HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » Never forget

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 01:31 PM

Never forget

That opposition to marriage equality was 100% religious based. And it came about in spite of religion, not with it's assistance.

There were theists who weren't against it, but religion in general is against it. Even Episcopalians who allow it wiin the church in america are defying their dogma and it's causing a split in the church, and in Africa the church is fighting against it.

75 replies, 3920 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 75 replies Author Time Post
Reply Never forget (Original post)
Lordquinton Jul 2015 OP
Maedhros Jul 2015 #1
Lordquinton Jul 2015 #2
Maedhros Jul 2015 #5
Lordquinton Jul 2015 #12
Maedhros Jul 2015 #13
Lordquinton Jul 2015 #18
Maedhros Jul 2015 #23
Lordquinton Jul 2015 #24
Maedhros Jul 2015 #27
Lordquinton Jul 2015 #29
safeinOhio Jul 2015 #10
Lordquinton Jul 2015 #14
safeinOhio Jul 2015 #15
Lordquinton Jul 2015 #19
we can do it Jul 2015 #17
AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #20
Post removed Jul 2015 #47
AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #48
AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #50
stone space Jul 2015 #51
AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #53
stone space Jul 2015 #55
AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #56
mr blur Jul 2015 #3
Maedhros Jul 2015 #4
AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #8
stone space Jul 2015 #45
AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #52
mr blur Jul 2015 #16
Maedhros Jul 2015 #22
Lordquinton Jul 2015 #25
Act_of_Reparation Jul 2015 #33
Maedhros Jul 2015 #42
Maedhros Jul 2015 #43
Act_of_Reparation Jul 2015 #49
Maedhros Jul 2015 #58
Act_of_Reparation Jul 2015 #60
Maedhros Jul 2015 #61
mr blur Jul 2015 #62
Maedhros Jul 2015 #66
trotsky Jul 2015 #63
Act_of_Reparation Jul 2015 #64
Lordquinton Jul 2015 #67
mr blur Jul 2015 #68
AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #35
Post removed Jul 2015 #46
AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #54
nc4bo Jul 2015 #59
safeinOhio Jul 2015 #11
AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #21
Act_of_Reparation Jul 2015 #34
Warpy Jul 2015 #6
Maedhros Jul 2015 #7
AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #9
AlbertCat Jul 2015 #26
Maedhros Jul 2015 #28
Lordquinton Jul 2015 #30
AlbertCat Jul 2015 #31
Maedhros Jul 2015 #32
AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #37
Lordquinton Jul 2015 #40
Warren Stupidity Jul 2015 #74
edhopper Jul 2015 #36
AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #38
edhopper Jul 2015 #39
Mariana Jul 2015 #73
edhopper Jul 2015 #75
MellowDem Jul 2015 #41
Lordquinton Jul 2015 #44
Act_of_Reparation Jul 2015 #71
Lordquinton Jul 2015 #72
larkrake Jul 2015 #57
AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #65
Lordquinton Jul 2015 #69
Act_of_Reparation Jul 2015 #70

Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 01:42 PM

1. Not a fair accusation. You could certainly say the majority of religious organizations

 

were against marriage equality but "in general" implies all of them, which is not true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 02:02 PM

2. Yes all religions

Unless you have one in mind that I haven't heard about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 02:16 PM

5. It appears you are as blind to some people as you believe they are blind to you.

 

Painting everyone with the same broad brush is as silly with religious people as with LGBTQ people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #5)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 03:22 PM

12. Just because there is nothing to see

Doesn't mean I'm blind.

Thanks for the ad hom in place of an argument, really supports your case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #12)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 03:40 PM

13. Maybe you should read your own thread?

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=206697

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=206705

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=206704

Not an ad hominem attack, just an observation - pithily confirmed by yourself, actually, by demonstrating that you missed the three posts above. Blind, indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #13)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 04:30 PM

18. It was an ad hom

When you posted it you did not support it. So despite your efforts at time control, the facts don't support you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #18)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 04:55 PM

23. Again, an observation based upon your post.

 

Are all feminists man-hating lesbians?
Are all environmentalists dope-smoking hippies?
Are all undocumented immigrants criminals and rapists?

You are engaging in the same kind of hateful stereotyping, ascribing to all members of a group (religious people) characteristics present in a sub-set of that group (conservative Christian homophobes). This is obviously, logically false.

