Gay marriage

[Jay.C]

OK, I'm going to make the hardest post I've ever made, by going against the flow of this thread.  Let me firstly say that to come out as a 'homophobe' is actually extremely difficult; I'm not being a hater, just trying to deal with my honest opinion (I have severe internal conflict over this issue).  Please... don't jump to conclusions or judge me too harshly.

As a Christian, I personally believe that homosexuality is wrong.  For someone like me who absolutely hates 'judging' anyone or saying anyone else is wrong, this is an extremely hard thing to believe.  It's a real struggle, but when I read the Bible, I can't help but believe that God made male and female, with two totally different complementary roles which also have symbolic meaning.  And that God thinks that homosexuality is evil.  (Yes, I did a huge project on this in school, where I thoroughly examined the opposite interpretations of Bible verses, I haven't randomly jumped to this conclusion).  Which I find very difficult to come to terms with, given that my society believes totally the opposite.  But since I believe that the Bible is true, I also believe this - again, not mindlessly, it is a struggle.

I didn't say this to try to prove my beliefs.  Just wanna show that those 'judgmental religious haters' don't ENJOY judging others, aren't all aged 50+, don't jump to conclusions without a real struggle, and do care about others.

I suppose I believe that humans are like sheep - like pi, I think that dp thing is totally superficial, because people will always follow the 'done thing', the trend, no matter what.  I 300% agree with his post. 
In everything, it's not the people that tag on to trends that I respect, but those with the guts to go against the flow (not out of stubborn, closed-mindedness though).  When society used to stigmatise gays, almost everyone did so; now society stigmatises those who don't support gay marriage, almost everyone will do so.  I'm really struggling to stick to my opinion no matter what everyone else thinks.

</rant> (far longer than intended), and I'm prepared to cop the flack.

Hey, I just really struggle to see how a person or god can see homosexuality as being evil. Lets just say a same sex couple had been in a loving relationship for 20 years and they had raised two children better then some same sex couples could. I really struggle to understand that if their relationship is not effecting others in any way, is not harming anyone and was built on pure love for each other that that would be considered as evil.

I'm sorry but it just makes me sad that my cousin who is 4 and is currently being brought up by two same sex parents would have to grow up in a word where his parents would be considered "wrong" or "evil".

[brenden]

OK, I'm going to make the hardest post I've ever made, by going against the flow of this thread.  Let me firstly say that to come out as a 'homophobe' is actually extremely difficult; I'm not being a hater, just trying to deal with my honest opinion (I have severe internal conflict over this issue).  Please... don't jump to conclusions or judge me too harshly.

As a Christian, I personally believe that homosexuality is wrong.  For someone like me who absolutely hates 'judging' anyone or saying anyone else is wrong, this is an extremely hard thing to believe.  It's a real struggle, but when I read the Bible, I can't help but believe that God made male and female, with two totally different complementary roles which also have symbolic meaning.  And that God thinks that homosexuality is evil.  (Yes, I did a huge project on this in school, where I thoroughly examined the opposite interpretations of Bible verses, I haven't randomly jumped to this conclusion).  Which I find very difficult to come to terms with, given that my society believes totally the opposite.  But since I believe that the Bible is true, I also believe this - again, not mindlessly, it is a struggle.

I didn't say this to try to prove my beliefs.  Just wanna show that those 'judgmental religious haters' don't ENJOY judging others, aren't all aged 50+, don't jump to conclusions without a real struggle, and do care about others.

I suppose I believe that humans are like sheep - like pi, I think that dp thing is totally superficial, because people will always follow the 'done thing', the trend, no matter what.  I 300% agree with his post. 
In everything, it's not the people that tag on to trends that I respect, but those with the guts to go against the flow (not out of stubborn, closed-mindedness though).  When society used to stigmatise gays, almost everyone did so; now society stigmatises those who don't support gay marriage, almost everyone will do so.  I'm really struggling to stick to my opinion no matter what everyone else thinks.

