Same sex marrige opposers: bigots or spirtually devout

[Smeagol]

I just saw a news story where a bill in the Georgia legislature is working its way through that if enacted will legally allow people to refuse to participate in same sex marriage without fear of statutory or civil consequences on freedom on conscious grounds.

The argument most often made by the proponents of same sex marriage is those who oppose it are bigots. The argument most often made by the opponents of same sex marriage is those who oppose it are doing their best to support a Biblical world view and at worse, in their hearts and minds, not be compelled to disobey God themselves by being forced to participate in a practice they consider an offense of God (bake the same sex wedding cake, rent their auditorium out for same sex wedding ceremonies, officiate over same sex weddings, etc.)

What do you think? Are same sex marriage opponents simply trying to obey God or are they bigots?

Georgia Senate passes religious freedom bill - CNNPolitics.com

 

[Sweden]

I just saw a news story where a bill in the Georgia legislature is working its way through that if enacted will legally allow people to refuse to participate in same sex marriage without fear of statutory or civil consequences on freedom on conscious grounds.

The argument most often made by the proponents of same sex marriage is those who oppose it are bigots. The argument most often made by the opponents of same sex marriage is those who oppose it are doing their best to support a Biblical world view and at worse, in their hearts and minds, not be compelled to disobey God themselves by being forced to participate in a practice they consider an offense of God (bake the same sex wedding cake, rent their auditorium out for same sex wedding ceremonies, officiate over same sex weddings, etc.)

What do you think? Are same sex marriage opponents simply trying to obey God or are they bigots?

Georgia Senate passes religious freedom bill - CNNPolitics.com

Or neither. Perhaps they are realists who think that the idea of a man 'marrying' another man is an absurdity. (As I am never knowingly Politically Incorrect I am obliged to add 'or a woman 'marrying' another woman').

 

[Oberon]

It's just a hoax. Homosexuals aren't the least interested in having real marriages or long term relationships, except maybe for a small handful of lesbians. Allowing them to adopt children flies in the face of sanity. The goal is to 'normalize' a mental disorder involving a compulsive sexual fetish.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Wow, two people already beat me to the punch on this one.

Both sharing thoughts succinctly well expressed. I will only add that I am not religious at all yet I, too, think it is not in the long or short term interests of society to go down this path. A Society that intends to be long lasting and remain at the same time sane, does require some dividing lines to be drawn as regards what is and what is not permissible.

 

[Lovebug]

It's just a hoax. Homosexuals aren't the least interested in having real marriages or long term relationships, except maybe for a small handful of lesbians. Allowing them to adopt children flies in the face of sanity. The goal is to 'normalize' a mental disorder involving a compulsive sexual fetish.

People fall in love to all kind of reasons. Who are we to judge who is worth loving? But here is the kicker. Male and female are equipped to procreate. That is a fact of nature. Of course such can be manipulated artificially. also a fact.
"Marriage" has been, traditionally, between a man and a women, as instructed in the bible. Many don't believe in traditions, don't believe biblical teachings, call a union between same gender "marriage". It is a word. Call it a union between consenting, loving adults.
Sin? Yeah, so is shacking up without being married, cheating on the spouse, worshiping money, working on Sundays. Ever thought the guy next door doesn't deserve that nice car he drives? Also a sin...boom.
May those who are without sin throw the first stone...most of 'sinless' only pretend to be in that group, filled with hatred to boot anyways.
We have a choice not to like it. But we are also commanded to love one another, first and foremost.

 

[Lovebug]

Wow, two people already beat me to the punch on this one.

Both sharing thoughts succinctly well expressed. I will only add that I am not religious at all yet I, too, think it is not in the long or short term interests of society to go down this path. A Society that intends to be long lasting and remain at the same time sane, does require some dividing lines to be drawn as regards what is and what is not permissible.

I hate to tell you, society has gone downhill for a long time, and homosexual marriage is not the cause.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I voted other, mainly because it no longer matters.