Are there religious people who are hateful and ignorant? You bet! But religious people are not a monolithic entity - there is great diversity between religions and within religions. If you want to disparage conservative Christian homophobes, then qualify your statements. Insulting everyone who is religious just makes you look bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #23)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 05:33 PM

24. You are not even wrong here

Few to none feminists are man hating lesbians
few to none environmentalists are dope smoking hippies
few to none undocumented immagrants are criminals and rapists

To even try to make the comparisson is an insult.

My main point is sill uncontested: that the forces against marriage equality are 100% religious.

I also never said religious people, in fact i specifically said that i wasn't talking about religious people. I specified religion.

Stop playing with straw. And go stuff the qualifers, that your arguing about not hurting the few minor sects that aren't completely monstrous over groups at are suffering and dieing from opressin of the majority speaks volumes about your motives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #24)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 05:53 PM

27. Enjoy your anger.

 

/bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #27)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 06:11 PM

29. The question is why aren't you angry?

Enjoy your apolagetics

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 03:16 PM

10. UU churches have been

for it forever. Quakers also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #10)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 03:42 PM

14. So UUs and Quakers can consider themselves exempt

And they can know that silently so they don't give cover to the likes of the RCC who is waging global campaigns against it, among other religions.

To borrow a phrase, you don't get a cookie for being a decent person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #14)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 03:46 PM

15. Not at all,

just ahead of everyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #15)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 04:31 PM

19. Let me rephrase

You don't get a cookie for not being a monster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #10)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 04:23 PM

17. Forget United Church of Christ

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to we can do it (Reply #17)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 04:34 PM

20. Might as well, since they have less than 1 million members and shrinking.

One million believers in a 310 million-person nation, polling between 75-85% religious.

That's less than 1%

Don't hurt yourself celebrating

Can you find a ~1 million member secular org opposed to same sex marriage? Even that many?

Secularists as a whole haven't been a problem, by LESS than the LARGEST statistical outlier religious supporters that haven't been a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #20)


Response to Post removed (Reply #47)


Response to Post removed (Reply #47)

Tue Jul 7, 2015, 11:03 AM

50. I said pathetically tiny percentage, not simply 'pathetic'. That's your ad hom, not mine

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #50)

Tue Jul 7, 2015, 11:07 AM

51. You know you are pathetically tiny when you can't even...

 

...get TV networks to air your church ads.

I mean, how often do TV networks turn away cash?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #51)

Tue Jul 7, 2015, 11:12 AM

53. Perhaps the networks had conflicting political purposes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #53)

Tue Jul 7, 2015, 11:17 AM

55. You mean homophobia?

 

Perhaps the networks had conflicting political purposes.


A definite possibility, I would think.

When religion conflicts with homophobia, the networks in question choose homophobia over religion.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #55)

Tue Jul 7, 2015, 11:24 AM

56. Networks have owners.

Owners have agendas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 02:07 PM

3. Care to give us a major religion which loves the idea and fought for it?

 

Or even one which doesn 't claim that their god invented/'defined' marriage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 02:14 PM

4. There are a number of sects - Unitarians, for example - that have no problem with gay marriage.

 

http://www.uua.org/lgbtq/marriage

We respect the worth and dignity of every person, and that applies equally to people of all sexual orientations and gender identities. UU congregations and clergy have long recognized and celebrated same-sex marriages within our faith tradition.

Since 1973, when the Office of Gay Affairs (now Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Ministries) was established, the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) has made an institutional commitment to full equality for bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer-identified people. In 2004, UUA staff member, Hillary Goodridge was the lead plaintiff in the Massachusetts marriage case (Goodridge vs the Dept of Public Health: Legal at Last), which paved the way for marriage equality in other states. The UUA has filed court cases, joined amicus curiae briefs, written, petitioned, visited, and called legislators, made 1-on-1 visits with friends, family members, and strangers, staffed phone banks, held press conferences, conducted worship services, and everything else needed to make marriage equality a reality throughout the United States.

The UUA is currently featured in a “friend of the court” brief submitted to the Supreme Court in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges. The Court is hearing arguments on this case in 2015, and its ruling will affect the future of same sex marriage across the country.


Claiming that all religions are against it is just not true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #4)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 03:05 PM

8. Unitarians are a pathetically tiny percentage of the religious population.

Like, that wasn't even funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #8)

Tue Jul 7, 2015, 08:40 AM

45. Unitarians don't count.

 

Unitarians are a pathetically tiny percentage of the religious population.


