Questions about bigotry.

[NotNow]

What is your point in this 'marriage is a religious ceremony' nonsense?

Before you came along or the first (communist) christians were getting tossed to lions in rome, male to male marriages were blessed by Zeus and Apollo.  Same sex marriages are celebrated in multiple religions and cultures.

For that matter, Caligula was religiously married to his horse.  And lets not forget the story of the Minotaur.

What on earth does your religious observation have to do with marriage in american culture or law?

Do you think that people who do not share the same religious faith should also be unable to get married and instead get 'civil unions'?

People of differing faiths get married in one church or the other, or both.  If you want to be blessed by Zeus or Apollo, or marry your horse, just find a church (or start one) and do it.  

I really don't see how we have gotten twelve pages of controversy out of this (other than the usual bickering nonsense).  Marriage is for churches.  Join any church you want or start your own.  Get government out of favoring ANY relationship or type of household.  Everyone, single, gay, black, white, even SERB, should be taxed equally and be equal under the law.  

Most of you have made it clear that you are atheist at least to a great degree.  My question back to you, Chris, is what do you care what a church says?  You already think it's all BS, yet you want to quote chapter and verse.  Why?  The majority in this country favors civil unions (I don't), and that could be easily passed into law.  Why hasn't it?  Because the homosexual political institutions want religious marriage?  And thus an argument over what almost to a man you all say is "magic" and "superstition".  Why are you so fixated on a belief that you do not share?

Single people suffer the same legal penalties as homosexuals.  So do polygamist.  So does anyone other than traditional heterosexual couples.  My understanding is that traditional family life is subsidized and encouraged by the state to ensure tranquility and children.  If we are choosing to leave that model then let's not pick and choose, but leave it fairly.

We have done away with many of the Biblical laws in civil life such as observance of the Sabbath.  News:  homosexuality and sodomy is no longer against the law (at least not enforced in any state I know of).  That is the right thing to do if we are to have a secular government.  

What do you want?  Do you want the Catholic church and other established religions to be forced to marry same sex couples by the force of law?  Is the agenda to force homosexuality into our institutions as we have seen with law suits against the Boy Scouts and such?  That is what you appear to be arguing for.  I am against that.

[ChriswUfGator]

What is your point in this 'marriage is a religious ceremony' nonsense?

Before you came along or the first (communist) christians were getting tossed to lions in rome, male to male marriages were blessed by Zeus and Apollo.  Same sex marriages are celebrated in multiple religions and cultures.

For that matter, Caligula was religiously married to his horse.  And lets not forget the story of the Minotaur.

What on earth does your religious observation have to do with marriage in american culture or law?

Do you think that people who do not share the same religious faith should also be unable to get married and instead get 'civil unions'?

People of differing faiths get married in one church or the other, or both.  If you want to be blessed by Zeus or Apollo, or marry your horse, just find a church (or start one) and do it.  

I really don't see how we have gotten twelve pages of controversy out of this (other than the usual bickering nonsense).  Marriage is for churches.  Join any church you want or start your own.  Get government out of favoring ANY relationship or type of household.  Everyone, single, gay, black, white, even SERB, should be taxed equally and be equal under the law.  

Most of you have made it clear that you are atheist at least to a great degree.  My question back to you, Chris, is what do you care what a church says?  You already think it's all BS, yet you want to quote chapter and verse.  Why?  The majority in this country favors civil unions (I don't), and that could be easily passed into law.  Why hasn't it?  Because the homosexual political institutions want religious marriage?  And thus an argument over what almost to a man you all say is "magic" and "superstition".  Why are you so fixated on a belief that you do not share?

Single people suffer the same legal penalties as homosexuals.  So do polygamist.  So does anyone other than traditional heterosexual couples.  My understanding is that traditional family life is subsidized and encouraged by the state to ensure tranquility and children.  If we are choosing to leave that model then let's not pick and choose, but leave it fairly.

We have done away with many of the Biblical laws in civil life such as observance of the Sabbath.  News:  homosexuality and sodomy is no longer against the law (at least not enforced in any state I know of).  That is the right thing to do if we are to have a secular government.  

What do you want?  Do you want the Catholic church and other established religions to be forced to marry same sex couples by the force of law?  Is the agenda to force homosexuality into our institutions as we have seen with law suits against the Boy Scouts and such?  That is what you appear to be arguing for.  I am against that.

What do I want?

The same rights everyone else has. Nothing more, nothing less. That is the point of equal rights, isn't it?

Civil unions are an exercise in "separate but equal" and therein lies my problem with those. Give me an apple but make me call it an orange as a way to signal some "different" status, and I'm supposed to be happy with that? What was so bad about the back of the bus, then anyway? Didn't it get you to the same place?

