Is being against gay marriage homophobic?

[Torie]

Putting aside those who invoke God on the matter, which complicates things, sure in theory one can be against SSM for reasons that are not homophobic, generally involving procreation issues, but the arguments are so weak, that these days one wonders just how sincere those arguments are, as opposed to being a mask for disliking the idea that the state would recognize a SSM because that is conferring some legitimacy upon the status of being gay. The same is true for arguments about keeping gays out of the military, etc, etc.

The worst catch 22 was discriminating against gays in employment for sensitive jobs, because they were so mistreated in society, that they had to keep their orientation quiet in order to avoid abuse, and thus were subject to being blackmailed under threat of being outed. Dean Rusk explained this rational in a hearing before Congress.

If I had known/accepted/been courageous enough to have been in tune with my gay orientation as a young person, to the point that being closeted would not have been an acceptable option, putting aside that I would probably have died long ago and thus not be here, I suspect I would have been a quite different person now. I am not the type of person who would tolerate that kind of abuse (yeah, maybe that just reflects a mentality of being a self entitled upper middle class person, but whatever), and I would have been at the barricades, and in the courts, and in general in the face of the bigots. I would have been trying to make their lives as unpleasant as possible. I would have been one very angry young man. And you know what? Realizing that helps me understand better, when and why other abused groups act in the same way. I empathize.

Anyway, enough of my musings about what might have been, but wasn't.

[หมูเด้ง]

Depends.

If you truly believe in "traditional marriage" and all that, for whatever reason, and still support civil unions/equal rights for LGBT people then not necessarily, but it's still a bit questionable.

But, that isn't the case most of the time nowadays, it's usually because you see gay couples as less valid than straight couples, and the majority of people who oppose gay marriage today use that reasoning.

[dead0man]

no, they might just be ignorant/stupid

[Brittain33]

I’ve been legally married for nearly 15 years with much thanks to our allies. I debated this with people lacking empathy for me for a decade and am no longer wasting my time on them.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

As a gay Man whose grown very tired of having to fight to defend my basic rights, just leave my weed, husband and kids alone, please. Thanks.

Then don't twist my arm to force me to proclaim that Scripture says something that it doesn't and sanctions something that it doesn't. 

This is kind of the bottom line on this issue for me at this point.

[ON Progressive]

Yes. And writing paragraphs about an imaginary man in the sky is not going to make it any less homophobic.

[Cold War Liberal]

To the question: yes, but a mild homophobia, plus we already won that battle so I don't really care if some guy in my town doesn't like my right to marry who I'm attracted to, as long as he leaves me and my rights alone.

On God and gay marriage: I can write paragraphs too.

I am a semi-closeted gay man. A full 6 on the Kinsey scale. I am also a rather strong Christian. I believe that God made me this way for a reason, and it would be... what's the phrase?

an affront to God

Ah yes. It would be an affront to God if I ignored the way He made me. How do I know? I tried to deny/ignore my sexuality for 18 years (mostly so I don't have to be out while still financially dependent upon my homophobic parents) which lead to self-loathing, misery, and, very occasionally, thoughts of suicide. It wasn't until I brought the issue before God, began reading the Bible more frequently (and seeking out what the Bible actually says on the issue, which is... very, very, very little), and discussing the issue with others that I began to become more healthy mentally. I literally cannot fathom why a God I'd want to worship would find my misery to be more appealing than my happiness with someone of the same sex, especially if He created me this way, and especially if He truly is a God of Love.

Then, on a church retreat a few weeks ago, it hit me: I believe that God created me this way in order to be able to speak about oppression on a first hand basis, to be able to bond with other downtrodden people via shared oppression, and to be able to be a Light for Him in a community which some other "Christians" have called "abominations" (despite literally no Biblical justification for this) and virtually given up on. The same night I had that epiphany (I personally believe it was from God), I came out to my best friend, and an overwhelming feeling of rightness came over me in a way that I'd never felt before. That sense of peace has stayed with me since, and while I'm trying to rebuild my headspace after almost two decades of self hatred, I have the overwhelming sense that this is what God meant for me all along; I was just too busy listening to what society (where I live, which is very socially conservative) told me to do, rather than what He was trying to tell me. Coming out and accepting myself has done nothing but bring me closer to God.

