, you apparently think acting like an animal in public is ok because no ones left to tell you you're way over the line.

I agree with that. 2 years ago two men at a Pride event in a neighboring town were the first people to ever be charged with "public sodomy" under the L&L statute (I believe it was behind a van in a parking lot), it was witnessed by a young girl who ran to get an officer, thinking that someone was getting hurt. The following year the city "accidentally" scheduled an event and caused a conflict in scheduling, so the Pride celebration was cancelled. This year, AFAIK, it hasn't even been discussed.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I am trying to help you craft your message as to be appealing to contrarian viewpoints, as frankly now they are not.

Okay, then we're talking past each other here. The religious part has nothing to do with my 'message' though, if we're talking about legalizing marriage equality. I brought this up because ebuddy thinks it transcends everything in the US, and I disagreed.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I am not trying to lecture you, simply offer a benign critique that might help both of us understand the gap in our mutual understanding so that we can effectively bridge that gap and make our conversations a little less....tense.

I don't understand what you're critiquing though. I presented an opinion and backed it up with a poll.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

Really? You interpret, say, the Old Testament, as being pro-gay marriage, and the problem is people aren't interpreting it properly?

My knee-jerk, stuff words in your mouth reaction is you want the books to be that way, but IME, they're just not. You can soften them up if you like, I certainly would, but that puts me (and you) a reformer.

As I imply above, reform is fine by me, but it's by definition not what the books say.

The problem people don't like to admit is that you can't listen to everything they say because they contradict themselves all over the place. Much of the interpretation involves prioritising one thing over another and I applaud anyone who prioritises 'love thy neighbour' over 'kill the gays'. Most of the gay bashers don't eschew mixed textiles, shellfish, tattoos or consign their menstruating women to tents and refuse to touch them for a week either so clearly 'interpretation' can take the form of 'completely disregard the bits that are blatantly stupid'.

Its also rarely pointed out in bros terms, that if you compare the overall tones of the two testaments, the love, forgiveness, and thoroughly more modern morality of the new testament is somewhat at odds with the petty godly jealousy and spite and ultra violence of the old testament. Since collectively these are like a textbook for christians to live by, it seems only logical to assume that the newer one should trump the older one. Just don't mention that taking it that way makes it look like God learned a whole lot from Jesus about how to behave towards people. This will likely further confuse the existing schizophrenia of the holy trinity for Catholics, and generally piss of anyone who thinks that god cannot ever learn anything from anyone or anything else, let alone an 'inferior' being. Which of course, all other beings are.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Couple of points in fact; you can support same-sex marriage and be a homophobe just as you can support traditional marriage and not be a homophobe. I think emotions have run amok with both sides of the debate demagoguing the hell out of this issue.

Some religious fundamentalists oppose same-sex marriage and others simply champion traditional marriage.

I'm not convinced that there are many non-homophobes who oppose same sex marriage. Probably barely even a fraction of 1% of the objectors. I just can't see how anyone who isn't a homophobe would care either way. I'd almost go so far as to say that opposing it makes you a homophobe.

On the issue of whether individual churches should be able to refuse gay couples, that should probably be banned too but as I understand it a minister is free to refuse to marry any couple at all if he doubts their faith or sincerity or simply doesn't like their shoes or whatever so it makes little difference to legislate that doesn't it?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I'm not convinced that there are many non-homophobes who oppose same sex marriage. Probably barely even a fraction of 1% of the objectors. I just can't see how anyone who isn't a homophobe would care either way. I'd almost go so far as to say that opposing it makes you a homophobe.

Supporting traditional marriage≠so called homophobia.

On the issue of whether individual churches should be able to refuse gay couples, that should probably be banned too but as I understand it a minister is free to refuse to marry any couple at all if he doubts their faith or sincerity or simply doesn't like their shoes or whatever so it makes little difference to legislate that doesn't it?

Now we get to the crux of the matter. Sound like Christophobia to me.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Supporting traditional marriage≠so called homophobia.

I really fail to see why this would be true.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Now we get to the crux of the matter. Sound like Christophobia to me.

Again, really not sure how you arrive at that conclusion. I guess just because you don't like what I said.
Is a minister not free to refuse to marry a "traditional" couple for any reason (s)he likes? I admit most of my experience on that subject comes from sitcoms. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, though I'd be grateful if you could do it without my having to read reams of obscure Catholic texts on the subject. I'll happily take your word for it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I really fail to see why this would be true.

Well then you fail to understand what a phobia is. You're free to abuse the term, but it becomes less meaningful with each absurd, contextual stretch.

Again, really not sure how you arrive at that conclusion. I guess just because you don't like what I said.

So disliking what someone says isn't phobia?

