Claiming that someone else's marriage is against your religion...

[progressoid]

Apologies if this has been posted already.

[William769]

1. No I have not seen that.

Thanks.

[Electric Monk]

15. I have, but it's worth repeating

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002672358

[freshwest]

2. It's crossing the line between establishment of religion, forcing others to take your beliefs.

The founders didn't want for any one denomination to rule the others. There are denominations that do ordinate and marry LGBTs.

No one is making them join those denominations, so this doesn't apply to their religion.

This is holding up one above another and promoting sectarian strife.

We must respect others' right to believe as they do if we expect that right, too.

[mindwalker_i]

6. Similar to the abortion debate

If one doesn't believe in gay marriage, don't get one.

[freshwest]

7. And there are churches that accept abortion, too. People must be free to think freely,

Not be slaves to any form of thought tyranny and fear no matter what it dresses itself up as.

These denominations have overreached their first amendment right to practice their religion. The Founders saw what the religious wars did in Europe, not just between Catholics and Protestants, but within both versions of Christianity and the carnage that was part of Europe for centuries. They didn't want that here.

The churches since Reagan have abused their influence to force government to stop doing its job to represent all the people without discrimination and allow them take over. We must resist. It's hard for those for whom the church is their main social outlet to leave it.

But I'm thinking many people of faith are seeing these extremists and will rebel against it like the nuns are doing.

[MNBrewer]

16. And, religion is a choice!

Nobody is "born Catholic" or "born Pentacostal" or "born Mormon" or "born Muslim".

And yet, those choices are constitutionally protected. If a choice, why not sexual orientation (which isn't chosen IMO)?

[freshwest]

19. Religion was protected constitutionally to stop wars. That included freedom FROM religion, mostly.

I agree with you on all points, but the right wingers don't. Michael Reagan called for the killing of unborn babies of Muslims, because he said they would grow up to be terrorists.

That's 'pro-life for some,' but not others. I've argued this stuff for years with conservatives and they do believe that your religion, sexuality, political views are genetic, not just environmental. The debate over nature and nurture isn't over for them.

You might remember reading that the Nazis killed families of trade unionists, communists, etc. under the belief that they would grow into the beliefs of their families. The Nazis were into the occult and didn't believe in choice much.

The right wingers have claimed Obama was not qualified as POTUS because:

#1: Being black, and some saying that blacks are more right-brained and thus more creative and effeminate than a white male, thus weak.

#2: Being bi-racial, he thinks with both sides of his brain, making him unstable and unfit to lead. Just like women are...

Yes, they really argue this crap. It is part of their racial creed to believe that the way a person's head or lips or nose or whatever determines their character. This is from their belief in phrenology.

And as far as choice, I argued with them for years about this 'choice' thing they say LGBTs have, and should resist acting on their desires as 'thorns in the flesh.' Having known all variations of LGBTs, I can't see it as a choice. It's not a majority of people in any of those categories, but I believe there is a range of human sexuality that extends beyond all of them, or in between. What is it for me is just being human.

They've played this both ways, calling for the abortion of fetuses if there was a 'gay gene' discovered before birth. So much for 'pro-life' again. When they continued to argue it was a 'choice,' I said okay, fine, then asked:

Who are you to say what their 'choice' should be?

Do you want someone to tell you what religion, school, wife, job, home, car, political party that you should choose?

Where is the line between what you are calling a 'choice' and the organizing of 'thought police' to make others match your belief system?

These guys talk a lot about 'freedom and liberty' but don't think for a minute what they would do if someone entered into their lives, telling them what to do. They have such a poverty of morality that they dress it up with religion and other icons to hide behind, that they are not worth talking to on this matters. But still we have to live with them, and I hope I gave you some points to use.

[MNBrewer]

22. are you saying that people don't choose their religion and religious viewpoints?

The same way one might choose a car and the color of the car?

[freshwest]

23. Nowhere in my statement did I say that, I said the opposite. Please read the body of the message.

As far as choice is concerned, many follow the beliefs of their families, teachers, schools and the churches they were brought up in. A child is confronted with a series of beliefs that the adult may discard or keep.

At that point it becomes a choice, but at any earlier age for purposes of survival, not so much. They must mouth the same things as the people that surround them to get along, even if they don't 'believe.'

For many years I chose to be in a religion. Following a series of profound changes in myself, I put it aside. For me at this point in my life, no longer a child trying to fit into a group, it is a choice like clothes or whatever.

I have churched friends who respect that possibility. The others who can't do so, in my opinion, are still indulging a childish need for an authority figure to protect them. For whatever reason, they are trapped by their childish fears and lash out at those consider a free thinker, or heretic, disturbing that comfort. The have a list of good and evil they chant, but never really understand their own responsibilities.

We are obliged to tolerate the person who makes other choices than ourselves, out of respect. However, we are confronting a 'religious right' that shows no respect for those who don't agree with them. I have a problem with that lack of respect for others, when I have shown them that courtesy.