My politics is informed by my faith. The way I conduct myself in my sex life is informed by my faith. Every aspect of my life is, when I don't fail (which is often, I admit), an attempt to show God's Love to everyone. You cannot take that away from me just because you read a book differently from me, or because you're uncomfortable with whom I desire to bring into my bed once I marry them. Besides, that last bit is none of your business anyway, and if you attempt to make it your business, you're probably some degree of homophobic.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

To want to ban marriage between two adults who want to get married is indeed homophobic. Just like banning interracial was racist.

These are not equivilencies.  Of course, you are one of the intellectually dishonest posters on Atlas, so I expect this from you.

Marriage has, until the last decade, been defined as the union between a man and a woman.  Interracial marriage did not redefine the definition of the institution of marriage, which was formed as the basis for "family".  Indeed, "marriage" and "family" went hand in hand.

Same-sex couples cannot establish a "family" in and of themselves.  That's just a fact; someone else has to participate in the act somehow.  This redefines marriage, and in ways besides that of the "between a man and a woman" thing.  If the SSM advocates would stop asserting this "discrimination" nonsense, and be honest about SSM being a fundamental, judicially-legislated maneuver to allow same-sex couples the sort of benefits that heterosexual marriage brings, I'd have some respect for them.  People who compare Obergefell to Loving and insist it's the same issue have all the intellectual honesty of Donald Trump.

Gay people not being able to get the same "benefits" as straight people is objectively discrimination.  I fail to see how needing to adopt or use surrogacy if a gay couple wants a child(which not all married couples want in general irl) delegitimizes them. One would hope you'd understand that, considering that IIRC you adopted your son.

This is actually a well-reasoned post from you, and gives me some hope that you have some capacity to see some issues from the viewpoint of folks you disagree with.  

My views, Biblically, on SSM are what they are.  They are Biblical views, and they are clear.  I consider them to be the Word of God, and that means that however OK I may personally be with SSM, God is NOT OK with it.  I'm not saying this to be argumentative; I'm pointing out the part of this issue that, for me, is beyond argument.  (I am not saying "All Homosexuals are going to Hell!", btw; that's a different theological matter and takes a bit of discussion, so I ask the reader to take me at face value on that issue for the purpose of this discussion.)

My "adoption" situation is a bit different than most.  I adopted my wife's two (2) children after we got married.  (They're grown now.)  And my wife and I adopted our grandson after some serious "adult dysfunction"; he's our current 13 year old.  These are intra-family adoptions, so the circumstances are a bit different.  Each of these cases were the result of massive Adult Failure (a biological family who deserted two boys when they were 4 and 3, and a set of parents who couldn't remain clean and sober, until something happened.)  And I view intrafamily adoptions differently; if something happened to my wife and myself, I would (hypothetically) prefer a stable, gay relative to complete the raising of our son if the choice is between that and some of the straight folks in our families who can be a tad cringeworthy for other reasons.)

I am a "social conservative" who has advocated Canadian Style Healthcare and Civil Unions for gay couples for a long time.  I have advocated for reforms of Family Laws that, amongst other things, would allow Gay adults to have whom they want making their medical decisions, inheriting their assets in the event they die intestate, and don't have hateful parents shut out people they love on their deathbeds.  The "healthcare" part, I view as the most important.  Tying healthcare to both marriage and employment is something that leaves a lot of folks sick, and I certainly agree that this reality left many Gay Americans vulnerable in the area of healthcare access.  I want people to have healthcare, and to have not just access to healthcare, but the ability to avoid medical bankruptcy should the worst happen.  