What does matter is equality, and if the government is going to recognize one union between consenting adults then it should recognize them all. Everything else is using the power of the government in designed avoidance, something else that is going to have consequences.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

I hate to tell you, society has gone downhill for a long time, and homosexual marriage is not the cause.

Of course its not the cause, its just one of the symptoms.

 

[Cameron]

Or neither. Perhaps they are realists who think that the idea of a man 'marrying' another man is an absurdity. (As I am never knowingly Politically Incorrect I am obliged to add 'or a woman 'marrying' another woman').

How does basing a position on just finding the idea absurd make you a "realist"? To me, a realist would recognize that there are, in fact, people who are attracted to members of the same sex, who desire to commit themselves to one such person, and that there isn't much of a reason or benefit to anyone for preventing them from marrying.

Saying "that's just weird" is not realism, it's pretty shallow intellectually, to be honest.

Anyway, the answer to the poll question is both. I don't think having a sincere religious view absolves anyone of being a bigot.

 

[lb_on_teh_cb]

It's just a hoax. Homosexuals aren't the least interested in having real marriages or long term relationships, except maybe for a small handful of lesbians.

not always true.

......I will only add that I am not religious at all yet I, too, think it is not in the long or short term interests of society to go down this path. A Society that intends to be long lasting and remain at the same time sane, does require some dividing lines to be drawn as regards what is and what is not permissible.

hmm, i rather have freedom

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

I voted other, mainly because it no longer matters.

What does matter is equality, and if the government is going to recognize one union between consenting adults then it should recognize them all. Everything else is using the power of the government in designed avoidance, something else that is going to have consequences.

And so, under your all consenting adults plan, 434 consenting adults all want to get married to each and all the others in that cadre, you think that is fine for society? Can you envisage what kinds of complex problems that will create? Can you imagine just the divorce proceedings if one of the 434 decides they want to leave that union? And if there are children, which there most certainly will be....

And if you are not fine with that, what would be the legal excuse for disallowing it? Once all sensible guiding lines are erased, then its wide open. So, a father and his two adult daughters and one adult son and a cousin of age all decide to marry... well, you get my drift I expect.

What will you folks not subject society to? Probably wont be subjected to these monstrosities too too long, society will surely collapse long before that.

 

[Sweden]

How does basing a position on just finding the idea absurd make you a "realist"? To me, a realist would recognize that there are, in fact, people who are attracted to members of the same sex, who desire to commit themselves to one such person, and that there isn't much of a reason or benefit to anyone for preventing them from marrying.

Saying "that's just weird" is not realism, it's pretty shallow intellectually, to be honest.

Anyway, the answer to the poll question is both. I don't think having a sincere religious view absolves anyone of being a bigot.

I didn't say 'weird'. I said nothing about prevention. When I am considering questions of intellectual worth I won't come looking for you. To be honest.

 

[OrphanSlug]

And so, under your all consenting adults plan, 434 consenting adults all want to get married to each and all the others in that cadre, you think that is fine for society? Can you envisage what kinds of complex problems that will create? Can you imagine just the divorce proceedings if one of the 434 decides they want to leave that union? And if there are children, which there most certainly will be....

And if you are not fine with that, what would be the legal excuse for disallowing it? Once all sensible guiding lines are erased, then its wide open. So, a father and his two adult daughters and one adult son and a cousin of age all decide to marry... well, you get my drift I expect.

What will you folks not subject society to? Probably wont be subjected to these monstrosities too too long, society will surely collapse long before that.

When you are done with the rant...

As long as they are consenting adults, it is not my place or business to tell them how to run their lives. In fact, there is no Constitutional authority granted to the government to define or license or involve itself in any regard the personal relationships of individuals.

There is zero expectation that all of a sudden society will fall, or some Sodom and Gomorrah nonsense, or any of the other bit you came up with will happen if we no longer discriminate against a small minority who simply wants the same recognition as others.

 

[_Sal]

I voted other, mainly because it no longer matters.

What does matter is equality, and if the government is going to recognize one union between consenting adults then it should recognize them all. Everything else is using the power of the government in designed avoidance, something else that is going to have consequences.