In my reply I was discussing how conservatives I've argued with for years express their objection to being 'not' being straight. No matter what premise you argue with them, they have no true principles for what they espouse. They can be disarmed in several ways, as I described in my post, but I'm not sure if they can learn to think for themselves, which I find very sad.

[MNBrewer]

29. OK. Just checking.

[freshwest]

30. Wish you wanted to do more. Peace Out.

[Creideiki]

31. Actually, religion is protected constitutionally because Jefferson didn't think Baptists

should be persecuted in Anglican Virginia.

[unblock]

3. i wanna like this, but the more i think about it, the less i like it.

it's cute and pithy and my initial reaction is haha, so my instinct is to like it.

but i don't think the metaphor actually works very well.

[robinlynne]

4. I think it is spot on target!

[unblock]

9. anger at people eating donuts when you're on a diet is perfectly understandable

whereas anger at people having gay marriages is not.

plus, gay marriage is not something that the haters are tempted by, used to have and enjoy, and are trying to personally cut back on.

all in all, i think it's far to sympathetic to the haters.

[yardwork]

10. Good points.

A more apt metaphor might be outlawing the sale of donuts because one doesn't like them.

I don't like donuts, therefore selling donuts should be illegal. Is that closer?

[unblock]

11. broccoli works better because a lot of people don't care for it.

[yardwork]

12. That's kind of insulting. Gay people are like broccoli because a lot of people don't like them?

[unblock]

13. gay marriage, not gay people.

and this started with donuts. broccoli is insulting, but donuts aren't? nothing negative about donuts?

[yardwork]

14. You said, "....because a lot of people don't care for it."

As a lesbian I know that "a lot of people don't care" for me or the idea that I might have a right to marriage, but the way you put it was a little stark, you know?

[unblock]

21. i see your point. none of that was intended.

mrs. unblock and i are huge lgbt supporters, but rather than taking my own credentials for granted, i should know better what the sensitivities are. a good reminder that initial clarity is the best defense against miscommunication.

[MNBrewer]

17. I've always loved broccoli, because I'm a giant who is eating trees when I eat broccoli.

(that's how mom got me to dive in, that and the cheese sauce)

[unblock]

20. haha! do you like baby corn for the same reason?

i recently started adding broccoli to my mac & cheese, so it is now an official part of my "comfort food".

[robinlynne]

24. Anger at people eating donuts when you are on a diet is not understandable at all. Are you angry at

people for being a different color? how about anger about what people wear? We are diffrerent. We are fat and skinny, we eat vegetables or donuts or meat; we are of different faiths, we sing different songs in different languages. None of that is a cause for anger. Diversity is a beuautiful thing.

[unblock]

25. what? er, ok, great post from the "we are different" part forward....

i show some sympathy for people on a diet and that makes me a racist because... what?

[robinlynne]

26. You said anger at people who eat donuts is perfectly understandable if you are on a diet. That is

the same as saying anger at people who wear red is perfectly understandable if you wear blue. People in Los Angeles who wear red kill people or wearing blue. literally. Red and blue are the 2 gang colors here. if you wear one or the other in certain neighborhoods it may get you shot.

So if you are on a diet, you have no right to be angry at skinny people or people who eat donuts. They are different; that is all.

(smiley thing here)

[unblock]

27. sorry but i really think you're stretching quite a bit here.

back in high school debate we used to play this game of trying to put forth an argument, or at least a string of rhetoric, that turned any position into the cause of global thermonuclear war. this rather reminds me of those exercises.

people get cranky when they're on a diet next thing you know it, gang wars! dead bodies in the street! social unrest distracts our government from monitoring the middle east! tensions rise! saber-rattling about a nuclear research lab! a chinese missle silo malfunctions and opens! russia launches a pre-emptive strike! the u.s. see russian nukes in the sky an all hell breaks loose! we're all gonna die!

silly, i know. well, it was fun in high school.


anyway, one of the great rhetorical tricks we used in that game was saying "x is the same as y", when in fact it wasn't at all, but it was a rather convenient way to build the chain to get to global thermonuclear war.


anger about donut-eating when dieting is not at all the same thing as anger about others making a different wardrobe choice and certainly not at all the same thing as gang warfare.

[robinlynne]

28. what gives anyone the right to be angry at someone for eating a donut? there is NOTHING worng with

eating donuts. It is a personal choice. Can you scream at someone for eating a donut? hit them?
if I eat meat, does it give me the right to be angry at vegetarians?
It does lead to violence. all the time. Haven't you seen children physically bullied because they are fat or skinny?
or wear glasses? or have red hair?
it is all the same thing.

[SunSeeker]

5. It's more like being angry at someone for eating donuts because you hate donuts. nt

[Angry Dragon]

8. Your religion is against my religion

[MNBrewer]

18. your religion is against my no religion