At one time, the push for SSM was a push for these equalities.  It's not that anymore; it's for wrenching the ratification that their SSM is "as valid" as my traditional marriage.  It's not enough for most to have all the perks (healthcare, family law reform, the legal protections offered by civil unions).  They want all of society to proclaim that what their doing is not a sin and that their marriages are equally valid, not just in the eyes of the law, but in the eyes of God.  There was a time when a combination of Civil Unions and Canadian Style Healthcare would have made the SSM issue pretty much moot, but I do agree that this idea is a ship that has long since sailed.

So I'm happy that more people now have access to Healthcare.  It didn't have to be at this price, and I've never seen the World become a better place by people doing enthusiastically what God has told them not to do, but perhaps I'll be proven wrong.  My issue, at this point, is with those who wish to twist my arm until I publicly proclaim, "I'm OK!  You're OK!" on this issue.  Please understand that I'm a person that will take a bullet to the head or endure torture before I will deny Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, because I do not wish to trade Eternity with Christ for anything.  For me to say God is OK with SSM is to deny His being and His authority.  I'm not going to do that.  Others can take their chances if they must.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

To the question: yes, but a mild homophobia, plus we already won that battle so I don't really care if some guy in my town doesn't like my right to marry who I'm attracted to, as long as he leaves me and my rights alone.

On God and gay marriage: I can write paragraphs too.

I am a semi-closeted gay man. A full 6 on the Kinsey scale. I am also a rather strong Christian. I believe that God made me this way for a reason, and it would be... what's the phrase?

an affront to God

Ah yes. It would be an affront to God if I ignored the way He made me. How do I know? I tried to deny/ignore my sexuality for 18 years (mostly so I don't have to be out while still financially dependent upon my homophobic parents) which lead to self-loathing, misery, and, very occasionally, thoughts of suicide. It wasn't until I brought the issue before God, began reading the Bible more frequently (and seeking out what the Bible actually says on the issue, which is... very, very, very little), and discussing the issue with others that I began to become more healthy mentally. I literally cannot fathom why a God I'd want to worship would find my misery to be more appealing than my happiness with someone of the same sex, especially if He created me this way, and especially if He truly is a God of Love.

Then, on a church retreat a few weeks ago, it hit me: I believe that God created me this way in order to be able to speak about oppression on a first hand basis, to be able to bond with other downtrodden people via shared oppression, and to be able to be a Light for Him in a community which some other "Christians" have called "abominations" (despite literally no Biblical justification for this) and virtually given up on. The same night I had that epiphany (I personally believe it was from God), I came out to my best friend, and an overwhelming feeling of rightness came over me in a way that I'd never felt before. That sense of peace has stayed with me since, and while I'm trying to rebuild my headspace after almost two decades of self hatred, I have the overwhelming sense that this is what God meant for me all along; I was just too busy listening to what society (where I live, which is very socially conservative) told me to do, rather than what He was trying to tell me. Coming out and accepting myself has done nothing but bring me closer to God.

My politics is informed by my faith. The way I conduct myself in my sex life is informed by my faith. Every aspect of my life is, when I don't fail (which is often, I admit), an attempt to show God's Love to everyone. You cannot take that away from me just because you read a book differently from me, or because you're uncomfortable with whom I desire to bring into my bed once I marry them. Besides, that last bit is none of your business anyway, and if you attempt to make it your business, you're probably some degree of homophobic.

The Bible does not say anyone was made gay.  That's an assertion on your part.  It simply does not say that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Testing the spirits" means lining up a Spiritual Revelation with what the Word of God says.  When I believe I have been given any kind of Spiritual Revelation, I will line it up with Scripture to test the spirits by which this came.  That's not a direct comment on your writings, but it is a teaching in Christian living that I try to live by.  And I also know that a lot of Heresy and Foolishness arises when people, running on what "God has told them" don't line up the revelation they receive with His Word.

[DrScholl]

To want to ban marriage between two adults who want to get married is indeed homophobic. Just like banning interracial was racist.

