or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Webb Simpson and Stewart Cink Show their Support for Chick-fil-A
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Webb Simpson and Stewart Cink Show their Support for Chick-fil-A - Page 14

post #235 of 250

I appreciate the various views presented here and the respectful manner in which they were given.  I don't think that an exchange such as ours will change any person's point of view.  We are not talking about a political persuasion.  I respect other views concerning God and His SOVEREIGNTY.  I really can't answer the question as to how people are born with certain predilection.  Of course I believe what I have stated and would die for my beliefs. I guess I would plead guilty to believing the fundamental truths of the Bible as I understand them in its entirety.  I am clearly aware that other denominations hold differing points of view, such as a more "Liberal", "Conservative" or so called "open minded" views.  Labels rarely capture the totality of individuals.  I would sum up my attitude by using the fundamentalist label (a label I have no objections to)  I am fundamentally committed to my marriage, children, my God and my country.  I do not devalue anyone else view point even if I disagree.  Like a friend told me one time if we disagree, then you pray for me and I will pray for you and that is all of our responsibility.  Of course if one does not believe in God then I guess they are on their own and they probably would like it that way.  You folks are some of the most respectful people one could find on a discussion site.  One thing for sure, we do have a love for golf in common.

post #236 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by bamagrad03 View Post

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 View Post

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 View Post


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 View Post

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 View Post


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.  
post #237 of 250

^

 

Some people just don't get it.  Why don't we pile on bamagrad03 as if he the anti-christ himself?

 

We need to accept everyone as a soul, not just flesh and blood or some object.  Everyone has to realize that subject of gays rights or the ability to marry are sensitive subjects.  I get that.  However, why can't we accept the fact that some faiths believe in marriage between a man and women only.  That doesn't make them a bigot.

 

We can still care about each other despite differences in faith, politics, nationality, or color of our skin...and we should.

 

 

* I take exception to the name calling of bamagrad03:

 

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry  -  Do you honestly believe he treats anyone with hatred and intolerance based on a few comments in a stupid golf forum?  I haven't read anything here that indicates this.

 

I wish the moderators would flush this thread down the toilet.  I see nothing good coming out of all the name calling.

post #238 of 250

 It shouldn't be a sensitive subject, gays are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals.  Their rights should have no impact what so ever on your religious beliefs or your church.  You need to understand that marriage no longer belongs to religion, it's meaning is related to the legal contract between spouses and the associated rights of the union.  Are minority rights a sensitive subject?  How about the rights of Jews?  I'm sure there are some Germans that believe in Nazism, does that mean they're not anti-semetic? 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RGoosen View Post

^

 

Some people just don't get it.  Why don't we pile on bamagrad03 as if he the anti-christ himself?

 

We need to accept everyone as a soul, not just flesh and blood or some object.  Everyone has to realize that subject of gays rights or the ability to marry are sensitive subjectsI get that.  However, why can't we accept the fact that some faiths believe in marriage between a man and women only.  That doesn't make them a bigot.

post #239 of 250
I have more fun sitting on the toilet than reading this thread.



Surely reading the golf specific threads would be less stressful.
post #240 of 250

"As for the notion that allowing gay men and lesbians to marry will destroy conventional marriage, I have found heterosexuals perfect willing to do that themselves."

 

- Anna Quindlen

 

 

http://zipsclips.blogspot.com/2008/12/whats-it-to-you.html

post #241 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

  You need to understand that marriage no longer belongs to religion, it's meaning is related to the legal contract between spouses and the associated rights of the union. 

 

 

Thats exactly the crux of the matter ... religious people feel that marriage is defined by God as a union between a man and a woman.       It is a sacrament in the Catholic church.      I've said it before - there needs to be new terminology ... the state should incorporate a "legal union" status, so that gay people are afforded the same legal rights as hetero married people.     I have no problem with gays becomming joined legally & obtaining the legal rights that should go along with it ...

post #242 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by inthehole View Post

 

Thats exactly the crux of the matter ... religious people feel that marriage is defined by God as a union between a man and a woman.       It is a sacrament in the Catholic church.      I've said it before - there needs to be new terminology ... the state should incorporate a "legal union" status, so that gay people are afforded the same legal rights as hetero married people.     I have no problem with gays becomming joined legally & obtaining the legal rights that should go along with it ...

No we don't. Stop saying that we do. I've asked nicely but people keep lumping millions of religious people who feel differently and fight for social justice (as our forefathers did), in with SOME religious people who wish to define the word "marriage" for us all. Stop it. You need to use new terminology because you are not talking about me yet I am a religious person. "Civil marriage" does not need new terminology.

post #243 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by rustyredcab View Post

No we don't. Stop saying that we do. I've asked nicely but people keep lumping millions of religious people who feel differently and fight for social justice (as our forefathers did), in with SOME religious people who wish to define the word "marriage" for us all. Stop it. You need to use new terminology because you are not talking about me yet I am a religious person. "Civil marriage" does not need new terminology.

 

OK, my bad ... I'll willfully insert "SOME" in front of religious people with regard to the definition of marriage - however, I need to further clarify ... MOST would be far more appropriate at least in the context of the judeo-christian sense (I didn't read this entire thread, so if you've made numerous attempts to correct people, I'm afraid I missed it).