You're missing the point on that one.

[NotNow]

Hey, one more, for all of you defending this, are you married? Are you female and do you sing in church? Does your wife?

Sin sin sin...

It is stupid to keep up this kind of crap.  We can dip into all kinds of silly detail if you want.  The title of this thread is not about religion, but a great deal of the conversation has been about it.  Bigotry?  I am not yet convinced.  Hatred and vileness?  I am seeing my share here.

[ChriswUfGator]

Oh and one more thing, I really don't care what goes on in your church, or the boy scounts for that matter.

This has never been about trying to force private groups to do anything. My sole and singular issue is that religious groups see fit to continue urging the government to deny legal rights to others based on nothing but their own religious beliefs. Nobody is trying to make your church perform gay weddings, this discussion has never been about that, and never will. You're just obfuscating the point here.

The point is the wrongful denial of legal rights to a minority based on the religious/moral judgments of another group. Usually using the same BS arguments that have been leveled at various minorities since the dawn of time. It's wrong, period. I am out not to make your church perform gay weddings, why would you care whether gay people get married somewhere else? You're complaining about overreaching, when really it's the religious right doing the overreaching, and nobody else.

[NotNow]

you really cannot hear yourself can you.

Debate is easier when you point out what you disagree with.  Or you could just call me stupid, bigoted, and stuff like that.

[ChriswUfGator]

Hey, one more, for all of you defending this, are you married? Are you female and do you sing in church? Does your wife?

Sin sin sin...

It is stupid to keep up this kind of crap.  We can dip into all kinds of silly detail if you want.  The title of this thread is not about religion, but a great deal of the conversation has been about it.  Bigotry?  I am not yet convinced.  Hatred and vileness?  I am seeing my share here.

Actually it's not. According to the same book you're thumping, those are all sins...

Seems you have no problem with pointing out how ridiculous taking a word-by-word literal interpretation of the bible and applying it to modern life is, when it comes to all the stuff you do. Why single out language allegedly regarding homosexuality as requiring special literal treatment, if that's the case, then hell, all of these items should be treated literally. Where do you get slaves nowadays?

[NotNow]

What is your point in this 'marriage is a religious ceremony' nonsense?

Before you came along or the first (communist) christians were getting tossed to lions in rome, male to male marriages were blessed by Zeus and Apollo.  Same sex marriages are celebrated in multiple religions and cultures.

For that matter, Caligula was religiously married to his horse.  And lets not forget the story of the Minotaur.

What on earth does your religious observation have to do with marriage in american culture or law?

Do you think that people who do not share the same religious faith should also be unable to get married and instead get 'civil unions'?

People of differing faiths get married in one church or the other, or both.  If you want to be blessed by Zeus or Apollo, or marry your horse, just find a church (or start one) and do it.  

I really don't see how we have gotten twelve pages of controversy out of this (other than the usual bickering nonsense).  Marriage is for churches.  Join any church you want or start your own.  Get government out of favoring ANY relationship or type of household.  Everyone, single, gay, black, white, even SERB, should be taxed equally and be equal under the law.  

Most of you have made it clear that you are atheist at least to a great degree.  My question back to you, Chris, is what do you care what a church says?  You already think it's all BS, yet you want to quote chapter and verse.  Why?  The majority in this country favors civil unions (I don't), and that could be easily passed into law.  Why hasn't it?  Because the homosexual political institutions want religious marriage?  And thus an argument over what almost to a man you all say is "magic" and "superstition".  Why are you so fixated on a belief that you do not share?

Single people suffer the same legal penalties as homosexuals.  So do polygamist.  So does anyone other than traditional heterosexual couples.  My understanding is that traditional family life is subsidized and encouraged by the state to ensure tranquility and children.  If we are choosing to leave that model then let's not pick and choose, but leave it fairly.

We have done away with many of the Biblical laws in civil life such as observance of the Sabbath.  News:  homosexuality and sodomy is no longer against the law (at least not enforced in any state I know of).  That is the right thing to do if we are to have a secular government.  

What do you want?  Do you want the Catholic church and other established religions to be forced to marry same sex couples by the force of law?  Is the agenda to force homosexuality into our institutions as we have seen with law suits against the Boy Scouts and such?  That is what you appear to be arguing for.  I am against that.

What do I want?

The same rights everyone else has. Nothing more, nothing less. That is the point of equal rights, isn't it?

Civil unions are an exercise in "separate but equal" and therein lies my problem with those. Give me an apple but make me call it an orange as a way to signal some "different" status, and I'm supposed to be happy with that? What was so bad about the back of the bus, then anyway? Didn't it get you to the same place?