These are not equivilencies.  Of course, you are one of the intellectually dishonest posters on Atlas, so I expect this from you.

Marriage has, until the last decade, been defined as the union between a man and a woman.  Interracial marriage did not redefine the definition of the institution of marriage, which was formed as the basis for "family".  Indeed, "marriage" and "family" went hand in hand.

Same-sex couples cannot establish a "family" in and of themselves.  That's just a fact; someone else has to participate in the act somehow.  This redefines marriage, and in ways besides that of the "between a man and a woman" thing.  If the SSM advocates would stop asserting this "discrimination" nonsense, and be honest about SSM being a fundamental, judicially-legislated maneuver to allow same-sex couples the sort of benefits that heterosexual marriage brings, I'd have some respect for them.  People who compare Obergefell to Loving and insist it's the same issue have all the intellectual honesty of Donald Trump.

You don't need to write a novel for every post or call names. Interracial marriage being banned can be compared to gay marriage being banned because many of the arguments against were similar. Non-whites were not even viewed as human and miscegenation was considered as contaminating the white race. The church definition of marriage is not used for the legal definition of marriage nor should it be.

There are plenty of heterosexual couples who cannot have children through biological means, so they have to use surrogates or adoption but that doesn't mean that their family is any less real. Some heterosexual couples do not even want to establish a family so you can't even use family as an element to what defines marriage.

[afleitch]

At one time, the push for SSM was a push for these equalities.  It's not that anymore; it's for wrenching the ratification that their SSM is "as valid" as my traditional marriage.

My marriage is equal to yours.

My husband's pain is equal to your wife's. My husband's heartbeat next to mine as I fall asleep is equal to your wife's. My husband holding my hand in hospital is equal to your wife's. My husband's restlessness until he knows I'm safely at my destination is equal to your wife's. My husband's ability to pick me up when I've fallen is equal to your wife's. My husband's love is equal to your wife's.

Do not relegate my joy and my pain and my utter selfless devotion to him because we are both men.

[here2view]

Yes. And writing paragraphs about an imaginary man in the sky is not going to make it any less homophobic.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

At one time, the push for SSM was a push for these equalities.  It's not that anymore; it's for wrenching the ratification that their SSM is "as valid" as my traditional marriage.

My marriage is equal to yours.

My husband's pain is equal to your wife's. My husband's heartbeat next to mine as I fall asleep is equal to your wife's. My husband holding my hand in hospital is equal to your wife's. My husband's restlessness until he knows I'm safely at my destination is equal to your wife's. My husband's ability to pick me up when I've fallen is equal to your wife's. My husband's love is equal to your wife's.

Do not relegate my joy and my pain and my utter selfless devotion to him because we are both men.

Your issue isn't with me; it's with God.  Take it up with Him.

I'm trying to be as diplomatic as I can, but this is an example of folks wanting to twist my arm and shame me for my belief that the Bible is, indeed, the inerrant Word of God.  It was a bit more touching piece of emotional blackmail to the point where I will even concede that you may not have consciously realized you were doing  it.

Millions of Christians believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.  The Book of Leviticus (and other books, for that matter) say what they say on the subject.  I don't take orders from others as to how to view what they're doing.  I'm not one for the "Don't you dare!" game.  

What has happened is that "tolerance" has been redefined along with marriage.  "Tolerance" used to mean that you could live your life and I could disapprove, but I wouldn't actively harass you in your lifestyle choices, or advocate for government jackboots to do my heavy lifting.  Now, "tolerance" means that your viewpoint, ideals, beliefs, etc, are just as good or just as valid as mine.  And that's not true at all.  But it's been redefined, and not for the better.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

To want to ban marriage between two adults who want to get married is indeed homophobic. Just like banning interracial was racist.

These are not equivilencies.  Of course, you are one of the intellectually dishonest posters on Atlas, so I expect this from you.

Marriage has, until the last decade, been defined as the union between a man and a woman.  Interracial marriage did not redefine the definition of the institution of marriage, which was formed as the basis for "family".  Indeed, "marriage" and "family" went hand in hand.

