Does opposing gay marriage make you an asshole?

[wisnoskij]

In my opinion. The entire issue is addressed ass-backwards.
Modern western marriage is basically catholic/christian marriage. And as a private organization they have right to refuse to perform some ritual on whoever they like.
But at the same time, our laws governing it should not be based on Christianity. I would just abolish marriage altogether. And forget all this religious foolishness and go back to how the law used to handle these things, just one more legal contract that can give any number of rights and privileges to another person(s) over you that you want.

[miguel]

The name is China.

[Ponch]

Most atheists (and agnostics) that I know just don't care unless someone brings up the subject of religion...

To be fair, most of the religious people I know act the same way. It would be a better world if more people were like this. But there are always assholes who just can't abide that not everyone shares their world view.

[monkey0506]

I think that I'm probably entirely at fault for this topic degrading into a religious debate. I say that, because, unless I am mistaken, I am the only person who has said anything in this thread about holding religious faith.

So, sorry if I derailed the topic (although I'm not sorry for how I feel or what I said).

My faith influences my definition of the word marriage - this removes my objectivity about the definition of the word. I am willing to accept this. However, I would just like to reiterate that I hold no ill-will toward homosexuals. I support their efforts (in the way I support most anything about which I'm not just entirely fanatical, by not doing anything to oppose it) in seeking civil rights. I will not say "marriage" because I cannot do so objectively, but in seeking the same civil rights offered to other legally recognized unions they are justified and I will not argue against that.

If this makes me a horrible person, then so be it.

This thread has exploded beyond the point for me to reasonably be able to continue replying to each individual without this thread losing all hope of staying on-topic. That said, I do want to just reply to a couple of items:

Ryan, I don't "think" that I am a less moral person without my faith - I am stating that every time I have stopped actively practicing my faith, my life and my morality has degraded. It is a matter of historical fact that for me, personally, I am a less moral person without my religious faith.

Lastly, I'll reiterate for the fourth time that I never said anything of any nature whatsoever about heterosexual vs. homosexual parents raising children. The only statement I ever made about parents raising children was in reference to two-parent vs. single-parent homes, regardless of the sexual preference (and it is a preference) of the parent(s) involved. (To be fair, I think that this was only the third "reiteration", but the fourth time I've said it...I'm not going back to count.)

[Ponch]

Just to be clear, my comment wasn't aimed at you, Monkey.

[Ryan Timothy B]

But everything I've ever said in a negative way was ALL directed at Ponch.

[Andail]

Lastly, I'll reiterate for the fourth time that I never said anything of any nature whatsoever about heterosexual vs. homosexual parents raising children. The only statement I ever made about parents raising children was in reference to two-parent vs. single-parent homes, regardless of the sexual preference (and it is a preference) of the parent(s) involved.

Why did you say this, then? What was the reason to argue that two-parent homes are better than single-parent homes, in a thread that debates gay marriage?

[Ponch]

But everything I've ever said in a negative way was ALL directed at Ponch.

Keep going with that attitude, mister, and I won't be stalking you across the wilds of Canada any more.

[miguel]

I'm now going to introduce the word Thermometer into the debate.

[Eric]

And I am going to coin the term "thermosexual." Has a nice cadence.

[Khris]

Here's an interesting Podcast: http://www.spreaker.com/user/smalleyandhyso/26_the_gay_christian

A gay Catholic is interviewed by a former Christian turned Atheist. Predictably, it doesn't go well for him (hint: major cognitive dissonance).

[wisnoskij]

A gay Catholic is interviewed by a former Christian turned Atheist. Predictably, it doesn't go well for him (hint: major cognitive dissonance).

It is weird how much Christians have latched onto the gay part of their holy books. It is one of the less straightforward parts. The bible very clearly denounces all facepainting, for example, but the gay sections, which are no more numerous or damning than the face painting are plagued by translation problems and multiple ways to interpret them. In my opinion the Christian holy books clearly state that things such as face painting or wearing a cotton polyester blend are just as sinful as sodomy, if not far more. Any Christian that followed the teachings of the bible would be in prison for murder within 5 minutes. That being said, that does not mean that all christians who say that homosexuals are sinning just hate them. People are sheep, and Christians have turned homosexuality into a major sin by group belief, it just has nothign to do with God or any of the bibles.