Saying that minority faiths like the UUs count would be every bit as pathetic as saying that atheists count.

There aren't enough of us atheists to count, so we just don't matter. We're too pathetically tiny to matter.

Same thing with UUs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #45)

Tue Jul 7, 2015, 11:11 AM

52. You seem to be having some trouble following the logic.

Atheists/secularists poll in favor of and materially support same sex marriage. There are no large secular orgs that oppose it. Please correct me if I am wrong on that point.

The largest religious orgs that support it, are actually smaller than the secular orgs.

Meaning, the op laid blame where it belongs, with religion. The small percentage of outliers doesn't disprove the point. In fact, it serves to highlight the flipped opposite support. Secularists that oppose are a tiny unorganized percentage of secularists. There are no majority secular orgs in the millions working to prevent it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #4)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 04:11 PM

16. No, I said a major religion. Not a minor sect.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Reply #16)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 04:44 PM

22. Hinduism and Buddhism - do they count?

 

The point is that one cannot paint all religious people with the same broad brush. That would be as offensive as painting all gay men as prancing sissies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #22)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 05:34 PM

25. Good thing no one did that

Except you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #22)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 09:32 PM

33. Count as what?

Religions? Sure.

Religions generally supportive of gay rights? Sorry, but no.

You do realize homosexuality is punishable by law in India, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #33)

Tue Jul 7, 2015, 12:06 AM

42. Is that the religion, or the people? [n/t]

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #33)

Tue Jul 7, 2015, 12:08 AM

43. I'm sure you can provide a link to some Hindu text that forbids homosexuality.

 

I'm open to being proven wrong. If you can show me some legitimate dogma, I'll concede the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #43)

Tue Jul 7, 2015, 11:02 AM

49. Of course.

"...a woman who pollutes a damsel (unmarried girl) shall instantly have (her head) shaved or two fingers cut off, and be made to ride (through the town) on a donkey"

Laws of Manu, Chapter 8 Verse 320





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #49)

Tue Jul 7, 2015, 11:39 AM

58. I stand corrected.

 

However, as I've tried to point out, religions are not monolithic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_topics_and_Hinduism

Hindu views of homosexuality and, in general, LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) issues, are diverse and different Hindu groups have distinct views. Homosexuality is regarded as one of the possible expressions of human desire. Although some Hindu dharmic texts contain injunctions against homosexuality, a number of Hindu mythic stories have portrayed homosexual experience as natural and joyful.[1] There are several Hindu temples which have carvings that depict both men and women engaging in homosexual sex.[2] Same-sex relations and gender variance have been represented within Hinduism from Vedic times through to the present day, in rituals, law books, religious or so-called mythical narratives, commentaries, paintings, and sculpture. The extent to which these representations embrace or reject homosexuality has been disputed within the religion as well as outside of it. In 2009, The United Kingdom Hindu Council issued a statement that 'Hinduism does not condemn homosexuality', subsequent to the decision of the Delhi High Court to legalise homosexuality in India


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #58)

Tue Jul 7, 2015, 12:23 PM

60. Right now, you'd give Michael Flatley a run for his money.

I fully expected you to say something like that.

When the books are bad, it doesn't matter because not everyone takes them literally. When the people are bad, it doesn't matter because their behavior goes against what the books say. Your metric for measuring religion shifts as needed to preserve your preexisting opinions. It's pretty dishonest, frankly.

For better or worse, here's what I think:

Religions are a gestalt of their associated texts, leaders, and constituent followers. Looking at one piece exclusively will only give you an incomplete picture of the whole. Furthermore, there exists no ideal religion. All we have is what we have at this given moment; there's little sense bickering about how "real" Christians "should" act based on your subjective opinion of what "real Christianity" looks like. We have Christians, and based their texts, what their leaders say, and what they profess to believe, we can get some idea of where Christians, in general, stand on certain issues.

By way of this process: There are homophobic passages in Hindu texts, homosexuality is illegal in India, the only Hindu-majority nation in the world, and the law prescribing jail time for homosexual acts was supported by India's major religious leaders. It cannot be said, therefore, that Hinduism is generally accepting of, or even indifferent towards, homosexuality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #60)

Tue Jul 7, 2015, 12:42 PM

61. You call me dishonest? Whatever.

 

I get it: you are dead set on demonizing religion. My point is that by doing so you are demonizing people as well, and those people are diverse in their beliefs, attitudes and opinions.