Same-sex couples cannot establish a "family" in and of themselves.  That's just a fact; someone else has to participate in the act somehow.  This redefines marriage, and in ways besides that of the "between a man and a woman" thing.  If the SSM advocates would stop asserting this "discrimination" nonsense, and be honest about SSM being a fundamental, judicially-legislated maneuver to allow same-sex couples the sort of benefits that heterosexual marriage brings, I'd have some respect for them.  People who compare Obergefell to Loving and insist it's the same issue have all the intellectual honesty of Donald Trump.

You don't need to write a novel for every post or call names. Interracial marriage being banned can be compared to gay marriage being banned because many of the arguments against were similar. Non-whites were not even viewed as human and miscegenation was considered as contaminating the white race. The church definition of marriage is not used for the legal definition of marriage nor should it be.

There are plenty of heterosexual couples who cannot have children through biological means, so they have to use surrogates or adoption but that doesn't mean that their family is any less real. Some heterosexual couples do not even want to establish a family so you can't even use family as an element to what defines marriage.

Calling you on your intellectual dishonesty is one of my favorite pastimes.

I've voted for the Visible Obama, but I can't imagine you getting my vote for a seat on the Mosquito Control Board.

[DrScholl]

To want to ban marriage between two adults who want to get married is indeed homophobic. Just like banning interracial was racist.

These are not equivilencies.  Of course, you are one of the intellectually dishonest posters on Atlas, so I expect this from you.

Marriage has, until the last decade, been defined as the union between a man and a woman.  Interracial marriage did not redefine the definition of the institution of marriage, which was formed as the basis for "family".  Indeed, "marriage" and "family" went hand in hand.

Same-sex couples cannot establish a "family" in and of themselves.  That's just a fact; someone else has to participate in the act somehow.  This redefines marriage, and in ways besides that of the "between a man and a woman" thing.  If the SSM advocates would stop asserting this "discrimination" nonsense, and be honest about SSM being a fundamental, judicially-legislated maneuver to allow same-sex couples the sort of benefits that heterosexual marriage brings, I'd have some respect for them.  People who compare Obergefell to Loving and insist it's the same issue have all the intellectual honesty of Donald Trump.

You don't need to write a novel for every post or call names. Interracial marriage being banned can be compared to gay marriage being banned because many of the arguments against were similar. Non-whites were not even viewed as human and miscegenation was considered as contaminating the white race. The church definition of marriage is not used for the legal definition of marriage nor should it be.

There are plenty of heterosexual couples who cannot have children through biological means, so they have to use surrogates or adoption but that doesn't mean that their family is any less real. Some heterosexual couples do not even want to establish a family so you can't even use family as an element to what defines marriage.

Calling you on your intellectual dishonesty is one of my favorite pastimes.

I've voted for the Visible Obama, but I can't imagine you getting my vote for a seat on the Mosquito Control Board.

You responded with nothing but personal attacks, so clearly you have no real rebuttal to my post.

[afleitch]

No. My question is to you. Explain to me why holding my hand and kissing my forehead in hospital as an act of love as my husband is lesser than if I had a wife. If god has a problem, then why do we both elicit these feelings? Why do we feel it as you do with your wife?

[kyc0705]

Yes. If you don't think same-sex couples should be legally entitled to the same rights and benefits as straight couples, then the implication is that you believe there is a moral inferiority to the idea of a same-sex couple in comparison to a straight couple (i.e. believing that allowing gay marriage would harm your idea of what marriage should be). Hedging it and only supporting "civil unions" or some other euphemism conveys the same principle: that you don't think gay couples are as worthy of legal and social acceptance as straight couples are.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

At one time, the push for SSM was a push for these equalities.  It's not that anymore; it's for wrenching the ratification that their SSM is "as valid" as my traditional marriage.

My marriage is equal to yours.