</rant> (far longer than intended), and I'm prepared to cop the flack.

Well, I'll first say that I truly respect the bravery and honesty that comes behind making this post (despite quite comprehensively disagreeing with the content).

It's interesting to me that you're struggling with your beliefs (or at least, seem somewhat upset by them)... It seems like you feel as if it's quite a clear truth that homosexuality is wrong because you believe the Bible expresses that and, if the Bible expresses that, then it is a clear  truth. However, I think it's quite reasonable for a Christian to deny that this is the case - indeed, I think it's more reasonable for a Christian to deny this is the case. For, you can quite simply accept the Bible as an expression of historical or religious truth without believing that the Bible is comprehensively accurate. That is, the Bible is the "word of God", but who transcribed it? When we look at the translation of Kafka's Metamorphosis, we don't assume that the English version gives us the truth. Now, I'm sure you don't believe that God wrote the Bible in whatever realm he belongs in and then transferred it to Earth. Evidently, under the Christian perspective, it was written by men (or women) who were transcribing the word of God. Now, if this were the case, why wouldn't the Bible be subject to sociocultural trends the same as a Facebook display picture?

It's my belief that the Christian God, or at least how "he" (or she) is presented is omnibenevolent. Put simply, I find it more likely that an omnibenevolent God would tolerate homosexuality (which he obviously created, as there are homosexual traits in species other than humans that don't have free will) and whoever transcribed the Bible did so incorrectly, that the alternative case, which would be an omnibenevolent God that doesn't tolerate the homosexuality that he created who was accurately transcribed.

Essentially, your position relies upon the idea that whatever is said about God in the Bible must be true if the Bible is true, which I think is incorrect. I feel as if it's a tragedy that proper Christians* like yourself feel compelled towards one particular view of morality that could quite easily have been skewed by propagandists (it's pretty well established that religion has been utilised by the unsavoury as a method of social control). Wouldn't Christ advocate lack of judgment and holistic acceptance and compassion? This is why I feel like religious justifications against gay marriage are incoherent. At least for a Christian, who presumably takes the New Testament as the word of God (?)


*Christians who actually follow the word of Christ, as opposed to the compassionless racists and people who hate the homeless.

[faso]

Put simply, I find it more likely that an omnibenevolent God would tolerate homosexuality (which he obviously created, as there are homosexual traits in species other than humans that don't have free will)

Example?

[MonsieurHulot]

It's my belief that the Christian God, or at least how "he" (or she) is presented is omnibenevolent. Put simply, I find it more likely that an omnibenevolent God would tolerate homosexuality (which he obviously created, as there are homosexual traits in species other than humans that don't have free will) and whoever transcribed the Bible did so incorrectly, that the alternative case, which would be an omnibenevolent God that doesn't tolerate the homosexuality that he created who was accurately transcribed.

Essentially, your position relies upon the idea that whatever is said about God in the Bible must be true if the Bible is true, which I think is incorrect.

*Christians who actually follow the word of Christ, as opposed to the compassionless racists and people who hate the homeless.

But why would your beliefs be more authoritative than what all Christians believe to be the word of God?

[brenden]

Example?

I had dolphins in mind upon writing the post, but a further Google search offered quite a lot more.

But why would your beliefs be more authoritative than what all Christians believe to be the word of God?

I spoke in the first person to ensure passivity and am choosing to [respectfully] ignore this question, because I don't think the ensuing stream of discussion will be productive or relevant

[Coffee]

Let me firstly say that to come out as a 'homophobe' is actually extremely difficult

No it's not. You're not oppressed and you're not discriminated against for being homophobic.

For someone like me who absolutely hates 'judging' anyone or saying anyone else is wrong, this is an extremely hard thing to believe

Then don't believe it. Think for yourself. I'm assuming you've been conditioned to believe this due to a religious upbringing? Well challenge it. Don't take things for granted. The bible is not inherently correct; there's a lot of contradictory things in there and a lot of things that are considered sins we do today and no one questions it.

