Quote:
Originally Posted by
bamagrad03 
Yours is precisely the types of responses that absolutely shut down debate.
You need to go back and read the things I've posted. I'm not advocating denying anyone any rights. But hey, why let facts get in the way when you REALLLLYYYYY want to call someone a bigot?
I never said gays having the same rights infringes on religious freedom. I merely said that's it has already been shown that the free exercise clause has been usurped in a couple of cases due to litigious folks when gay marriage bans are lifted.
I think I've said, at least 3 times in this thread, that my opinions on someone else's wishes to marry - should have no bearing in their right to. Gosh, people just love calling Christians closed minded. The irony is, I don't think you know what that means.
No what you saw was "Christian" and you immediately went on some ignorant tirade without stopping to look at the material presented. Talk about closed minded...
I'm glad you support gay rights. I agree that abolishing the term "marriage" in all federal and state law, keeping all the same rights and privileges it engenders, but calling it a civil union for everyone, gay or straight, is a slightly more principled conservative argument about gay marriage. I say slightly because it seems pretty clear to me that, politically, the chances of that happening are incredibly slim compared to simply allowing same-sex couples into federal marriage as all the law are currently written, so it comes off more as a way to sound a bit more tolerant while still aiming for not allowing same-sex couples the same rights as opposite-sex couples.
That said, my tirade was set off mostly by this argument:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bamagrad03 Way to marginalize a pretty salient point and legitimate concern. What you should have said is "I would rather just do away with the constitutionally protected right to free exercise of religion because it's not important to me." It's just as important. And if, for you to practice their rights, I have to give up on mine, then it's a problem. My practicing Christianity in no way limits the rights of gay couples.
As others have said, this is a false argument, and it set me off. What happened to separation of church and state? What the federal government calls marriage and what benefits it gives to two people who want to officially (as opposed to religiously) devote themselves to each other has nothing, literally nothing, to do with what you and your fellow congregants want to recognize as a marriage in religious terms.
And that's assuming you're unwilling to consider that some of your religious tradition might need to be rethought. I personally find it despicable that so many people insist on refusing to rethink religious tradition as it's passed on to them when that tradition prescribes bigotry. I mean, relating it to race is a standard argument, but only because it's so true. There were hundreds of years in this country when appeals to the bible and Christian teaching were among the primary justifications for slavery and racial hatred. Only a very small minority of Christians today would subscribe to that view. How is this different?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bamagrad03
I guess my difference is, I'm willing to disagree with someone without calling them a hatemonger. The general public may very well be wrong on this debate. That's fine. They've been wrong before, they'll be wrong again.
But I'm not willing to call them hatemongers. When you accuse someone of hatred, it's a pretty tall accusation. And I think it's beyond disingenuous to lump people who support only traditional marriage in with the Westboro Baptist "Church" or those who support things like hate crimes, or say vile hateful disgusting things about others.
You can tell me I'm wrong all day long. I respect your opinion, I really do. But when you tell me I'm a 'hatemonger' and you say that over half the country's population are hatemongers - then we get to a point where I really don't think you're changing anyone's mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Golfingdad I totally agree. Hate-mongers, to me, means something more harsh like inciting violence or wishing ill will or the like.
But bigot, ignorant, or homophobic would be more fair characterizations. I just don't see how you can be against the equal rights of any group without it being based in bigotry or ignorance.
What Golfingdad said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bamagrad03
But as I said before, many people are quick to judge those who oppose gay marriage because they care not about that person's religious convictions. If you aren't particularly religious, or to a more specific point, if you're not religious at all - then all you see is some guy wanting to deny someone else rights. Because the overwhelming majority of non-religious folks absolutely marginalize what religion may mean to other people.
So they never consider an opposing side of an argument. If I argue, that I'm concerned that the slippery slope of gay marriage leads to an erosion of religious freedom, and could ultimately one day lead to pastors being forced by government to perform religious ceremonies - many atheists would just say "so what?" Religion doesn't matter to them, so it shouldn't matter to you - or ever be a guiding factor as to why anyone does anything. It's the same reason they can't, for the life of them, understand why Catholic institutions don't want to just back up the birth control truck and start handing them out.
THAT is why they're so quick to label someone like me as a hatemonger or a bigot. I can provide a laundry list of reasons why. I can say for hours that I don't think gay folks or straight folks should be viewed differently or given different rights. They don't read, hear, or consider any of it. They're just saying in their mind "blah blah blah, crazy Christian bigot."
It's closed minded. It's not interested in debate. It's my way, or the highway. As if southern Christians are the only ones capable of prejudice. Sort of like that shot about me probably knowing a bunch of racists because I'm southern. It shows your willingness to paint an entire group of people with broad strokes. I've lived in the south my whole life. And truth be told, the majority of racists I've met, were from up north.
We've got to get beyond this hard line, no room for debate, strong fisted "you must think how I think and exactly how I think it" mentality. It's the same reason nothing EVER gets done in Washington. Nobody works together to come to a solution. It's "you're going to bend to my will - or else." Which ultimately leads to a big ol fat stalemate.
What a straw man. Have any pastors who (somehow still) believe marriage between a black man or woman and a white man or woman (assuming opposite sex) is against the word of God ever been forced to perform that ceremony? And I mean forced by the government, not through social pressure from a congregation that is not as bigoted as the pastor.
The reason people react negatively to your odes to gay rights is that you couple it with arguments about how the government recognizing gay marriage infringes on your religious freedom. You complain that those who favor gay rights are the close-minded ones. If you mean we're not willing to debate whether some classes of people should be given the same rights as everyone else, then yes, we're close-minded. On questions of basic rights, there is no room for debate.
I haven't looked into the New Mexico case you bring up, but in general I (and all the gays and lesbians I've known) support the separation of church and state and religious freedom. A congregation is free to be bigots and associate only with other bigots (assuming they don't incite violence or hate outside the church walls) and refuse to perform a marriage for a same-sex couple in their church, even if they're congregants. If a same-sex couple has been attending a church with bigoted views, or just thinks a church with a bigoted congregation is the prettiest one where they'd like to be married, then that's tough luck. They should find a church without bigoted views.
What religious freedom doesn't mean is one has the right to impose bigoted views taught at one's church on the rest of society.