[Chongo]

^^^^^^^^^^

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The problem people don't like to admit is that you can't listen to everything they say because they contradict themselves all over the place. Much of the interpretation involves prioritising one thing over another and I applaud anyone who prioritises 'love thy neighbour' over 'kill the gays'. Most of the gay bashers don't eschew mixed textiles, shellfish, tattoos or consign their menstruating women to tents and refuse to touch them for a week either so clearly 'interpretation' can take the form of 'completely disregard the bits that are blatantly stupid'.

Its also rarely pointed out in bros terms, that if you compare the overall tones of the two testaments, the love, forgiveness, and thoroughly more modern morality of the new testament is somewhat at odds with the petty godly jealousy and spite and ultra violence of the old testament. Since collectively these are like a textbook for christians to live by, it seems only logical to assume that the newer one should trump the older one. Just don't mention that taking it that way makes it look like God learned a whole lot from Jesus about how to behave towards people. This will likely further confuse the existing schizophrenia of the holy trinity for Catholics, and generally piss of anyone who thinks that god cannot ever learn anything from anyone or anything else, let alone an 'inferior' being. Which of course, all other beings are.

In your experience, who has given homosexuals more shit? Christians or Jews?

The OT says "don't do the anal", and pretty much leaves it at that. As in "rub and tug isn't mentioned, so knock yourself out, tiger".

This doesn't sound like "kill the gays" to me. This lesson thing you're talking about maybe needs to go the other way.

[Waragainstsleep]

So the literal meaning of phobia, is 'irrational fear'.

Homophobia is slightly different to other phobias in that it is often used to refer to people who act hatefully or intolerantly towards homosexuals rather than being irrationally afraid of. This is however simply an extension, because the hatred and intolerance is usually derived from the fear. Whether its a fear that someone of your gender will want/try/force sex with you, or whether its fear that someone else will discover that you rather fancy one of the aforementioned activities I cannot say. Probably plenty of both.
I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, but since you are hiding behind semantics....

Of course not all hatred is rooted in fear.

[Chongo]

That would be rule #5

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

In your experience, who has given homosexuals more shit? Christians or Jews?

The OT says "don't do the anal", and pretty much leaves it at that. As in "rub and tug isn't mentioned, so knock yourself out, tiger".

This doesn't sound like "kill the gays" to me. This lesson thing you're talking about maybe needs to go the other way.

It says a little more than that.
Leviticus 20:13

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

There is also the "Sin of Onan"

[subego]

So, the same penalty you get for adultery?

[P]

And for wearing clothes of more than one type of thread. Leviticus is remarkably consistent in it it's punitive measures - it's the death penalty for a lot of things.

[subego]

Originally Posted by P 

And for wearing clothes of more than one type of thread.

Well, okay... that one was aimed squarely at teh gays.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, the same penalty you get for adultery?

Back in the day, yes.

[subego]

Shows you OT God was pretty "equal opportunity" with his wrath.

[Chongo]

That sounds like Marcionism

[subego]

If one wishes to reconcile the yawning chasm between the two.

The cynical part of me can't overlook one being evangelical and the other being very much not as a factor.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, the same penalty you get for adultery?

Which is death isn't it? If your a purist.

[subego]

Reformists call for only a light stoning.

[Chongo]

This says it best.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...version=NRSVCE

1 while Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him and he sat down and began to teach them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. 5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground.[a] 9 When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, sir.”[b] And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.”]][c]

[subego]

The dude she boned is conspicuously absent.

[Chongo]

Could be he had been taken care of already.

[Waragainstsleep]

Its always the woman's fault. Men can't help themselves remember.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Its always the woman's fault. Men can't help themselves remember.

Eve tempted Adam with an apple

The Boss

[subego]

And how exactly was Eve supposed to know that was bad without knowledge of good and evil?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

So the literal meaning of phobia, is 'irrational fear'.

Indeed.

Homophobia is slightly different to other phobias in that it is often used to refer to people who act hatefully or intolerantly towards homosexuals rather than being irrationally afraid of.

Let us continue on then, in understanding our positions;

• Hateful - arousing, deserving of, or filled with hatred. It seems hatefulness , not unlike "phobia" must take on a different meaning when discussing same-sex marriage.
• Intolerant - showing unwillingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with. And intolerance then, must also take on a different meaning when discussing same-sex marriage.

At some point, the amount of linguistical creative license necessary for expressing your view of the opposition on this issue renders the words you use meaningless (having no meaning or significance), illustrating only that both sides have the exact same problem. Demagoguery - One who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using a rational argument. Worse, if the words take on different meanings contingent upon the issue at hand, but are not applied consistently across both views on that same issue -- such as the difference between religiophobic or homophobic, well then you're applying a double standard; a rule or principle that is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups. In short, if the subject is the determinant factor, you're as phobic as anyone on this issue.