My husband's pain is equal to your wife's. My husband's heartbeat next to mine as I fall asleep is equal to your wife's. My husband holding my hand in hospital is equal to your wife's. My husband's restlessness until he knows I'm safely at my destination is equal to your wife's. My husband's ability to pick me up when I've fallen is equal to your wife's. My husband's love is equal to your wife's.

Do not relegate my joy and my pain and my utter selfless devotion to him because we are both men.

Your issue isn't with me; it's with God.  Take it up with Him.

I'm trying to be as diplomatic as I can, but this is an example of folks wanting to twist my arm and shame me for my belief that the Bible is, indeed, the inerrant Word of God.  It was a bit more touching piece of emotional blackmail to the point where I will even concede that you may not have consciously realized you were doing  it.

Millions of Christians believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.  The Book of Leviticus (and other books, for that matter) say what they say on the subject.  I don't take orders from others as to how to view what they're doing.  I'm not one for the "Don't you dare!" game.  

What has happened is that "tolerance" has been redefined along with marriage.  "Tolerance" used to mean that you could live your life and I could disapprove, but I wouldn't actively harass you in your lifestyle choices, or advocate for government jackboots to do my heavy lifting.  Now, "tolerance" means that your viewpoint, ideals, beliefs, etc, are just as good or just as valid as mine.  And that's not true at all.  But it's been redefined, and not for the better.

Of course we will try to twist your arm. You advocate against equality for same-sex couples; we find that an overall morally reprehensible position, so why wouldn't we criticize you for it? No matter how "respectful" you try to make your view, anything short of endorsing full equality for gay people will continue to contribute to the struggles we face. That's like if I said that I only support going halfway for racial civil rights; clearly, that would be viewed as racist (rightfully so), so you posturing as though being okay with civil unions makes you some sort of reasonable ally is disingenuous. Trust me, as a gay person, I know that we have to pick our battles, and that we have bigger fish to fry than actively engaging with people who aren't actively hateful but oppose SSM (like you), but that doesn't make those people's views acceptable to me, and it still makes those people homophobic (to circle back to the original topic). That isn't to say you or anyone else who shares your views is innately a bad person, because as I said, we have to pick our battles, and unfortunately there are 100 million people (probably more) in this country who hold your views or a more militant version of them.

Question for you out of curiousity: do you think homosexuality is a choice? I know lots of Christians come down on different sides of this question. If you think it isn't a choice, then why would God bestow an unavoidable quality upon people like me if it was innately bad?

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

...
My views, Biblically, on SSM are what they are.  They are Biblical views, and they are clear.  I consider them to be the Word of God, and that means that however OK I may personally be with SSM, God is NOT OK with it.  I'm not saying this to be argumentative; I'm pointing out the part of this issue that, for me, is beyond argument.  (I am not saying "All Homosexuals are going to Hell!", btw; that's a different theological matter and takes a bit of discussion, so I ask the reader to take me at face value on that issue for the purpose of this discussion.)

...

At one time, the push for SSM was a push for these equalities.  It's not that anymore; it's for wrenching the ratification that their SSM is "as valid" as my traditional marriage.  It's not enough for most to have all the perks (healthcare, family law reform, the legal protections offered by civil unions).  They want all of society to proclaim that what their doing is not a sin and that their marriages are equally valid, not just in the eyes of the law, but in the eyes of God.  There was a time when a combination of Civil Unions and Canadian Style Healthcare would have made the SSM issue pretty much moot, but I do agree that this idea is a ship that has long since sailed.

...

Marriage is pretty much secular(in that for many/most people it isn't deeply connected to christianity. As far as law is concerned the process is entirely secular. So why should the concept of marriage in secular law designate gay couples as less valid than straight ones to appease a quite different religious definition of marriage? Remember, by definition, this isn't about what god says.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

...
My views, Biblically, on SSM are what they are.  They are Biblical views, and they are clear.  I consider them to be the Word of God, and that means that however OK I may personally be with SSM, God is NOT OK with it.  I'm not saying this to be argumentative; I'm pointing out the part of this issue that, for me, is beyond argument.  (I am not saying "All Homosexuals are going to Hell!", btw; that's a different theological matter and takes a bit of discussion, so I ask the reader to take me at face value on that issue for the purpose of this discussion.)