I can't help but believe that God made male and female, with two totally different complementary roles which also have symbolic meaning.

What about intersex? It's not so black and white.

Just because men and women have different complementary roles or rather 'fit' together doesn't mean it's the only option.

But since I believe that the Bible is true

Do you believe it's wrong to have sex with a woman who is menstruating? What about eating something mixed with meat and diary? Or eating pork? Dressing across gender lines or wearing more than one kind of cloth?*

*http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_actions_prohibited_by_the_Bible

[keltingmeith]

No it's not. You're not oppressed and you're not discriminated against for being homophobic.

Thank you for showing us why it *is* actually difficult. I'm not going to say that it is easy to live life if you identify as non-het cis, but a lot of people our age (i.e, our peers) try to be as supportive as possible for those who aren't, it's the older generations that make this more difficult. As such, amoungst our peers, it is harder to be homophobic than it is accepting.

Then don't believe it. Think for yourself. I'm assuming you've been conditioned to believe this due to a religious upbringing? Well challenge it. Don't take things for granted. The bible is not inherently correct; there's a lot of contradictory things in there and a lot of things that are considered sins we do today and no one questions it.

I see you haven't been to many youth groups, eh? Stuff like this *does* get questioned by people our age - daily, in fact. It is always being challenged - and just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Based on what was said, I honestly think that bangali is one of those people who has questioned it - and this is the conclusion she is currently at.


My own personal opinion on the matter is that whilst this is a step forward, it's also very sudden. It'll be interesting to see how the individual states respond to such a sudden loss in power. As for if this was the right decision or not? Equality in general is something I want to see, so let's hope this doesn't lead to another divide.

I do think we shouldn't be so outrightly spoken to those with different opinions to us, though - that really never solves anything. A healthy debate is one thing, a personal attack is another.

[heids]

I don't know where to start - so many million points to address!  Please see though that I'm honestly trying to sort through my opinions, your constructive inputs are helping me guys.  (Though I disagree with you).  Can't spend much time on this though as I'm marking essays in the middle

It's interesting to me that you're struggling with your beliefs (or at least, seem somewhat upset by them)... It seems like you feel as if it's quite a clear truth that homosexuality is wrong because you believe the Bible expresses that and, if the Bible expresses that, then it is a clear  truth. However, I think it's quite reasonable for a Christian to deny that this is the case - indeed, I think it's more reasonable for a Christian to deny this is the case. For, you can quite simply accept the Bible as an expression of historical or religious truth without believing that the Bible is comprehensively accurate. That is, the Bible is the "word of God", but who transcribed it? When we look at the translation of Kafka's Metamorphosis, we don't assume that the English version gives us the truth. Now, I'm sure you don't believe that God wrote the Bible in whatever realm he belongs in and then transferred it to Earth. Evidently, under the Christian perspective, it was written by men (or women) who were transcribing the word of God. Now, if this were the case, why wouldn't the Bible be subject to sociocultural trends the same as a Facebook display picture?

Essentially, your position relies upon the idea that whatever is said about God in the Bible must be true if the Bible is true, which I think is incorrect. I feel as if it's a tragedy that proper Christians* like yourself feel compelled towards one particular view of morality that could quite easily have been skewed by propagandists (it's pretty well established that religion has been utilised by the unsavoury as a method of social control).

Simply can't address this now thoroughly, got essays to mark   I'll simply say, that of course I've thoroughly considered all that.  Being a Christian isn't just a matter of upbringing, conditioning, blind acceptance.  But anyway, I'll say that I do believe that the Bible was 'inspired' - written by humans while God directly influences their mind; naturally influenced by them, but ultimately controlled by God.

One note - I don't think Christianity was originally set up to control people, it definitely became that way though.

It's my belief that the Christian God, or at least how "he" (or she) is presented is omnibenevolent. Put simply, I find it more likely that an omnibenevolent God would tolerate homosexuality (which he obviously created, as there are homosexual traits in species other than humans that don't have free will) and whoever transcribed the Bible did so incorrectly, that the alternative case, which would be an omnibenevolent God that doesn't tolerate the homosexuality that he created who was accurately transcribed.

