I really don't understand the opposition to same-sex marriage. How does it devalue "traditional" marriage anymore than Donald Trump's divorces? Or Britney Spears' 24 hour marriage?
Even if you believe that homosexuality is a sin, that's completely irrelevant to the discussion, unless you're proposing that no sinner can be married. If that's the case, then according to Christian theology the only person in history who would be allowed to be married was Jesus, and I guess he'd have to marry himself...
I saw a comment by Xeno where they're not only opposed to same-sex relationships in general, but that marriage is no longer a burden to bear, no longer the "ball and chain" of old, and instead of being centered on love, compassion, understanding, and ideals that never fully surrounded "traditional" marriage. I can see where that would completely shake up some people's beliefs and even their emotional lives. But this should be seen as a positive thing, not a negative.
That's a very interesting train of thought, and I think we can see it elsewhere, specifically relating to Millennials. This article in Forbes discusses how Millennials redefine work, how we aren't satisfied with 9-5 Corporate jobs. Often, that mentality is misunderstood by outsiders as laziness or shirking some burden, but I see it as people finding better ways to live.
Maybe opposition to same sex marriage is rooted in this unyielding opposition to change and progress. Time marches on.
I'm not sure if there is a credit misunderstanding here. Spaceghoti posted the article, I posted a comment on it. Still glad you remember seeing me around though. :)
Some of them it's because they are afraid of everything that is "different", others it's because it forces them to look at themselves and see they are "different". The first group it's the biggest the second one the noisiest.
I see it as the other way around, saying that marriage is for procreation diminishes my marriage as an heterosexual man. I didn't marry my wife for procreation I did it because I love her and I want to build a life together with her. For me marriage is about love and happiness and every human being has the right to love, be loved and be happy.
Regarding the second group, I can't for the life of me remember where I read it but I'll try to summarize as best I remember:
The idea was that (some) people who claim that homosexuality is a choice feel that way because they've chosen to live their lives as heterosexuals, even though they feel same-sex attraction. They were just taught it was "evil", and forced themselves to remain closeted and try to live "normally".
Oh I got one. There was a priest that told me that with heterosexuals couples there can always be a miracle if God wants. The guy seemed very proud of his argument.
Perhaps that priest needs to be told of parthenogenesis. Throw that into the mix and at least lesbian couples could "miraculously" procreate.
Also, thanks to the "miracle" of modern science, we can now create babies from 3 people (theoretically 2 women, 1 man). What's to stop a gay couple from going to a fertility clinic and undergoing this with a surrogate? Are they now not technically fertile? Also, you wouldn't even need a third person to splice genes between two lesbians, unless they wanted a boy.
It's an ingenious argument 50 years ago. But with modern genetic knowledge and fertility science, it doesn't really hold water.
So... I have a lot of points of view as to why fundamentalists are opposed to gay marriage, but I always come down to this: don't they have anything better to do? They waste so much time and taxpayer dollars on unimportant nonsense that they are not going to win. And it doesn't stop at gay marriage issues.
Why does any form of exclusivity appeal to people? It makes them feel better about themselves. Some people really do have to take from or demean others in order to feel secure in themselves.
My "WTF guys" aspect of it is that this seems to somehow be Christianity claiming "ownership" of the institution of marriage. As if only they can say what should and should not be allowed to be considered "marriage".
The institution of marriage pre-dates Christianity by a LONG LONG time. They have no more claim over it than anyone else.
Plus, there doesn't seem to be any great move to ban marriages from other religions being valid, they break one of the big 10 commandments of Christianity (no god other than me) which presumably should come WAY before random passages from random books of the bible that also ban tattoos and mixed cloth fabrics. If you're going to go for it be consistent please.
I really don't understand the opposition to same-sex marriage. How does it devalue "traditional" marriage anymore than Donald Trump's divorces? Or Britney Spears' 24 hour marriage?
Even if you believe that homosexuality is a sin, that's completely irrelevant to the discussion, unless you're proposing that no sinner can be married. If that's the case, then according to Christian theology the only person in history who would be allowed to be married was Jesus, and I guess he'd have to marry himself...
