By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Are Christian American Extremist the reason it took Same sex marriage so long to be legalized in the U.S?

happydolphin on 22 July 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:
nuckles87 said:
It's not "the Christians". It was cultural. The culture is just changing.


Its not just the Christians. If all religious types shut their mouths things will be fine. I fear for gays in the middle east with Muslims just like I fear for a woman who wants to have rights. The religous are backwards in thought. The only thing forcing Christians forward is culture aided by education with arts and sciences. Christians are adapting themselves to the culture showing they are willing to skew their belief in order to live with the times. Look at the TV channels. They will do anything to stay in power even though cultural movement is pushing forward regardless of their two thousand+ year old beliefs. We're moving pretty fast in education, military & science for a world thats only been around five-six thousand years, don't you think?


THIS!!!

fyi, there is no such thing as religious hate.



Around the Network
Anfebious on 22 July 2013
happydolphin said:
Anfebious said:

Wow man you have a lot of hate in your heart. Calm down man! Also religious people do charity work in my country and they actually make good things for poor people. But you probably wouldn't understand as you are ignorant :/. Come live in my country for a couple of days and see for yourself. Stop being so close minded and open your heart

I want to open my heart. It's a shock to me that Christians do good things, even the fundamentalists. I was sure all they did was hold up signs in protest :S

I'm not an ignorant, I'm an ingorant, it's not the same thing.

Yep they are not the same thing one is a word that is in the dictionary the other one isn't . 

Anyway you sound very close minded :/. If it makes you happy thinking Christians are bad keep doing that, your choice



"I've Underestimated the Horse Power from Mario Kart 8, I'll Never Doubt the WiiU's Engine Again"

Anfebious on 22 July 2013
happydolphin said:

I want to open my heart. It's a shock to me that Christians do good things, even the fundamentalists. I was sure all they did was hold up signs in protest :S

I'm not an ignorant, I'm an ingorant, it's not the same thing.

And don't tell me to open my heart, that's gay. l0l

Oh dudes it was fun to mess around with you.

That is not gay D: 

Oh, you where messing with us... I hope that is the case XD



"I've Underestimated the Horse Power from Mario Kart 8, I'll Never Doubt the WiiU's Engine Again"

Kasz216 on 22 July 2013
ArnoldRimmer said:
BTW, can anyone who knows gay people who have already married or are considering to do so tell me what their actual motives for marrying are? Because I wonder if it's mainly for rational/economic reasons, or rather because they like the archaic, nowadays often kitschy ritual?


I mean, i'm not gay... but if I couldn't get married i'd be upset... for neither of those reasons.  Really more from the fact that it's a traditional/legal manuever it more or less makes it more "Serious."

 

Getting married, at least in theory.  Is a step further then just being together a long time and gives you more or a sense of security/commitment.

 

It's the same reason why so few people have open sexual relationships, even though sex in of itself is really quite meaningless.  Relaionships are built on love... AND security.

Marriage and monogmous sex don't have any particular reasons or meaning to be special, but because we've put socital norms on them... they are special.

 

 

As for all the people trashing religion... if you look into the various sciencentific studies (which i'd hope you would if you weren't relgiious) you'd see how religions generally tend to have net benefits for society and generally more "self starter" active in terms of chairty.


Jonathan Haidt's moral foundations research is one area too look into for sure.

 

There is still plenty to be learned from religion, even if you want to get rid of it and thinks a lie.  Just in how they motivate others to be happier, healthier and be more generous. (and activly generous.)



Raven722 on 22 July 2013
TheLastStarFighter said:
Raven722 said:
Cobretti2 said:
Raven722 said:

I'm not missing the point at all. My point is that your point is absurd. It's not simply about how the term is used. It's an extension of the bigotry that Christians show others. It doesn't begin and end with homosexuals and marriage. They should not be awarded anything. Marriage is NOT a religious concept or term. It did not begin as, nor is it, THEIR sacred institution. Christians want you to think that it is. The only reason to call it anything other than marriage is because religious bigots can't stand the idea that they are not, in some way, denying people something if those people don't follow the rules that these Christians have chosen for themselves. They want a term and concept which predates their religion to be legally recognized as a Christian idea. If they don't like it then THEY can be the ones who choose a new term. Not force everyone else to accept the term as theirs when it never was to begin with. Besides, this is ultimately about striking down homosexuality. They don't bother trying to protest non-religious straight marriages which should be considered just as blasphemous to them if they think what they're trying to uphold is some kind of Christian born value or idea that only Christians should be allowed to engage in. This is much less about the ownership of a term and much more about trying to shaft a particular group of people that Christians don't like with every chance they try to give themselves.

Nice to see a reply that totally dismisses what these people believe in order to please another group.

Yes marriage may not have started out as a relgious term but they took it up many years ago to signify a sacret bond between man and woman when msot athiasts couldn't give a fuck about marriage. Same could be said for white people who invaded america and took the land from the Indians. I don't see Americans handing over their land back just because it wasn't theirs to begin with.

