Obama Gambles On Gay Marriage

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

Just because I strive to understand the position of people who stand opposed to my views, doesn't mean I am somehow less firm in my position. In many cases it is homophobia, in many others it is simply ignorance, and still others fear of change. There are multiple reasons to be against it just as their are to be for it. Is everyone that supports gay marriage gay? Certainly not. It's a silly conclusion just like the one where you must be a homophobic bigot to be opposed to it.

I would agree that you don't have to be a homophobe or a bigot to oppose gay marriage. You could also be religious, or ignorant.

I'm not sure there are many positive qualities that would make a person oppose it, however.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

I would agree that you don't have to be a homophobe or a bigot to oppose gay marriage. You could also be religious, or ignorant.

I'm not sure there are many positive qualities that would make a person oppose it, however.

The problem with the religious standpoint is that their religious evidence is cherry picked out of many passages. Most of which are ignored through varying interpretations. This invariably leads to a defenseless bigotry which most religious people have figured out. It's one of the reasons why every Christian I know of eats pork even though it's listed as an "abomination" in the Bible. Or they use the defense that Leviticus and other passages in the Bible only pertain to the children of Israel which is a kind of complex interpretation. Needless to say the religious defense is more of a weak scapegoat for bigotry. It's akin to saying "I'm not intolerant, God is" with no justification.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

The problem with the religious standpoint is that their religious evidence is cherry picked out of many passages. Most of which are ignored through varying interpretations. This invariably leads to a defenseless bigotry which most religious people have figured out. It's one of the reasons why every Christian I know of eats pork even though it's listed as an "abomination" in the Bible. Or they use the defense that Leviticus and other passages in the Bible only pertain to the children of Israel which is a kind of complex interpretation. Needless to say the religious defense is more of a weak scapegoat for bigotry. It's akin to saying "I'm not intolerant, God is" with no justification.

If you want to have some fun, ask a bible apologist to locate and identify the passages of the bible that outright forbid slavery. When he or she fails (there aren't any), point out all the ones that are for it.

Then ask: are we wrong, or is god wrong? Because there's a disagreement there.

And yes, there are pro-slavery passages in the New Testament so they can't even wriggle out that way. Jesus comes right out in favor of it.

That should provide a lot of leverage at cutting away any credibility the bible has as a moral guidebook.

[Warhound]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

Text.

Incoming info graphic backing this fine gentlemen up. Sorry if this is pointless but just trying to help out.

[Traak]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

The problem with the religious standpoint is that their religious evidence is cherry picked out of many passages

You mean passages that forbid certain things? Yeah, it has to be "cherry picked" because not every single verse in the entire Bible has to do with every single topic in the entire Bible.

So, for instructions on what is righteous sexual conduct, we go to the verses and passages that deal with sexual conduct.

God not wanting people to engage in sin isn't because he's a bigot. It's because he loves people, each, on an individual basis, not just on some holistic bell-curve average. Sin is sin because it is bad for you. Whether anyone else is involved or not. Righteousness is good for a person, a people, and the world as a whole.

God doesn't hate people, and the Bible doesn't teach us to either. In fact, it even decries the concept of disrespecting demons.

I have noticed in reading the Bible that Jesus treated Satan with more respect than most people treat their wives, husbands, or best friends. Just because we, the Christians, don't agree with sin doesn't mean we hate people who are proponents of those sins.

And, the world is full of choices. You can choose to agree with homosexuality, lying, theft, murder, or whatever sin you agree with. And we can continue to condemn sin in its every iteration, while not hating the people who practice it.

But, us not agreeing with you or anyone else on what is right and wrong doesn't make us bigots. But slinging the term "bigot" around for anyone who believes something you don't and is using his legal rights to oppose it, just like you use your legal rights to oppose things you don't like, is being hyprocritical.

"You say that this thing that I like is a sin, therefore you are hateful, a bigot, etc." is not an accurate statement. I am against suicide, and if I could, I would prevent someone from doing it. Me preaching, teaching, or doing what I can to prevent suicide, and to oppose people who may be trying to influence others to kill themselves isn't bigoted. If you are in favor of suicide, you aren't being bigoted by trying to advance the cause of suicide.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Figment

There are actually valid reasons for why close family should not marry and get offspring: it actually has the potential of the effects of inbreeding.

Inbreeding is not always bad genetically, the genetic disorders attributed to it are more hereditary than a complication of genetics. Taken to extreme over several generations though, will lead to a weaker genetic structure.