Wouldn't Christ advocate lack of judgment and holistic acceptance and compassion?

I believe - no. 

It depends on what you think God is all about.  It's easy to see God as a nice fuzzy being - as you say, 'omnibenevolent' - who wants everyone to be happy.  But, I will strongly say: that is NOT how the Bible presents God.  I think it shows that God created his own objective morality, with good and evil.  The Bible also says that humans' version of right and wrong is NOT the same as God's.  I think the point is holiness.  God is not 'tolerant'. 

An example: The church is told to throw out a man living with his dad's wife (stepmother).  Does that harm anyone, really?  No.  It's just presented as impure, unholy, evil, and they are told they MUST not tolerate it.  This is just one example.  Now I'm aware that this is one of the reasons lots of people aren't Christians - they can't come to terms with this.

Next, an interesting point - I was listening to a discussion once.  People were saying, gays have genetic wiring that way, chemicals in the brain that produce that attraction, so there's nothing wrong with it.  Just a bit later, they'd moved to a different topic, and said, 'Pedophiles have chemicals in their brain that cause those attractions to kids.  That's just wrong.  They've got to get over that.'  I came out wondering, why's one sort of chemical wrong, and another not?  If God made pedophiles, shouldn't he let them do what they want?  I suppose I see that God put in humans a proneness to 'sin', selfishness, rule-breaking etc., and he knows that most of the time they WILL do that.  What he wants is the few people who can stand out against how they were made, and actively struggle to choose him.  But you'll probably find that hard to understand, it's a mindset from reading the Bible a lot.

No it's not. You're not oppressed and you're not discriminated against for being homophobic.

If I had simply said, "I think homosexuality is evil', I WOULD be oppressed.

Then don't believe it. Think for yourself. I'm assuming you've been conditioned to believe this due to a religious upbringing? Well challenge it. Don't take things for granted. The bible is not inherently correct; there's a lot of contradictory things in there and a lot of things that are considered sins we do today and no one questions it.

--> I have thought for myself
--> I've been conditioned, definitely; but, I've very openly questioned this.  Believing what I believe is hard.  Don't think that accepting what you were brought up with is the 'easy way out', honestly it would be easier to scrap it all and agree with what everyone else is saying.
--> I do believe that, in general, the Bible IS inherently correct.  Not out of blind faith, but careful thought.
--> Wrong, I question it.  For instance, sex before marriage; I guarantee that 99% of people round here would say that's fine.  I'm not trying to criticise anyone round here at all (PLEASE don't take anything that way), I'm just saying that I believe that God thinks it's sin.  Hence, I wouldn't ever do it.

What about intersex? It's not so black and white.

Just because men and women have different complementary roles or rather 'fit' together doesn't mean it's the only option.

No, but in the Bible it's the only option; in the Bible, it is black and white.  (Note, I take this much further; you probably don't know anyone so anti-feminism as I am, like my choice not to go to uni this year was directly influenced by my view of gender roles.  I think gender roles and marriage in the Bible are so symbolic, God set up marriage as an entire-life commitment between one man and one woman, to represent the relationship between him and us).  There are some difficult exceptions to deal with, true.

Do you believe it's wrong to have sex with a woman who is menstruating? What about eating something mixed with meat and diary? Or eating pork? Dressing across gender lines or wearing more than one kind of cloth?*

As always: old law vs. new law.  God instituted those for the nation Israel, to maintain their separateness and holiness and point forwards.  The Bible clearly shows that that has been superseded by new, different rules.

it is harder to be homophobic than it is accepting.

Truer than you can ever believe.  It HURTS.

[Professor Polonsky]

As a Christian, I personally believe that homosexuality is wrong.

I'm only quoting this part, because only quoting this will be entirely sufficient for my purposes.