Also you are asking people to change their ways of thinking that has been in place for centuries. After all same could be said about people and guns in America. Where I live guns are stupid and pointless yet in America it is part of the culture. Look at all the uproar Obama had when he wanted to change a guns policy. 

So why is it so hard for people to compramise and accept everyone has different beliefs? Like what is the main goal of getting the term marriage for gay people apart from pissing other people off?

Because marriage doesn't belong to Christianity, period. Many other religions and theological stances have been using the term and concept for ages. Before Christianity ever came to be. Should we now tell them they can't use it, not even just in the US but around the world, because Christians cried about it? Don't even talk to me about compromise when many of these Christians want nothing of the sort. The whole point of calling it something different is to deny the idea in some way, shape, or form to the gay community for being able to be considered married. So that's no better than what you're suggesting because they had no problem with it really when it was non-Christian straight couples. They even want to deny them the same kind of benefits that you get for being able to say you're married. There are significant differences between a piece of land where people live and an ideal and you know that. Having people change their ways of thinking that has been in place for centuries? How terrible. Because surely Christians have never been guilty of such a thing nor do they continue to be, right? I suppose we should have been more careful about slavery and women's rights because that was asking people to change their centuries-old ways of thinking. 

Your bigotry and steriotyping toward Christians is awful and closed-minded.


You're an idiot who can't read nor comprehend. First of all, I said "many Christians" and just because I pluralize something does not mean "all". People often don't feel like putting out a disclaimer every time they make a statement just so people like you don't get their little panties in a twist. I don't need to go far at all to show you where "many Christians" are acting like morons over this whole thing and even going as far as to try to outlaw it. Also, calling someone a bigot in defense of an institution that is well documented as one of the largest enablers of bigotry in human history is more like a comedy routine than anything someone should take seriously. The funny part is, nothing I said was untrue. So really, all you did was try to defend something with nothing more than name calling. Not surprising, honestly.



Around the Network
TheLastStarFighter on 22 July 2013
Raven722 said:
Adinnieken said:
Aielyn said:
Cobretti2 said:
well same sex marriage still hasn't past in Aus. The main reason being is that religious groups don't want the word marriage used. SO I guess you are right to some degree.

To me this issue has gone on too long fucking come up with a new word and let both groups be happy.

I've been saying for years that we should just call it "Civil Unions"... and use that word for ALL instances of legally-recognised unions. Replace all instances of "marriage" in all of our laws with "civil union", etc. Let the religions have "marriage", make "civil union" the secular term.

Hopefully, if Rudd can't convince the religious people who take issue with the use of the word "marriage" to accept same sex marriage, then hopefully he'll take this approach, and destroy that argument.

Mind you, the groups saying "calling it marriage means you're changing the definition, and we don't like that!" won't accept civil unions for all, either - their issue has always been recognition of homosexuality, as it is seen as "sinful". The "changing the definition" argument is just spin, so that rather than preventing gay marriage being "religion imposing itself on government", it becomes "government imposing itself on religion" by changing the definition. With the term changed, all that changes is the ability of religious people to spin it.

100% agree with this.  Let marriage be a religious term for a civil union conducted by clergy.  

First, the term and concept of marriage is not exclusive to Christianity and was around long before it. So they don't own any rights to it nor should they be awarded such a thing. Then you also have to consider that being an atheist or of any religion besides Christianity is a sin as well. So are you going to start telling everyone in the nation that is not Christian that they cannot refer to it as being 'married'? Why not? You would have already prevented homosexuals from doing it. Why not go further and make sure those other heathens can't do it, too? It's ridiculous. It's just a compromise to help make Christian Americans feel like they're even more special in this world than they already believe they are and make it feel like they didn't really lose the argument.

You aren't saying "Many Christians", you are saying Christians.  And yes, you are being bigotted.  And yes, it's wrong to be a bigot toward a group no matter what members of that group have done in the past 2000 years.  Especially since it's a rather diverse group with no set leader.



Raven722 on 22 July 2013
TheLastStarFighter said:
Raven722 said:
Adinnieken said:
Aielyn said:
Cobretti2 said:
well same sex marriage still hasn't past in Aus. The main reason being is that religious groups don't want the word marriage used. SO I guess you are right to some degree.

To me this issue has gone on too long fucking come up with a new word and let both groups be happy.

I've been saying for years that we should just call it "Civil Unions"... and use that word for ALL instances of legally-recognised unions. Replace all instances of "marriage" in all of our laws with "civil union", etc. Let the religions have "marriage", make "civil union" the secular term.

Hopefully, if Rudd can't convince the religious people who take issue with the use of the word "marriage" to accept same sex marriage, then hopefully he'll take this approach, and destroy that argument.