It's just tiresome.

/bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #61)

Tue Jul 7, 2015, 01:01 PM

62. Look, many Catholics are undoubtedly reasonable, caring, welcoming people.

 

Doesn't prevent the RCC - which they all support and prop up - from being a backward, misogynistic, bigoted, anti-equality monolith.

Tiresome indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Reply #62)

Tue Jul 7, 2015, 02:29 PM

66. Yes - and any Catholics on this discussion board are almost certainly the caring type,

 

not the Santorum type. These posts that may be targeted at the backward misogynist bigots are instead hitting a different demographic entirely.

99.9% of posters on DU share your distaste for oppressive religion. Posts that slam religion are partly preaching to the choir, and partly attacking the wrong people. I don't see the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #61)

Tue Jul 7, 2015, 01:22 PM

63. "My point is that by doing so you are demonizing people as well"

You haven't really done anything to support that point other than repeating it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #61)

Tue Jul 7, 2015, 02:05 PM

64. No, not whatever.

And no, you really don't get it.

If criticism of a belief system is ipso facto demonization of people, then you'd better get your ass over to GD and tell all those bigots to take it easy on conservatism.

But you're not going to do that, are you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #61)

Tue Jul 7, 2015, 03:35 PM

67. So again, you are more concerned about the feelings of people

Who belong to these homophobic organizations, than the people these orginizations are demonizing. You are the reason this stuff has to be posted here. On paper all 1.6 billion Or whatever catholics are anti gay. That's what the vatican projects. They are also anti choice, again according to the vatican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #67)

Tue Jul 7, 2015, 03:53 PM

68. ^^This^^ (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #22)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 10:13 PM

35. In the U.S., the contrxtual battleground of legalizing same sex marriage in the last 20 days, no

No they don't count because together they make up less than 2% of the population.

That and a cup of coffee gets you.... A cup of coffee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #35)


Response to Post removed (Reply #46)

Tue Jul 7, 2015, 11:15 AM

54. Again, you are confused.

The majority of religious orgs opposed SSM. Particularly the largest. The supporters are wholly outnumbered and drowned out by the opposition.

Secular orgs have no such problem. Our majority orgs are in favor. Have been for decades.

Meaning, the op is correct in laying blame at religions feet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #35)

Tue Jul 7, 2015, 11:47 AM

59. Results of jury decision.

On Tue Jul 7, 2015, 11:26 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Hindus and Buddhists don't count.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=206757

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This poster was already alerted due to calling groups of people pathetic based upon their religious beliefs. The post was hidden. I do not know the time difference between the jury decision and this post, he could have posted this in the interim. However, this person is showing a pattern of general intolerance and bigoted language towards people who practice certain religions.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jul 7, 2015, 11:43 AM, and the Jury voted 6-1 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This poster is displaying his/her rudeness all over this thread. Every rude post should be hidden, IMO.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: calling religious groups "pathetic", is well .. pathetic.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: We all count to a degree, the word pathetic should be reserved for The Cheneys of the world on DU
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Intensionally hurtful...

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 03:18 PM

11. Buddhist and Hindus

never cared much either way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #11)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 04:39 PM

21. Oh boy, and combined they round out to a whole 1% of the U.S. Population.

Hooray.

(Actually, good for them, good on them, but hardly disproves the OP's specific claim. )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #11)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 09:32 PM

34. Right. Hindus care so little that homosexual acts are illegal in India.

Whoospie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 02:16 PM

6. "In general" implies there were very few exceptions, which is true.

The phrase doesn't mean "all."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #6)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 02:19 PM

7. Perhaps, but the OP doubled-down and confirmed he meant "all."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #7)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 03:06 PM

9. You misunderstand.

What non-theistic orgs were against it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #6)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 05:43 PM

26. The phrase doesn't mean "all."

 

Thank you.

I wondered when someone was gong to point that out.

"In general" simply does not mean "all". In fact it acknowledges that there are some, not a majority tho', that do not fit into the set.

You could even say: "In general, most people marry a member of the opposite sex"... which is also true but doesn't imply that "all" people marry members of the opposite sex.


