All I’m seeing is people disagreeing with Zatalcon by disparaging Christianity, which kinda proves his point.
I’m not Christian and grew up mostly thinking that there’s no reason why gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry.
At some point though, I became very uncomfortable with how the tone of gay marriage advocacy boiled down to “Fuck those Christians, aint no one gonna tell me how me and my gay friends can lead their lives, nyah!” Its a very simplistic, moralistic, anti-clerical zeitgeist that has more to do with what people don’t like (the church telling people what to do) over a considered examination of what is being demanded.
People say “what two consenting adults do doesn’t concern me”, but I guarantee that public policy on such a scale WILL have unintended consequences. It WILL affect you and your kids. We just don’t really know how it’ll play out yet.
At the very least, people should be aware that this is a grand experiment on human society. I don’t come from the future, so I don’t know how history plays out- I just wish progressives didn’t act like they did.
I used to think the same way (granted, this was back when I was still a Christian, but still, the reasoning was very similar), but I now think that regardless, we will still have to breech this issue in a fair way, repercussions aside. Every social reform comes with consequences, so this is a moot issue to bring up as well as a fallacious one. Just because there will be consequences, even some negative ones, doesn’t mean that it is not worth doing. We will have to rethink and adapt in order to make it accommodate as many people as possible, which is the way we have done things all along. To me, it definitely sounds like a better solution than simply trying to leave things as they already are and just hope they get worked out. That has rarely worked.
Because we’re mostly in the United States where Christianity is by far the most popular religion and the country in which the ruling is being made. Also, that religion seems to be, by far, the most vocal channel against gay marriage. That’s why.
You’re the one who’s trying to set up a soap box to stand on, against anti-theists and atheists. You’re the one who couldn’t be any further off topic.
(I’m honestly wondering where the hell Valaris is. If he wasn’t Canadian, then I’d joke about him taking this chance to get married, but…yeah. I guess I could just close the thread if this gets any worse, but meh.)
I was calling your statements hyperbolic merely because you were applying them to all Christians, @fishjie. Yes, there are way too many religious people that act like their religion is literal law, but that’s neither exclusive to Christianity nor is it the case with all Christians (thankfully). This even if, yes, Christianity is almost always the religion trying to wed itself to the state in America.
I mostly don’t have a problem with what you said, but I could understand why people would be annoyed by that even if they actually did have a point. Also, on top of that, you’re at best getting heated over obvious trolling. At worst, you’re getting heated by genuinely stupid and stubborn people who are more concerned with claiming they’re right over and over again than actually arguing rationally.
I’m not going to say you can’t make certain statements (within forum guideline reason) and I certainly sympathize with being sickened by the blatant lack of separation between church and state in a lot of areas of the U.S., but yelling at people on the Internet and stereotyping a bunch of people isn’t going to solve anything for any of us. Clear now?
Please show me the history of where the term “marriage” is something that applies only to Christian wedlock. I’m genuinely interested if that’s the case and will gladly take back calling you stupid on that point if you can actually prove it.
I personally don’t recall bringing anyone’s religion into it while calling them stupid. Whether you believe or don’t believe in some religious construct doesn’t prevent you from being stupid in my eyes, especially since I don’t actually have anything in common with other atheists outside of a lack of something.
Speaking of which, you seem to fail to realize it’s extremely hypocritical to complain about people making blanket statements based on religion and then turn around and use blanket statements based on religion yourself. I mean, “you atheists”? Really? Feel free to call out specific posters if you take issue with something they say, but right now you’re coming off as the usual literally holy-than-thou hypocrite that represents the worst of religion on top of other things.
The society that we live in now, the societies that mankind has lived with through several millenia have “worked” fine without same sex marriage.
The only difference is that here and now, we’re living in a period where same sex marriage has been successfully lobbied for. But a surge of political will doesn’t suddenly make something right or better for society. It certainty does make the decision a somewhat democratic one, but the Supreme Court wasn’t created to be an arbiter of the will of the people.
But back to my point. People should realise that this is going to be a huge ass social experiment. I agree that its a done deal and there’s no point arguing whether it should’ve happened now, but to believe that “progress has been made” and we can all go home happy that we’re on “the right side of history” is very, very naive.
America, a very powerful and influential lobby latching onto the right political winds has changed your society. Possibly for the better, but also possibly for the worst. Be aware of that.
I would say that, too, if someone was trying to shape public policy due to their beliefs. You wanna believe that? That’s your private, personal business. But if what you believe is being forced onto me by law by bullshit science and beliefs, causing me grief and financial harm, then you should eat a box of shit and die.
I’ve always been irritated by fellow Christians who lose their shit because the world chooses immoral behavior and brands anyone bigots who disagree with such behavior and that it shouldn’t be encouraged by the government, like the Bible didn’t already say it would happen. So no, your argument is not lost on me. I wrote a theology term paper on exactly that.
And do I believe homosexuality to be immoral? Yes, but so is a lot of stuff, so who am I to throw stones?
Do I support the US’s decision? Nope. Do I believe it creates a slippery slope? Yep. Was I not expecting it and thus am outraged? Nope, not in the least.
hahaa I suppose the chief justice doesnt understand the purpose either? The supreme court doesnt necessarily base judgement on precedent. If it did, no cases from lower courts would ever be overturned. The supreme court sets precedent for lower courts. And it could just as easily be argued that if anything the majority dicespin caved to the recent public perspective/groundswell in an act of will rather than legal judgement.
When you look at it, same-sex marriage shouldn’t even be viewed as abnormal. I’m aware those words have less of an impact because I’m gay, but it’s not like we’re going to proceed with our gay agenda of world domination with Perez Hilton as our leader (which blatantly isn’t true; in fact we don’t even want Perez Hilton).
damn. this thread is nuts. fallacies all over the place, mostly ad hominems but it’s like the gay marriage opposition doesn’t realize that ‘slippery slope’ is a fallacy ie an argument that isn’t valid (not true even if its premises are true).