You're missing the point on that one.

I think you missed my point.  I am not in favor of civil unions.  I would prefer the government not give preferential treatment to anyone for any reason.  

If you do not agree with that, does that make you a bigot?

[ChriswUfGator]

What is your point in this 'marriage is a religious ceremony' nonsense?

Before you came along or the first (communist) christians were getting tossed to lions in rome, male to male marriages were blessed by Zeus and Apollo.  Same sex marriages are celebrated in multiple religions and cultures.

For that matter, Caligula was religiously married to his horse.  And lets not forget the story of the Minotaur.

What on earth does your religious observation have to do with marriage in american culture or law?

Do you think that people who do not share the same religious faith should also be unable to get married and instead get 'civil unions'?

People of differing faiths get married in one church or the other, or both.  If you want to be blessed by Zeus or Apollo, or marry your horse, just find a church (or start one) and do it. 

I really don't see how we have gotten twelve pages of controversy out of this (other than the usual bickering nonsense).  Marriage is for churches.  Join any church you want or start your own.  Get government out of favoring ANY relationship or type of household.  Everyone, single, gay, black, white, even SERB, should be taxed equally and be equal under the law.   

Most of you have made it clear that you are atheist at least to a great degree.  My question back to you, Chris, is what do you care what a church says?  You already think it's all BS, yet you want to quote chapter and verse.  Why?  The majority in this country favors civil unions (I don't), and that could be easily passed into law.  Why hasn't it?  Because the homosexual political institutions want religious marriage?  And thus an argument over what almost to a man you all say is "magic" and "superstition".  Why are you so fixated on a belief that you do not share?

Single people suffer the same legal penalties as homosexuals.  So do polygamist.  So does anyone other than traditional heterosexual couples.  My understanding is that traditional family life is subsidized and encouraged by the state to ensure tranquility and children.  If we are choosing to leave that model then let's not pick and choose, but leave it fairly.

We have done away with many of the Biblical laws in civil life such as observance of the Sabbath.  News:  homosexuality and sodomy is no longer against the law (at least not enforced in any state I know of).  That is the right thing to do if we are to have a secular government. 

What do you want?  Do you want the Catholic church and other established religions to be forced to marry same sex couples by the force of law?  Is the agenda to force homosexuality into our institutions as we have seen with law suits against the Boy Scouts and such?  That is what you appear to be arguing for.  I am against that.

What do I want?

The same rights everyone else has. Nothing more, nothing less. That is the point of equal rights, isn't it?

Civil unions are an exercise in "separate but equal" and therein lies my problem with those. Give me an apple but make me call it an orange as a way to signal some "different" status, and I'm supposed to be happy with that? What was so bad about the back of the bus, then anyway? Didn't it get you to the same place?

You're missing the point on that one.

I think you missed my point.  I am not in favor of civil unions.  I would prefer the government not give preferential treatment to anyone for any reason. 

If you do not agree with that, does that make you a bigot?

If that were truly your belief, then why are we on page 12 of this thread?

FWIW, your "not in MY church" thing is preposterous. Churches have always had free reign to determine who they will and will not marry, and will continue to have that freedom, as they should. A lot of divorced Catholics have a serious issue when their own church refuses to re-marry them, that issue affects lots of people, it's not singling one group out as legally inferior to another.

The real issue here is why enact all these laws denying legal rights and status to one group based on the religious convictions of another group? Are you for or against actual equality, e.g., whoever is dumb enough to actually get married can do so? Or is it this "one man one woman" B.S.? What exactly do you and do you not support?

[NotNow]

Oh and one more thing, I really don't care what goes on in your church, or the boy scounts for that matter.

This has never been about trying to force private groups to do anything. My sole and singular issue is that religious groups see fit to continue urging the government to deny legal rights to others based on nothing but their own religious beliefs. Nobody is trying to make your church perform gay weddings, this discussion has never been about that, and never will. You're just obfuscating the point here.

The point is the wrongful denial of legal rights to a minority based on the religious/moral judgments of another group. Usually using the same BS arguments that have been leveled at various minorities since the dawn of time. It's wrong, period. I am out not to make your church perform gay weddings, why would you care whether gay people get married somewhere else? You're complaining about overreaching, when really it's the religious right doing the overreaching, and nobody else.

I have been arguing AGAINST any group, religious, government, or otherwise denying ANYONE the right to get married.  I think that I have been very clear on that point for many pages now.

I do not care if gays get married somewhere else or next door.  I have been very clear on that point as well.  

Our difference seems to be, you want traditional marriage and the legal preferences currently provided to hetero couples only, while I want no government or lawful preferences base on househole or marital status.  