...

At one time, the push for SSM was a push for these equalities.  It's not that anymore; it's for wrenching the ratification that their SSM is "as valid" as my traditional marriage.  It's not enough for most to have all the perks (healthcare, family law reform, the legal protections offered by civil unions).  They want all of society to proclaim that what their doing is not a sin and that their marriages are equally valid, not just in the eyes of the law, but in the eyes of God.  There was a time when a combination of Civil Unions and Canadian Style Healthcare would have made the SSM issue pretty much moot, but I do agree that this idea is a ship that has long since sailed.

...

Marriage is pretty much secular(in that for many/most people it isn't deeply connected to christianity. As far as law is concerned the process is entirely secular. So why should the concept of marriage in secular law designate gay couples as less valid than straight ones to appease a quite different religious definition of marriage? Remember, by definition, this isn't about what god says.

I do believe that Obergefell represents a redefinition of marriage, and not a ruling based on what marriage has been.  The redefinition applied to secular marriage, and even secular marriage was defined in law as a union between a man and a woman. 

Obviously, if we've redefined marriage, each type of marriage is viewed equally; there is now no legal distinction between SSM and traditional marriage; they're all "marriage" in terms of secular law.  I don't concur in the result of Obergefell, to be sure.  I certainly dissent in the reasoning, in that it redefined marriage in a way that is not grounded in the Constitution.  And it's not; it's flat-out Judicial Legislation.

The only positive thing I can say about Obergefell is that it has preempted a slew of 'Full Faith and Credit Clause" issues regarding states without SSM recognizing SSMs of people obtained in states that had legalized SSM. 

[ProudModerate2]

I see that FuzzyBear is spreading his anti-gay bigotry as usual.
And worse, using Christianity and Jesus to do so.
The man has nothing but hate in his heart.

[PSOL]

...
My views, Biblically, on SSM are what they are.  They are Biblical views, and they are clear.  I consider them to be the Word of God, and that means that however OK I may personally be with SSM, God is NOT OK with it.  I'm not saying this to be argumentative; I'm pointing out the part of this issue that, for me, is beyond argument.  (I am not saying "All Homosexuals are going to Hell!", btw; that's a different theological matter and takes a bit of discussion, so I ask the reader to take me at face value on that issue for the purpose of this discussion.)

...

At one time, the push for SSM was a push for these equalities.  It's not that anymore; it's for wrenching the ratification that their SSM is "as valid" as my traditional marriage.  It's not enough for most to have all the perks (healthcare, family law reform, the legal protections offered by civil unions).  They want all of society to proclaim that what their doing is not a sin and that their marriages are equally valid, not just in the eyes of the law, but in the eyes of God.  There was a time when a combination of Civil Unions and Canadian Style Healthcare would have made the SSM issue pretty much moot, but I do agree that this idea is a ship that has long since sailed.

...

Marriage is pretty much secular(in that for many/most people it isn't deeply connected to christianity. As far as law is concerned the process is entirely secular. So why should the concept of marriage in secular law designate gay couples as less valid than straight ones to appease a quite different religious definition of marriage? Remember, by definition, this isn't about what god says.

I do believe that Obergefell represents a redefinition of marriage, and not a ruling based on what marriage has been.  The redefinition applied to secular marriage, and even secular marriage was defined in law as a union between a man and a woman. 

Obviously, if we've redefined marriage, each type of marriage is viewed equally; there is now no legal distinction between SSM and traditional marriage; they're all "marriage" in terms of secular law.  I don't concur in the result of Obergefell, to be sure.  I certainly dissent in the reasoning, in that it redefined marriage in a way that is not grounded in the Constitution.  And it's not; it's flat-out Judicial Legislation.