Mind you, the groups saying "calling it marriage means you're changing the definition, and we don't like that!" won't accept civil unions for all, either - their issue has always been recognition of homosexuality, as it is seen as "sinful". The "changing the definition" argument is just spin, so that rather than preventing gay marriage being "religion imposing itself on government", it becomes "government imposing itself on religion" by changing the definition. With the term changed, all that changes is the ability of religious people to spin it.

100% agree with this.  Let marriage be a religious term for a civil union conducted by clergy.  

First, the term and concept of marriage is not exclusive to Christianity and was around long before it. So they don't own any rights to it nor should they be awarded such a thing. Then you also have to consider that being an atheist or of any religion besides Christianity is a sin as well. So are you going to start telling everyone in the nation that is not Christian that they cannot refer to it as being 'married'? Why not? You would have already prevented homosexuals from doing it. Why not go further and make sure those other heathens can't do it, too? It's ridiculous. It's just a compromise to help make Christian Americans feel like they're even more special in this world than they already believe they are and make it feel like they didn't really lose the argument.

You aren't saying "Many Christians", you are saying Christians.  And yes, you are being bigotted.  And yes, it's wrong to be a bigot toward a group no matter what members of that group have done in the past 2000 years.  Especially since it's a rather diverse group with no set leader.


Yeah, nice of you to leave out one of my replies where I did, in fact, say "many Christians". No, I was not lumping all of them together. You can think that all you want but I have friends and family who are Christian and don't get involved in the same stupidity as so many of them do. They alone are proof enough to me that not all Christians are like that. Again, I am not going disclaim every use of the word "Christians". If you can't handle that then you should probably give up on life because there are much more difficult things to grasp. Pointing out the bigotry of others and not abiding by it is now considered bigotry as well? Wow. People like you are really reaching these days to play the victim, huh? "You must tolerate intolerance or you're intolerant yourself!". Yeah, no.



theprof00 on 22 July 2013
Cobretti2 said:
well same sex marriage still hasn't past in Aus. The main reason being is that religious groups don't want the word marriage used. SO I guess you are right to some degree.

To me this issue has gone on too long fucking come up with a new word and let both groups be happy.

Well, we tried to pass marriage-benefits for domestic partnerships that don't use the word marriage, and that got shot down too. In the end, it's just discrimination. Either they all have benefits, or nobody does. Doesn't matter what the word is. All gays want is to be treated the same.



TheLastStarFighter on 22 July 2013
Raven722 said:


Yeah, nice of you to leave out one of my replies where I did, in fact, say "many Christians". No, I was not lumping all of them together. You can think that all you want but I have friends and family who are Christian and don't get involved in the same stupidity as so many of them do. They alone are proof enough to me that not all Christians are like that. Again, I am not going disclaim every use of the word "Christians". If you can't handle that then you should probably give up on life because there are much more difficult things to grasp. Pointing out the bigotry of others and not abiding by it is now considered bigotry as well? Wow. People like you are really reaching these days to play the victim, huh? "You must tolerate intolerance or you're intolerant yourself!". Yeah, no.

I'm not playing the victim.  I don't feel myself to be a victim.  It has nothing to do with tolerating intolerance.  You are stereotyping a group, and such you are being a bigot.  Your views are clear.  I don't take offence to what you say, as it's clear you are blinded by hate.



Raven722 on 22 July 2013
TheLastStarFighter said:
Raven722 said:


Yeah, nice of you to leave out one of my replies where I did, in fact, say "many Christians". No, I was not lumping all of them together. You can think that all you want but I have friends and family who are Christian and don't get involved in the same stupidity as so many of them do. They alone are proof enough to me that not all Christians are like that. Again, I am not going disclaim every use of the word "Christians". If you can't handle that then you should probably give up on life because there are much more difficult things to grasp. Pointing out the bigotry of others and not abiding by it is now considered bigotry as well? Wow. People like you are really reaching these days to play the victim, huh? "You must tolerate intolerance or you're intolerant yourself!". Yeah, no.

I'm not playing the victim.  I don't feel myself to be a victim.  It has nothing to do with tolerating intolerance.  You are stereotyping a group, and such you are being a bigot.  Your views are clear.  I don't take offence to what you say, as it's clear you are blinded by hate.


Even though I just told you that I am well aware that not all Christians behave like the ones who are screaming out against gay marriage and want it outlawed, and even when it's clear there are a great many who do just that, you still insist I am stereotyping. Which means you don't actually give a damn about how I see Christians. Basically, this is an ad hominem now. Shoot the messenger so he can't deliver the message. It's the second lowest form of argumentation just above pure name calling. You have really added nothing to the topic. You have made no attempt to argue any of my points about the topic we are posting in. All you have essentially done is to say, "you're a big meanie!". When people resort to ad hominem it's because they really don't have anything else to work with. Since I have made it clear that I don't see all Christians the way you think I do and since you have neglected that clarification and insist on your accusation still, I'm going to just assume this was a pathetic attempt on your part to discredit anything I had to say on the matter. Good day, sir.