I saw a comment by Xeno where they're not only opposed to same-sex relationships in general, but that marriage is no longer a burden to bear, no longer the "ball and chain" of old, and instead of being centered on love, compassion, understanding, and ideals that never fully surrounded "traditional" marriage. I can see where that would completely shake up some people's beliefs and even their emotional lives. But this should be seen as a positive thing, not a negative.
Spaceghoti found the comment I am referencing. - http://snapzu.com/spaceghoti/more-conservativ...e-isnt-supposed-to-be-about-love-or-happiness
That's a very interesting train of thought, and I think we can see it elsewhere, specifically relating to Millennials. This article in Forbes discusses how Millennials redefine work, how we aren't satisfied with 9-5 Corporate jobs. Often, that mentality is misunderstood by outsiders as laziness or shirking some burden, but I see it as people finding better ways to live.
Maybe opposition to same sex marriage is rooted in this unyielding opposition to change and progress. Time marches on.
http://snapzu.com/spaceghoti/more-conservativ...e-isnt-supposed-to-be-about-love-or-happiness
See, I should've just looked you up. Thanks for the link. =) I'll edit above to credit Xeno for the thought/opinion.
I'm not sure if there is a credit misunderstanding here. Spaceghoti posted the article, I posted a comment on it. Still glad you remember seeing me around though. :)
Some of them it's because they are afraid of everything that is "different", others it's because it forces them to look at themselves and see they are "different". The first group it's the biggest the second one the noisiest.
I see it as the other way around, saying that marriage is for procreation diminishes my marriage as an heterosexual man. I didn't marry my wife for procreation I did it because I love her and I want to build a life together with her. For me marriage is about love and happiness and every human being has the right to love, be loved and be happy.
Regarding the second group, I can't for the life of me remember where I read it but I'll try to summarize as best I remember:
The idea was that (some) people who claim that homosexuality is a choice feel that way because they've chosen to live their lives as heterosexuals, even though they feel same-sex attraction. They were just taught it was "evil", and forced themselves to remain closeted and try to live "normally".
I've yet to get an answer for people with that opinion when asked if they want to prevent people who aren't fertile from marrying.
I keep asking someone expresses that opinion though.
Oh I got one. There was a priest that told me that with heterosexuals couples there can always be a miracle if God wants. The guy seemed very proud of his argument.
Oh wow. And I guess people who don't want kids can always have an accident.
God seems a bit weaksauce on that one though. Miracles by definition transcend natural laws so he could miracle a baby to a gay couple if he wanted.
Perhaps that priest needs to be told of parthenogenesis. Throw that into the mix and at least lesbian couples could "miraculously" procreate.
Also, thanks to the "miracle" of modern science, we can now create babies from 3 people (theoretically 2 women, 1 man). What's to stop a gay couple from going to a fertility clinic and undergoing this with a surrogate? Are they now not technically fertile? Also, you wouldn't even need a third person to splice genes between two lesbians, unless they wanted a boy.
It's an ingenious argument 50 years ago. But with modern genetic knowledge and fertility science, it doesn't really hold water.
So... I have a lot of points of view as to why fundamentalists are opposed to gay marriage, but I always come down to this: don't they have anything better to do? They waste so much time and taxpayer dollars on unimportant nonsense that they are not going to win. And it doesn't stop at gay marriage issues.
Why does any form of exclusivity appeal to people? It makes them feel better about themselves. Some people really do have to take from or demean others in order to feel secure in themselves.
This is so true. People like this are so unhappy that they see happy people and have to shit all over them. "If I can't do it, you can't do it."
My "WTF guys" aspect of it is that this seems to somehow be Christianity claiming "ownership" of the institution of marriage. As if only they can say what should and should not be allowed to be considered "marriage".
The institution of marriage pre-dates Christianity by a LONG LONG time. They have no more claim over it than anyone else.
Plus, there doesn't seem to be any great move to ban marriages from other religions being valid, they break one of the big 10 commandments of Christianity (no god other than me) which presumably should come WAY before random passages from random books of the bible that also ban tattoos and mixed cloth fabrics. If you're going to go for it be consistent please.