If a person is a bigot for denying a homosexual human rights, how are you not a bigot for not allowing others to live as they please without legal discrimination?

[NotNow]

Geez! Go back through the thread.  I have been saying the same thing now for twelve freaking pages.  

The issue started on page one.  My first reply to you included my wish for government to get out of the marriage business.  The problem appears to be my defense of those who wish to worship in their own way, and my belief that if they want to oppose homosexuality, they have that right.  Yet I have made it clear in page after page that ANY church should be able to marry anyone they want to, or condone those living frameworks that they wish to. (Excluding the exploitation of children, mentally infirm, elderly, or animals.)  And that the government and our laws should take no interest in, nor favor any such relationship or household.

[ChriswUfGator]

Oh and one more thing, I really don't care what goes on in your church, or the boy scounts for that matter.

This has never been about trying to force private groups to do anything. My sole and singular issue is that religious groups see fit to continue urging the government to deny legal rights to others based on nothing but their own religious beliefs. Nobody is trying to make your church perform gay weddings, this discussion has never been about that, and never will. You're just obfuscating the point here.

The point is the wrongful denial of legal rights to a minority based on the religious/moral judgments of another group. Usually using the same BS arguments that have been leveled at various minorities since the dawn of time. It's wrong, period. I am out not to make your church perform gay weddings, why would you care whether gay people get married somewhere else? You're complaining about overreaching, when really it's the religious right doing the overreaching, and nobody else.

I have been arguing AGAINST any group, religious, government, or otherwise denying ANYONE the right to get married.  I think that I have been very clear on that point for many pages now.

I do not care if gays get married somewhere else or next door.  I have been very clear on that point as well. 

Our difference seems to be, you want traditional marriage and the legal preferences currently provided to hetero couples only, while I want no government or lawful preferences base on househole or marital status. 

If a person is a bigot for denying a homosexual human rights, how are you not a bigot for not allowing others to live as they please without legal discrimination?

Well now that's interesting, isn't it? Are you actually forgetting we can just go back and quote your previous posts? This isn't like a verbal argument where you can backpedal and get away with it, what you wrote over the last 12 pages is all right there in black and white. Or are you just forgetting what you've written altogether?

As far as gay marriage, I don't agree that opposing gay marriage conclusively makes anyone a bigot. 

The issue is one of morals

Marriage is a religious institution and should remain so.

[ChriswUfGator]

I also stated my personal belief that "marriage" is a religious ceremony that should be handled in ones own church.

I also stated that people have a right to their personal religious beliefs.  As long as they live within our laws.

"Marriage" is a religious ceremony and should be the responsibility of the church. 

[ChriswUfGator]

Marriage conveys legal rights, you can't just hand it over to the church, that would be grossly unconstitutional. Worse, you'll have churches refusing to grant divorces, etc., etc., and refusing to recognize cermonies, divorces, whatever, from other churches. It would be an absolute disaster, and you can't have churches issuing legal decrees in this country, that isn't constitutional either. Your entire argument is somewhat delusional, it couldn't happen.

Realistically, the state will always be involved in it somehow, and that being the case, I think it should be equal for everyone. This isn't some "what if" parallel universe, reality is reality, and the system is what it is. What it could be is irrelevant, the bottom line is that whatever it is, I don't feel it right to discriminate against one group based on the religious beliefs of another. And that is indeed what is presently occurring.

[NotNow]

And I stand by the statements quoted by you and StephenDare!.  I believe that devoutly religious persons CAN object to gay marriage, as can their church.  I do not think that makes them "conclusively a bigot."  

I do believe that it is an issue of morals.  How can you not say that your moral code is different from a religiously devout person who opposes homosexuality.  To deny that makes no sense.

I also believe that marriage IS a religious institution.  Much like other civil laws that we discussed earlier, such as keeping the Sabbath, government should be separated from such institutions.  Civil law has traditionally included reference to religious rules, institutions, and traditions.  And in many cases they will run along parallel lines, such as "homicide" and "thou shalt not kill".  But if we are to have a secular government, we must justify each civil law utilizing only it's need in our society and it's fairness in application.  

There is no need for our laws or government to even address marriage.  By its very nature, to favor any coupling or other alliance of individuals is not fair to those who prefer to negotiate life without such things.

 Oh, and I can't tell you how great it is that you called me a Bible thumper.  If only I could send that to my family!  They would all be on the floor laughing.  

[ChriswUfGator]

I really doubt that societal enactment of prohibitions on murder had anything to do with the bible, don't you think that's kind of a stretch? I mean, doesn't a basic tenet of an orderly society require that you can't go around killing whoever you want?