I completely respect your right to genuinely- and deeply-held religious beliefs that hold that homosexuality is wrong. I happen to know a whole lot about (what you call) the OT, and I'm willing to engage in that debate. But for me, it's entirely beside the point. It's your belief, and you're entitled to it.

The issue is when you force those beliefs on other people. As a society, we have limited treating people adversely to when actual, direct harm is occasioned on other people through their conduct. I'm not going to go ad infinitum through examples to prove this point, because I think it's fairly self-evident.

Let me give you an example of what our current society hasn't outlawed, though. My religion holds that there are certain duties on all people, whether they are part of my religion or not. I would never seek to impose them on others through the law.

The bottom line is that whatever your belief on homosexuality is, one of the principles that our society holds is that we don't use the law to detract from someone's legal rights, or impose legal burdens on them, unless direct harm would otherwise be caused to other people. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that harm is occasioned to others through gay marriages.

If you do not accept this principle, then it may come to that the majority, one day, may decide that people like you (as in, whichever one of the many groups that you can be characterised as part of) shouldn't be tolerated. Perhaps there will be laws restricting your rights to marry, to. Perhaps your land will be confiscated.

[mahler004]

Thank you for showing us why it *is* actually difficult. I'm not going to say that it is easy to live life if you identify as non-het cis, but a lot of people our age (i.e, our peers) try to be as supportive as possible for those who aren't, it's the older generations that make this more difficult. As such, amoungst our peers, it is harder to be homophobic than it is accepting.

I see you haven't been to many youth groups, eh? Stuff like this *does* get questioned by people our age - daily, in fact. It is always being challenged - and just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Based on what was said, I honestly think that bangali is one of those people who has questioned it - and this is the conclusion she is currently at.


My own personal opinion on the matter is that whilst this is a step forward, it's also very sudden. It'll be interesting to see how the individual states respond to such a sudden loss in power. As for if this was the right decision or not? Equality in general is something I want to see, so let's hope this doesn't lead to another divide.

I do think we shouldn't be so outrightly spoken to those with different opinions to us, though - that really never solves anything. A healthy debate is one thing, a personal attack is another.

I don't think it was a sudden decision, really. I follow US politics on and off (not nearly as closely as I used to) and it's clear that the Supreme Court has been laying the groundwork for this for a few years - particularly with the Perry decision (which did not overturn a lower court's decision prohibiting California's same sex marriage ban,) and their refusal to hear several similar cases in previous years (in effect, allowing the decision to stand.) It would be much, much more of an upheaval if they overturned the lower court decisions. This decision really wasn't surprising at all.

It's a whole other issue over actual enforcement of the decision - states will find creative ways to discourage same sex marriage. Some states at the moment are refusing to marry same sex couples (although this is based on a technicality, and will promptly be overturned,) some counties in Alabama are apparently refusing to marry anyone. States find creative ways to make abortion difficult, even though Roe v. Wade made abortion legal throughout the US.

Unlike Loving v. Virginia (which overturned bans on interracial marriage) the Supreme Court is following the public, not leading it - 60% of Americans support same sex marriage. It took decades after Loving for public support of interracial marriages to reach the same levels. On Friday, was twelve years, to the day, that the Supreme Court overturned laws making homosexuality illegal in several states. The trend was pretty clear - even without this Supreme Court ruling, 70% of Americans lived in jurisdictions where same sex marriage was legal.

[Russ]

Are there people genuinely saying that it is harder to be homophobic than not as if that should somehow engender sympathy. My mind is blown.

I agree with the idea that your opinions on gay marriage can be anything as long as they remain in the abstract. If you want to start making laws (or not making them) then the greater societal interests come first.

[MightyBeh]

In everything, it's not the people that tag on to trends that I respect, but those with the guts to go against the flow (not out of stubborn, closed-mindedness though).

This 9001%. While I'm the total opposite of religious and a 'homophobe' (It's kind of silly we even use this word for it - unless you're genuinely scared of me?  ), I totally respect you for this. Obviously I'm not against LBGTQIA+ rights or anything, since that'd be a little counter-intuitive, but I wouldn't call myself a supporter.