[Calin Leafshade]

Isn't it weird how someone's religious beliefs often have significant overlap with their personal one.

(Read: They just don't like gays. It's nothing to do with religion)

[Snarky]

Sigh. I know it's tempting to take some Bible verses out of context and use it to argue Christians are hypocrites, but really guys, the Bible is not a straightforward instruction manual. It's a sprawling collection of documents that can only be understood in relationship with each other, and in the context of an interpretative framework. In Judaism, the Tanakh (Jewish Bible) is supplemented by the Talmud, with rabbinical interpretations of what it means. Christianity doesn't have a catchy label like that, but there are a lot of theological writings and traditions, going back to the Church Fathers, that have been hugely important in determining how the Bible and the Christian message is understood. Not to mention that the Bible itself discusses how earlier texts within it should be interpreted!

Christians decided very early in their history (in the first generation of apostles: St. Peter and St. Paul and those guys, before Christianity was really a proper religion of its own) that lots of Old Testament rules only applied to those Christians who were Jews. (A significant proportion at that time, soon to be heavily outnumbered by gentile converts.) All that stuff about keeping kosher (including no blended fabrics) just is not relevant. You can disagree with the merits of this position, but it's been a fairly core part of Christianity for just about always, and is in the Bible.

Conversely, sexual impropriety has been a major Christian concern from the beginning. One of the most emphatic instructions in Jesus' teachings is that remarrying after a divorce is to be considered adultery. (That's a much better example of a definite Christian rule that many have decided to ignore, though of course the Catholic church sticks with it.) True, homosexuality is not a particular preoccupation in the Bible and early Christian writings, but when discussed it does seem they disapprove. (Of course, they basically condemn all extramarital sex, fornication, which would have included all gay sex, and some only grudgingly OK'd sex within marriage.)

In any case, to many Christians who consider homosexuality a sin, the reason it's such a major topic is not that it's a worse sin than many others, e.g. adultery, but that so many people deny that it's a sin. Christianity expects people to sin, but it demands repentance.

Point being that yes, it does have something to do with religion; their position is grounded pretty solidly in Christian scripture and tradition.

[wisnoskij]

In any case, to many Christians who consider homosexuality a sin, the reason it's such a major topic is not that it's a worse sin than many others, e.g. adultery, but that so many people deny that it's a sin. Christianity expects people to sin, but it demands repentance.

But it is no more denied as a sin than any other thing. Like making interest on your money, or eating a bacon burger (mixing different animals in a single meal), being rich, or sex outside of marriage (or at all).

[monkey0506]

Lastly, I'll reiterate for the fourth time that I never said anything of any nature whatsoever about heterosexual vs. homosexual parents raising children. The only statement I ever made about parents raising children was in reference to two-parent vs. single-parent homes, regardless of the sexual preference (and it is a preference) of the parent(s) involved.

Why did you say this, then? What was the reason to argue that two-parent homes are better than single-parent homes, in a thread that debates gay marriage?

I was pairing that with the assertion about married couples introducing new citizens. As Khris pointed out, the collective argument on this part doesn't hold true today. However, it did historically. As it no longer does, this is the reason I stated that the perks that were being granted by the government should be revoked, as their incentive behind offering it has degraded beyond the rational threshold to offer something in return.

[Snarky]

In my opinion. The entire issue is addressed ass-backwards.
Modern western marriage is basically catholic/christian marriage. And as a private organization they have right to refuse to perform some ritual on whoever they like.
But at the same time, our laws governing it should not be based on Christianity. I would just abolish marriage altogether. And forget all this religious foolishness and go back to how the law used to handle these things, just one more legal contract that can give any number of rights and privileges to another person(s) over you that you want.

I don't think that in practice the law ever "used to handle" marriage as just a legal contract completely separate from any religious ritual or the church's notion of who could marry whom (the history of incest laws in Europe are an interesting subject, as the degree of consanguinity prohibited varied immensely over time, largely in response to economic factors).

In an ideal world I agree with you, but in practice it would be much more difficult to achieve. There are so many laws that are tied to marriage and would have to be rewritten. And if you're not careful you're going to end up giving corporations the right to get married, and I bet they'd find ways to exploit that loophole. (Maybe I could set up a company, SnarkyCorp., which I could then marry in order to claim all the tax deductions and benefits available to married couples.)