Originally Posted by Traak

One of the primary differences between God's view of right and wrong, as delineated in the Bible, and man's ever-fluctuating standards is that in God's system, hurting yourself is wrong. God loves us, doesn't want us to harm ourselves, so things that negatively influence you, whether physical, moral, mental, or whatever, are proscribed whether they involve anyone else other than you and God.

Even so, that does not award you the right to govern other people and regulate their sin.

And I know you said not to quote the Bible, but, as you see, I ignored that.

You didn't quote the Bible, you referenced it.

That is why those who love God or don't have differences, because God personally cares for everyone, and the things he has told us to do or not do are not only for the good of others around us, but for our own good individually.

Clarify this.

Do you know why homosexuality is an abomination? Because when the Bible was written, well the time span anyway, population growth was critical to the survival of a people due to disasters and war. Homosexuality is not a new thing and neither is the persecution of it.

There aren't many of man's laws you can break by yourself alone in a room. But there are many things, especially in the New Covenant, that you can do, alone, by yourself, that are sins.

Still has nothing to do with legislating morality.

God told us what the bad stuff was, and to avoid it, and what the good stuff was, and to cling to it. Since he knows everything, he knows what works. I don't bother arguing with him, I just try to do what he says in the Bible.

Free will be damned eh?

The non-deist largely does not hold to the idea that there is any moral significance to stuff that people do together or alone, but there is, according to God.

How would you know?

Originally Posted by Traak

So, for instructions on what is righteous sexual conduct, we go to the verses and passages that deal with sexual conduct.

You never take her from the rear? You're missing out man.

God not wanting people to engage in sin isn't because he's a bigot. It's because he loves people, each, on an individual basis, not just on some holistic bell-curve average.

Love is only love when you love the whole, homosexuality and all.

Sin is sin because it is bad for you. Whether anyone else is involved or not. Righteousness is good for a person, a people, and the world as a whole.

Righteousness, probably the most hostile word in the Christian vocabulary. It was used to persecute, murder, and justify genocide.

The bottom line is that this country was founded to free us from the control of religions. You are free to believe what you want as long as it doesn't harm others.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Yeah, I love that. "What's to stop someone from marrying a turtle? Or Ice Cream?!"

Well, turtles and ice cream don't have legal standing and can't sign marriage licenses. That's a good start, and we can move on from there.

[Figment]

In the strict sense it's indeed an "addition of rights", of course how it is defined by "equal rights" is by marrying not just someone of the opposite sex, which they indeed are capable of legally, but a person they love.



So is one of the things they fear... let's see... something that wouldn't influence one bit, but would still be possible... Hmmm. Polygamy? Group marriage? Commune hippies?

[Figment]

What if they called it gayriage which by law would be the same thing? Technically it wouldn't be marriage, yet it would be.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by Figment

What if they called it gayriage which by law would be the same thing? Technically it wouldn't be marriage, yet it would be.

Separate, but equal?

[Figment]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

Separate, but equal?

Indeed.

[Warborn]

This isn't a gamble. Right-wing conservatives won't vote for Obama because he's black and a Democrat. Him supporting gay rights doesn't make a difference to those people at all. I guess they'll be able to call him a ***-lover on top of "Obongo the Kenyan Muslim Socialist-nazi-communist", but that's about all that'll change. What this will do is help galvanize support for him amongst liberals who may be rather dismayed at how right-wing and conservative his Presidency has otherwise been, and maybe win him some independents.

Either way, there's no gamble here. The bigoted shitheads who think gays being able to marry is a bad thing are not going to vote for Obama one way or the other. This is a move that can only help Obama, and will be yet another empty promise he'll leave unfulfilled after the end of his second term.

[ItsTheSheppy]

The gamble, warborn, will be that it might cause folks who wouldn't normally bother getting out to vote, but who really hate homosexuals, will go out to vote just to vote for Romney. Also, that bigots who normally vote for Democrats will vote republican instead.

The possible profit would be convincing conservatives and moderates who support gay marriage to come out in favor of him over Romney, who they may have otherwise voted for.

I don't really see it having a major impact; it'll probably be zero sum. It's nice to see it in the national conversation. It's a point of shame for our nation, and it's time we all had a talk about it.

[Warborn]

I really have to wonder about that though. The people who are against gay marriage are probably the same people fired up to get Obama out of office anyway, even if it means voting for the Robo-Mormon. I'm not sure Obama pandering to liberals will have much effect on pro-Romney turnout.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Kerry definitely demonstrated that the "At least I'm not that other guy!" strategy is a faulty one.