Sure, yeah - it's all well and good that everyone should be happy. But why are they so excited about marriage being extended to the general populace in the US when people are being murdered, raped and tortured everyday? It represents the awkward and knobbly system we as a global society have with dealing with things. "Hey, some guy got beheaded by ISIS" should not reasonably be less important than "yeah I can wear this ring now", but guess which one people are talking about. Yes it's cool that another ~1 in 10 people in the US are maybe a bit happier now, but the whole 'loving union' thing is kind of defeated if being legally married is a selling point in the first place.

Although maybe I'm not the best person to ask on the matter. I personally believe marriage is kind of silly on its own, regardless of who it is getting married. It has its roots in both secular and non-secular traditions (I believe?*) being mostly utilitarian in nature (like cross-family bonds, profit, etc.) and to have such a connotation and history applied to something that, in a lot of (English-speaking countries') cases, is totally different (you know, the whole love thing) is nearly laughable. I reckon there would be a whole lot less debate if someone went out and said "okay guys - maybe the reason people are mad is because we're messing with their things. Let's just make a new thing and call it something different. It can have the same benefits but we'll keep it out of churches and all those other places that have their own thing."**

Of course, that doesn't solve the problem. There's religious gays*** that probably want to get married at a church. There are people who will argue that having two different versions of the same thing is actually enabling the segregation and discrimination. There's also probably people that don't want to put the time and effort into the extra paperwork (tbh I'd probably fit into this group  ). The point is that no matter what happens, not everyone's going to be happy.

Really, in a sentence, what I think should happen is essentially "everyone should forget about the bedroom politics for at least five minutes and deal with all the serious, Human Rights (yeah, those things) violations because those are pretty important, too."

*As always, correct me if I'm wrong. (Also link me to a/some legit article/s pls?)
**Alternatively, take the financial/other non-relationship benefits out of marriage.
***For the love of all that is delicious and marinated in the tears of my enemies, please acknowledge that when I say gay, I mean LBGTQIA+.

Let me firstly say that to come out as a 'homophobe' is actually extremely difficult

No it's not. You're not oppressed and you're not discriminated against for being homophobic.

I'd come out to Hitler before I told people I was homophobic*. Oppression is defined as 'prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority' so I'd pretty comfortably say that right now being against homosexuality won't get you oppressed, but it will in the future (you know, since oppression is long term). People are certainly discriminated** against because of it.

That being said, I'm still pretty uncomfortable with the thought of coming out the Hitler so I hope we can safely say that card's off the table.

*That is, if Hitler came to 2015 - not if I was in 1942. Thankfully I'm not that dumb.
**definition, (wikipedia): Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favour of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

[heids]

I will preface this with: this is a more way-out post than my others, I'm really sorry (and not trying to evangelise!!!) but trying to sort stuff out in my own mind.  Don't take anything personally.

I completely respect your right to genuinely- and deeply-held religious beliefs that hold that homosexuality is wrong. I happen to know a whole lot about (what you call) the OT, and I'm willing to engage in that debate. But for me, it's entirely beside the point. It's your belief, and you're entitled to it.

The issue is when you force those beliefs on other people. As a society, we have limited treating people adversely to when actual, direct harm is occasioned on other people through their conduct. I'm not going to go ad infinitum through examples to prove this point, because I think it's fairly self-evident.

Let me give you an example of what our current society hasn't outlawed, though. My religion holds that there are certain duties on all people, whether they are part of my religion or not. I would never seek to impose them on others through the law.

The bottom line is that whatever your belief on homosexuality is, one of the principles that our society holds is that we don't use the law to detract from someone's legal rights, or impose legal burdens on them, unless direct harm would otherwise be caused to other people. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that harm is occasioned to others through gay marriages.

Yep, I realised afterwards that I'd forgotten to deal with whether I think gay marriage should be legalised: if we had a gay marriage referendum, I wouldn't vote.  Church vs. state, if the nation wants gay marriage, that's up to them, though it'll make it even harder for me.