^ yup, what she said, people have the right to vent their opinion they do not have the legal right to prevent it

they can be a bigot, they can be confused, they can be sincere, they can be a whole host of things but it's irrelevant...

 

[_Sal]

And so, under your all consenting adults plan, 434 consenting adults all want to get married to each and all the others in that cadre, you think that is fine for society? Can you envisage what kinds of complex problems that will create? Can you imagine just the divorce proceedings if one of the 434 decides they want to leave that union? And if there are children, which there most certainly will be....

And if you are not fine with that, what would be the legal excuse for disallowing it? Once all sensible guiding lines are erased, then its wide open. So, a father and his two adult daughters and one adult son and a cousin of age all decide to marry... well, you get my drift I expect.

What will you folks not subject society to? Probably wont be subjected to these monstrosities too too long, society will surely collapse long before that.

lol plural marriages were outlawed and it led to them isolating themselves into compounds and had tragic results...

marry 1000 people if you want a decent individual is still a decent individual

 

[shrubnose]

Some are just bigots, others are spiritually devout. And others are spiritually devout bigots.

 

[Bootlace]

I think when heterosexual couples can start keep marriages together as a whole, we might have a dog in this fight.
So long as we continue to divorce at such a high rate, we really have nothing much to say about it. A homo couple that adopts a child and can remain committed to each other trumps a hetero couple with biological children that choose divorce.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I hate to tell you, society has gone downhill for a long time, and homosexual marriage is not the cause.

Society has not gone down hill.
It is, the way it usually has been.

 

[lb_on_teh_cb]

People fall in love to all kind of reasons. Who are we to judge who is worth loving? But here is the kicker. Male and female are equipped to procreate. That is a fact of nature. Of course such can be manipulated artificially. also a fact.
"Marriage" has been, traditionally, between a man and a women, as instructed in the bible. Many don't believe in traditions, don't believe biblical teachings, call a union between same gender "marriage". It is a word. Call it a union between consenting, loving adults.
Sin? Yeah, so is shacking up without being married, cheating on the spouse, worshiping money, working on Sundays. Ever thought the guy next door doesn't deserve that nice car he drives? Also a sin...boom.
May those who are without sin throw the first stone...most of 'sinless' only pretend to be in that group, filled with hatred to boot anyways.
We have a choice not to like it. But we are also commanded to love one another, first and foremost.

i agreed with most of your post but who decides if the guy next door "deserves" that nice car?
sounds like jealousy

 

[Cameron]

I didn't say 'weird'. I said nothing about prevention. When I am considering questions of intellectual worth I won't come looking for you. To be honest.

How about using some of that intellectual worth to explain what you did mean, then?

 

[FieldTheorist]

And so, under your all consenting adults plan, 434 consenting adults all want to get married to each and all the others in that cadre, you think that is fine for society?

I don't know about his answer, but I have no objections to it so long as there are laws made to deal with insurance issues. There are societies that function this way (or very similar at any rate).

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

I don't know about his answer, but I have no objections to it so long as there are laws made to deal with insurance issues. There are societies that function this way (or very similar at any rate).

Might you give an example where this occurs and we can compare our society and theirs as to functioning [well vs not as well]?

Perhaps those who enjoy this lifestyle would do us all a favor and move to the society where this is occurring and accepted presently rather than risk messing up ours. If they want all the benefits that our society provides, perhaps they might understand that some of the reasons for those benefits to exist might come from the different path we have chosen?

 

[OrphanSlug]

Might you give an example where this occurs and we can compare our society and theirs as to functioning [well vs not as well]?

Perhaps those who enjoy this lifestyle would do us all a favor and move to the society where this is occurring and accepted presently rather than risk messing up ours. If they want all the benefits that our society provides, perhaps they might understand that some of the reasons for those benefits to exist might come from the different path we have chosen?

What, as in exactly down to the letter, is being "messed up?"

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Bigotry can be religiously motivated.

 

[lb_on_teh_cb]

Bigotry can be religiously motivated.

yeah but calling people bigots doesn't help (which seems to be the point of this poll)