A question about the opponents of gay marriage

[RFayette]

Maybe a better question is why they should expect everyone else to obey Biblical law.

If gay people getting married and those who support their right to do so are condemned to an eternity in Hell, then that sounds like our problem more than it does yours.

I'm not an Evangelical at all, but I think here's the viewpoint:  fundamentalists think that homosexual acts are sinful according to the moral Biblical law.  Hence, gay marriage is offensive to God.  If they vote for a politician who supports giving legitimacy to this sinful activity by promoting marriage licenses to these couples, they are voting in favor of sin.  Essentially, Evangelicals see pro-gay marriage politicians as people giving "licenses" to sin.  Since Christianity divides people up into "saved" and "unsaved," many people would feel such politicians are "unsaved" because of what they support.

[RFayette]

Here's what I think people are missing.  Wulfric believes that supporting gay marriage will make him go to hell.  Thus, he feels supporting gay marriage is like being an accomplice to sin, so he won't support it.

The problem isn't the position in the context of his religion, which is actually somewhat logical (though the "lesser shame" thing seems like a silly moderate hero stance); the problem is the style of religion (fundamentalist Christianity) itself.

[RFayette]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who ever said gay people were bad?

If someone supports a ban on gay marriage or supports any law that discourages homosexuality, they obviously have a problem with homosexuality.  If homosexuality is wrong, then presumably, there's something wrong with gay people.

To Clarify: I do not buy into the Rick Santorum/Ted Cruz notion that homosexuality is a disease, nor do I consider being homosexual a choice. Now, you can force yourself to not act on those desires, yes, but you cannot take them away entirely.

Gay People should simply respect what was, until recently, respected as both secular and religious tradition, and avoid destroying the institution of marriage by extending it beyond a man and a woman.

You've got to be kidding me.  Changing marriage's definition "destroys" it?  Would you prefer to go back to the days where miscegnation was illegal and wives were essentially treated as the husbands' property by law, and polygamy was allowed as well?

[RFayette]

bedstuy, the idea that is the basis of your last post: that secularism is inherently rational and objective; it is laughable.  Secularism is just as prone as any other -ism to disparate treatment of groups.

I think that basing policy beliefs on things that actually exist for sure - that we can see, touch, smell, hear, and/or objectively measure - is inherently superior to basing them off of an old text that may or may not be true.  


Arguing that good comes from the truth is hardly ridiculous.

EDIT:  what bedstuy said.

[RFayette]

bedstuy, the idea that is the basis of your last post: that secularism is inherently rational and objective; it is laughable.  Secularism is just as prone as any other -ism to disparate treatment of groups.

I think that basing policy beliefs on things that actually exist for sure - that we can see, touch, smell, hear, and/or objectively measure - is inherently superior to basing them off of an old text that may or may not be true.  

You can touch and smell secular humanism?

I suppose I might be referring to something different than you are.  When I say "secularism," I mean making policy preferences without invoking the supernatural and basing it off of things that can be observed, measured, and/or tested in the real world. 

Granted, secularists can have plenty of bad opinions, but secularism as a philosophy is more rational than faith-based governing philosophies because secularism does not invoke things that do not exist as evidence.

Humanism is a philosophy which many secularists hold, and is a much different beast.