So, I'm not going to try to force my beliefs on others; I'm never going to go up to a gay and say, 'You're evil, you're wrong, you will go to hell'.  Like, God doesn't.  He pretty much says with absolutely everything - I've warned you again and again, but I'm not going to stop you.  It's your choice.  But he also basically says, in the end you'll cop it.  So, I can't do the whole 'it's right for you' thing.  You're entitled to believe what you want to believe, but I believe that you are wrong and you will eventually 'cop it', to put it very harshly.

I believe that the God of the Bible is the one God who exists.  Hence, I have to believe that anyone who doesn't believe in him is wrong.  It's impossible that we're both right.  (Please, I'm not arguing about WHO is right, just saying that only one of us can be).  If I believe that everything is right, then I don't REALLY believe that my God exists, because he says that other religions/non-religions aren't right.  If you get me?  The 'everyone's right' mindset automatically says that no religion truly exists, which I can't cope with.

So, while this is unbelievably hard to say, I've got to say that if I end up totally believing that homosexuality is wrong (a point I'm struggling with), then I'll have to believe it's wrong - for everyone.  But again, it's your choice what you do, I'll never try and change that.  But basically I'm saying that, yes, because I believe in an 'intolerant' God, I also have to be 'intolerant'.  (Don't take that the wrong way).

If you do not accept this principle, then it may come to that the majority, one day, may decide that people like you (as in, whichever one of the many groups that you can be characterised as part of) shouldn't be tolerated. Perhaps there will be laws restricting your rights to marry, to. Perhaps your land will be confiscated.

I'm aware; that's what happened to Christians, originally, and to the Reformers and Bible translators; that's what happens to anyone who holds a viewpoint totally opposite to society.  I'm expecting growing opposition to Christians.

Are there people genuinely saying that it is harder to be homophobic than not as if that should somehow engender sympathy.

Not trying to get sympathy; just stating it's a fact that going against the flow is difficult.  What do I have to gain out of being homophobic?  Nothing; I don't feel more self-righteous from it; it's not fun or easy.

[Professor Polonsky]

Yep, I realised afterwards that I'd forgotten to deal with whether I think gay marriage should be legalised: if we had a gay marriage referendum, I wouldn't vote.  Church vs. state, if the nation wants gay marriage, that's up to them, though it'll make it even harder for me.

So there's no issue. You have genuinely held religious beliefs, but you recognise that you can't impose them on others. Anything beyond that is utterly irrelevant for me.

I'm aware; that's what happened to Christians, originally, and to the Reformers and Bible translators; that's what happens to anyone who holds a viewpoint totally opposite to society.  I'm expecting growing opposition to Christians.

That's fair enough, but of course you have to recognise that it has been Christians who have been doing most of the oppressing for the past millennia. And on top of that, that being reduced from 'predominant religious status' to 'just another minority belief that people treat with contempt' doesn't really qualify for my sympathies. Especially when it has been Christians behind most of the racism towards other religions, not irreligious people.


Regarding the ruling: It was quite clear that Kennedy would provide the 5th vote for requiring same-sex marriages (and write the opinion). I'd have actually rated it a higher chance that one of the four liberal judges (e.g. Ginsburg, who is one of the biggest advocates for gender equality in the US, has criticised Roe v. Wade for actually "stopping momentum on the side of change", while Breyer is generally a pragmatist) would take the position that it's too soon.

[heids]

it has been Christians who have been doing most of the oppressing for the past millennia

Indeed, and that's what I meant by the Bible translators/reformers being oppressed - it was the Christians who did that.  How 'Christians' have behaved (I sometimes struggle to call myself a Christian with that history) is utterly horrible and unacceptable.  (Interestingly, the Bible teaches that being oppressed is a GOOD thing for Christians).


Going to bed about now, and won't be round the forum tomorrow at all.  Will be interesting to see how this has developed by Monday.