But it is no more denied as a sin than any other thing. Like making interest on your money, or eating a bacon burger (mixing different animals in a single meal), being rich, or sex outside of marriage (or at all).

Like blended fabrics, eating bacon burgers falls under Mosaic law that Christians consider to only apply to Jews. Christian thought doesn't traditionally hold that being rich is sinful in itself (as long as it doesn't interfere with piety and humility), but that charity is good, and that the poor have a better chance of being blessed.

And are there a lot of conservative Christians who condemn homosexuality but are pro-extramarital sex?

Charging interest (usury) is a good example, though. The scriptural case against it is probably about as good as that against homosexuality (not watertight, but pretty solid), and Christian tradition held it to be sinful from the earliest days and for some 1500 years, but you don't see a lot of Christians denouncing interest loans on principle these days.

Edit: Reading up on and thinking about the definition of usury made me wonder if it would apply to certain types of e-commerce, like e-books, games or software that you're not technically buying, but just "licensing." Perhaps even to in-app purchases in general. Maybe there could be a campaign against IP overreach based on the idea that it's a sin?

[Khris]

Ryan, I don't "think" that I am a less moral person without my faith - I am stating that every time I have stopped actively practicing my faith, my life and my morality has degraded. It is a matter of historical fact that for me, personally, I am a less moral person without my religious faith.

I'm still baffled how this argument is used by people of faith to justify it. You're basically falling for Pascal's wager and don't even realize it.
See, whenever I do something good, I'm doing it because I want to. But what you're saying boils down to "as long as I'm afraid of hell, I'll behave better".
And you still think you have the better morals?
It also suspiciously sounds like "tbh, I don't really believe all this stuff, but I want to, since my life is going to degrade otherwise, so I'll keep pretending" (I don't use the word "pretending" to be insulting, only because one can't choose whether or not to believe something).

But since you pretty much rowed back on half of what you said earlier, let's leave it at that.

[dactylopus]

There are so many laws that are tied to marriage and would have to be rewritten. And if you're not careful you're going to end up giving corporations the right to get married, and I bet they'd find ways to exploit that loophole. (Maybe I could set up a company, SnarkyCorp., which I could then marry in order to claim all the tax deductions and benefits available to married couples.)

We really have to get around to deciding that corporations are not people, but that's a completely different topic.

I'd like to apologize for being so blunt with my opinion.  Yes, I think opposing gay marriage makes you an asshole, but I also think that calling someone an asshole makes you a bit of an asshole.  So that makes me something of an asshole myself, but let me tell you, there are worse things to be called than asshole.

[miguel]

If you don't want to read the opinion of a Catholic person just skip ahead. I also write the F word on the following sentences.

Spoiler

As a Catholic I find this debate very amusing. Religion haters are amusing, Religion tolerants as well.

[close]

Spoiler

Catholics that choose to be do spend many time thinking about what we are, after all, and sometimes against all odds, following.

[close]

Spoiler

The Vatican position on homosexuality is clear and like so many times before, far from modern societies needs.

[close]

Spoiler

The Vatican primary position on what's really important is the Life of Christ. The most important lesson Jesus taught us was that life is fucking hard to start with. It's no fun to be born poor but it doesn't mean you'll be a nobody for the rest of your life. If you're smart, a fucking army will fear you and if you got the charisma you can have a nation behind you. It also taught us that being a wise guy may get you killed. You can't win them all.

[close]

Spoiler

If this wasn't enough, Jesus traded his life for his father forgiveness of all our sins.

[close]

Spoiler

Think about it, guys. He could have asked for anything because his father is God, after all. But, no. Because he knew what human nature is.

[close]

I know this sounds pretty simplistic but I believe that the more you use fancy and sophisticated terms the more you loose track of what is important.
Being a Catholic is understanding the needs of others. And the only radical behaviour is against the ones that put down people for race, creed, sexual orientation and anything that is their human right to be or choose.

And no, we don't follow the Bible like a set of rules. We respect the Bible and I personally love the Bible. Some texts even feel holy to me. But I can separate things the same way I can read LOTR and extract a message.
Another thing, Catholics are regular guys with the same passions and frustrations of others. We really just want to be happy. Just like gay couples, I guess.