The only positive thing I can say about Obergefell is that it has preempted a slew of 'Full Faith and Credit Clause" issues regarding states without SSM recognizing SSMs of people obtained in states that had legalized SSM. 

Look Fuzzy, why not we have two marriages, the secular world marriage instituted by the state and certain religions, and yours which is cut off from inclusivity that is defined in your texts. We can all do what we want as defined, leaving us to stop bickering about having one definition of marriage. And Obergfell deals with the broad institution of marriage by the way.

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

...
My views, Biblically, on SSM are what they are.  They are Biblical views, and they are clear.  I consider them to be the Word of God, and that means that however OK I may personally be with SSM, God is NOT OK with it.  I'm not saying this to be argumentative; I'm pointing out the part of this issue that, for me, is beyond argument.  (I am not saying "All Homosexuals are going to Hell!", btw; that's a different theological matter and takes a bit of discussion, so I ask the reader to take me at face value on that issue for the purpose of this discussion.)

...

At one time, the push for SSM was a push for these equalities.  It's not that anymore; it's for wrenching the ratification that their SSM is "as valid" as my traditional marriage.  It's not enough for most to have all the perks (healthcare, family law reform, the legal protections offered by civil unions).  They want all of society to proclaim that what their doing is not a sin and that their marriages are equally valid, not just in the eyes of the law, but in the eyes of God.  There was a time when a combination of Civil Unions and Canadian Style Healthcare would have made the SSM issue pretty much moot, but I do agree that this idea is a ship that has long since sailed.

...

Marriage is pretty much secular(in that for many/most people it isn't deeply connected to christianity. As far as law is concerned the process is entirely secular. So why should the concept of marriage in secular law designate gay couples as less valid than straight ones to appease a quite different religious definition of marriage? Remember, by definition, this isn't about what god says.

I do believe that Obergefell represents a redefinition of marriage, and not a ruling based on what marriage has been.  The redefinition applied to secular marriage, and even secular marriage was defined in law as a union between a man and a woman. 

Obviously, if we've redefined marriage, each type of marriage is viewed equally; there is now no legal distinction between SSM and traditional marriage; they're all "marriage" in terms of secular law.  I don't concur in the result of Obergefell, to be sure.  I certainly dissent in the reasoning, in that it redefined marriage in a way that is not grounded in the Constitution.  And it's not; it's flat-out Judicial Legislation.

The only positive thing I can say about Obergefell is that it has preempted a slew of 'Full Faith and Credit Clause" issues regarding states without SSM recognizing SSMs of people obtained in states that had legalized SSM. 

But my point is that there is no secular reason to make straight couples more "valid" than gay couples. This is about gay marriage in principal, not the supreme courts decision on it. Do you agree that a secular institution with no loyalty to any religion has no reason to consider gay couples less legitimate than straight ones?

[Torie]

OK, this is getting too personal, so please stop that. It is an interesting discussion, but it is not going to go anywhere, because the interlocutor asserts the word of God as he interprets it, and that is the end of the story, as he wishes not to get into a discussion of just why, from the standpoint of mere mortals, based on our experience, it is reasonable for God to hold that opinion. Thus those who share their personal experiences, data, whatever, are talking right past the interlocutor.  There is no, and cannot be any, joining of the issue. 

[Cold War Liberal]

OK, this is getting too personal, so please stop that. It is an interesting discussion, but it is not going to go anywhere, because the interlocutor asserts the word of God as he interprets it, and that is the end of the story, as he wishes not to get into a discussion of just why, from the standpoint of mere mortals, based on our experience, it is reasonable for God to hold that opinion. Thus those who share their personal experiences, data, whatever, are talking right past the interlocutor.  There is no, and cannot be any, joining of the issue. 

He also has not posted any evidence that God actually disapproves of gay people or gay marriage, possibly because there is not a verse in the Bible which can be incontrovertibly proven to state anything to that extent.