 

Lets break it down into simple terms ... I think everybody would be happy if gay people would simply stop using the term marriage (ok, as you brought up - civil marriage) - and use the term union.     Marriage brings up all kinds of religious implications that, ok --- SOME --- Christian people can't handle.      I think in reality those that would actually deny a committed gay couple legal rights is a very VERY small minority even in Christian circles.     


Edited by inthehole - 8/15/12 at 10:01am
post #244 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by rustyredcab View Post

"Christians" do not seem to think it is. Please stop using that word when you mean "some Christians" or "fundamentalist Christians." I'm sure you understand how millions of us don't wish to be frequently lumped into the vocal fringe. There are respectful alternatives to lumping everyone into one anti-gay group.


I am a christian myself boss. For the sake of simplicity, please view [some] or [fundamentailst] when I write christians.

post #245 of 250

I understand the crux of the matter, but unfortunately some words lose their origin and become generic terms that can't revert back to their original form or usage. 

 

Consider terms like xerox, thermos, yo-yo and aspirin.  Those words were once specific for a particular company but because of common use have now become public domain (generic trademark) words that are no longer relate solely back to their origin. 

 

I'd suggest religion come up with a new word that captures the meaning of marriage and trademark it to the specific meaning they want it to have.  Otherwise religions are fighting a losing battle and will continue to be seen as close minded and unsympathetic to the gay population and their efforts to attain equal rights. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by inthehole View Post

 

Thats exactly the crux of the matter ... religious people feel that marriage is defined by God as a union between a man and a woman.       It is a sacrament in the Catholic church.      I've said it before - there needs to be new terminology ... the state should incorporate a "legal union" status, so that gay people are afforded the same legal rights as hetero married people.     I have no problem with gays becomming joined legally & obtaining the legal rights that should go along with it ...

post #246 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by inthehole View Post

 

OK, my bad ... I'll willfully insert "SOME" in front of religious people with regard to the definition of marriage - however, I need to further clarify ... MOST would be far more appropriate at least in the context of the judeo-christian sense (I didn't read this entire thread, so if you've made numerous attempts to correct people, I'm afraid I missed it).

 

Lets break it down into simple terms ... I think everybody would be happy if gay people would simply stop using the term marriage (ok, as you brought up - civil marriage) - and use the term union.     Marriage brings up all kinds of religious implications that, ok --- SOME --- Christian people can't handle.      I think in reality those that would actually deny a committed gay couple legal rights is a very VERY small minority even in Christian circles.     

I don't agree and I don't think most gay couples would agree. They want the same rights as all couples. It's as simple as that.

post #247 of 250

I think your assumption is wrong.  You would find that they would want different types of benefits for civil unions versus marriages.  Separate but equal has been tried before. People were not too happy with it then so I sort of doubt they would be happy now. Again marriage is not a religious thing. It is a civil thing. My marriage license is from the state not the church.

Quote:
Originally Posted by inthehole View Post

 

OK, my bad ... I'll willfully insert "SOME" in front of religious people with regard to the definition of marriage - however, I need to further clarify ... MOST would be far more appropriate at least in the context of the judeo-christian sense (I didn't read this entire thread, so if you've made numerous attempts to correct people, I'm afraid I missed it).

 

Lets break it down into simple terms ... I think everybody would be happy if gay people would simply stop using the term marriage (ok, as you brought up - civil marriage) - and use the term union.     Marriage brings up all kinds of religious implications that, ok --- SOME --- Christian people can't handle.      I think in reality those that would actually deny a committed gay couple legal rights is a very VERY small minority even in Christian circles.     

post #248 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by inthehole View Post

Thats exactly the crux of the matter ... religious people feel that marriage is defined by God as a union between a man and a woman.       It is a sacrament in the Catholic church.      I've said it before - there needs to be new terminology ... the state should incorporate a "legal union" status, so that gay people are afforded the same legal rights as hetero married people.     I have no problem with gays becomming joined legally & obtaining the legal rights that should go along with it ...

 

We already have that language. People have "spouses".

 

I'm not particularly religious but I was "married" and have a "wife" or "spouse" right now.

 

"Legal Union" will never stick. It's "marriage." People want to get "married." Telling people they can get a "legal union" makes it sound like you're just giving them a title to shut them up. If I were a gay wanting to marry someone else (I'm a woman in this scenario, so I'm marrying Olivia Wilde, perhaps, who is gay :D) I'd be insulted if my government said "no, you can't get married, but you can have a "legal union."

 

It doesn't have the same ring to it at all.

 

P.S. Not all religions feel that way. But you've already been corrected there.

post #249 of 250

Some believe marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman.    Some don't.    Nobody is going to change anybody else's mind.        I just wish the state's would give legal benefits to gay couples who are in committed legal "arrangements" or whatever they want to call it... it's the right thing to do.

post #250 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by inthehole View Post

Some believe marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman.    Some don't.    Nobody is going to change anybody else's mind.        I just wish the state's would give legal benefits to gay couples who are in committed legal "arrangements" or whatever they want to call it... it's the right thing to do.

 

Minds are changing. Mine did.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tour Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Webb Simpson and Stewart Cink Show their Support for Chick-fil-A