This is however simply an extension, because the hatred and intolerance is usually derived from the fear. Whether its a fear that someone of your gender will want/try/force sex with you, or whether its fear that someone else will discover that you rather fancy one of the aforementioned activities I cannot say. Probably plenty of both.
I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, but since you are hiding behind semantics....

In fact, you've told me quite a bit I didn't know of the attitudes of those who oppose same-sex marriage. Most of the fear I'm familiar with from a faith perspective, is that of defining a sacred rite as a civil right thereby marginalizing the significance of the former. The difference is I can disagree with them without the ad hominem attacks or in your words, phobia.

[subego]

Since we're on the subject of Adam and Steve, I should also note they didn't surely die from eating the apple.

Unless you consider "you shall surely die" as a fancy way of saying "try and get past my angels with +14 holy, flaming, ****-off swords".

[subego]

Part of what gets me about faith-based issues over gay marriage is that marriage used to be a civil arrangement, with the religious arrangement being holy matrimony. They were distinct entities.

Why the need to hog all the terms?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Part of what gets me about faith-based issues over gay marriage is that marriage used to be a civil arrangement, with the religious arrangement being holy matrimony. They were distinct entities.

Why the need to hog all the terms?

In Europe, (then the States) it was the other way. It wasn't until after the Luther evolution that governments got involved it what was previously an ecclesial matter.
Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As part of the Protestant Reformation, the role of recording marriages and setting the rules for marriage passed to the state, reflecting Martin Luther's view that marriage was a "worldly thing".[299] By the 17th century, many of the Protestant European countries had a state involvement in marriage. As of 2000, the average marriage age range was 25–44 years for men and 22–39 years for women. In England, under the Anglican Church, marriage by consent and cohabitation was valid until the passage of Lord Hardwicke's Act in 1753. This act instituted certain requirements for marriage, including the performance of a religious ceremony observed by witnesses.[300]

As part of the Counter-Reformation, in 1563 the Council of Trent decreed that a Roman Catholic marriage would be recognized only if the marriage ceremony was officiated by a priest with two witnesses. The Council also authorized a Catechism, issued in 1566, which defined marriage as, "The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life."[210]

In the early modern period, John Calvin and his Protestant colleagues reformulated Christian marriage by enacting the Marriage Ordinance of Geneva, which imposed "The dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage"[210] for recognition.

[subego]

That's not really right as I understand it.

The state was always involved in marriage because it was the state who needed to resolve disputes over inheritance. What's the recent development is statutory marriage, where what makes a marriage valid is actually defined by law. Previous to that, the validity was determined by general consensus on what made a marriage valid, i.e. common law.

The religious kind was "holy matrimony". At least, those were the terms the Anglicans used, and we do kinda sorta speak English...

On a good day.

[subego]

And to be clear, there were long stretches where common law marriage was really frowned upon.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

And how exactly was Eve supposed to know that was bad without knowledge of good and evil?

If a booming voice from the Almighty told me not to eat the fruit of a specific tree, and that if I did I would surely die, I'd chop that leafy motherf*cker down, burn it, and bury the ashes 20' deep. Hell, I'd chop down and burn all the neighboring trees too, just to be on the safe side. How stupid do you have to be?

"Adam, what happened to that tree!?", asked God.
"Out of sight, out of mind, boss. But the snake that lived in it is pretty angry now, talking crap about how it was our only chance to "be like You". He seems to be a backstabbing little jerk, I wouldn't trust him."

[andi*pandi]

Eve was framed.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In fact, you've told me quite a bit I didn't know of the attitudes of those who oppose same-sex marriage. Most of the fear I'm familiar with from a faith perspective, is that of defining a sacred rite as a civil right thereby marginalizing the significance of the former. The difference is I can disagree with them without the ad hominem attacks or in your words, phobia.

I'm not going to address the implication that I'm homophobia-phobic.

Marriage doesn't belong to christianity, or to any one religion. Most of them have it in some form but it predates Christianity and even Judaism which is of course where Christianity got it from.
Given that marriage spans most religions and cultures, trying to define what constitutes a traditional marriage is rather pointless and using the bible to define it is quite obviously incorrect.

So given there is no such thing as traditional marriage for anyone to support, what else do you have to explain these people's opposition to same-sex marriage besides homophobia?

[Chongo]

There are secular arguments for one man, one woman, and the children that rise from the union. "Fill in the blank" search engine is you friend.

[Waragainstsleep]

Well I just looked at the top 3 secular arguments from a search and they are all very similar and very weak. Much of it is total crap.

[subego]

The one I looked at said it was so we can maintain positive population growth.

Because the world doesn't have enough people already.