Why can't people understand English around here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #26)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 05:59 PM

28. But he specifically said "all" in a follow-up post, so I can assume that's what he meant.

 

I get it - you all are angry, and need a target for your anger. Remember where you're posting - there are no conservative Christians here, so these kinds of polemic posts against religion aren't finding their target, they're hitting someone else entirely. Namely, that sub-set of religious people you claim to exempt from your disdain but somehow manage to include inadvertently.

I'm an atheist, but I don't have a hate-on for religion. It's tiresome to see it on DU, because it's just so pointless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #28)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 06:22 PM

30. I did post it here knowing the audience

Many here want us to forget just how awful these groups are. People are gushing over the pope, hoping we'll forget how terrible he is. Every time we bring up severely problematic issues in religion we get the MRA style "not all religions" instead of "yea, religions are pretty terrible, how can we fix it?"

So yes, the tone policing that you and others perform just reinforce my point, and justification for posting it here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #28)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 07:18 PM

31. you all are angry, and need a target for your anger.

 

Who's angry?

I'm not angry.


Religion is still the only opposition left to gay marriage. That just is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #31)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 08:04 PM

32. "You all" are the posters that keep dropping these broad-brush polemics

 

against "religion", as if its monolithic.

I'm with you regarding the opposition to gay marriage - it's founded in ignorance and bigotry. Personally, I think people are using religion as an excuse in this regard, because if there's one thing people do exceptionally well is project their own faults and failings onto the deity they worship.

Religion is their weapon, but the problem is the people. As we've seen, there are more and more religious organizations that are coming around to our side of the argument. I think there is more value in praising those that have evolved - I mean, we do this with Hillary, right? - that throwing vitriol at the ignorant. The more you deride the fools, the deeper they dig in their heels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #32)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 10:16 PM

37. For political purposes, in the U.S., it is monolithic. Hats how you get Prop 8 in Cali.

That's how you end up needing the Supreme Court to do what it did, rather than popular vote, of our representatives carrying out the will of the people.

Religion, and religious people. That's how. They were, and are, by and large 'agin' it'.

You can find some paltry statistical outliers, but only apologetics seem confused by it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #32)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 11:06 PM

40. I covered that in the OP

and while the people are changing views, the religions are not. Religions are monolithic, the RCC has a central leadership that controls it's holdings across the globe, the southern baptists are similar, but mostly in America. They literally are monolithic organizations.

Your problem seems to be confusing religion with the religious. People are changing, but the religion is not. The religions still pull from the same old book that has the same old hatred, and until the hateful parts are actually removed, then the religions are still based in hate.

You seem to want to invalidate the truth in the OP because less than 5% of religions in the US don't have monstrous foundations for their belief (And yes, Buddhism and Hindu, while aren't specifically hateful toward homosexuality, though they have it banned in their home countries, they do have very problematic issues in other areas, like treatment of women).

Perhaps you should think about how people aren't their religion, and read the OP again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #32)

Wed Jul 8, 2015, 06:27 AM

74. "the opposition to gay marriage - it's founded in ignorance and bigotry." - and religion.

 

Religion is the weapon because almost all religions explicitly condemn homosexuality. It isn't just "the weapon" though.

"religion is the weapon but the problem is the people" - hmmm... what a familiar phrase. What does this argument remind me of? Wait, I've got it: "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

You cannot seriously make the argument that if there were no religions in this country there still would have been an organized, and for decades effective, opposition to marriage equality. Well probably you can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 10:16 PM

36. I don't see anyone denying your first statement

Of where all the opposition came from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #36)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 10:17 PM

38. Then your ignore list is well tuned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #38)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 10:20 PM

39. I see people denying all religion oposed it

But not that all the opposition was religious.
Two different things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #39)

Wed Jul 8, 2015, 01:22 AM

73. That's what I see, too.

Maybe it's honest confusion. Maybe some of the people who read the OP and replied on this thread truly don't understand English well enough to know that "All opposition to SSM is religious" does not mean the same thing as "All religious people are opposed to SSM".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mariana (Reply #73)

Wed Jul 8, 2015, 08:41 AM

75. Sets, subsets

and vens diagrams

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 11:41 PM

41. Never forget...

Another embarrassing history some religions will disavow at some point and then, even claim the success of civil rights as their own making.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MellowDem (Reply #41)

Tue Jul 7, 2015, 02:04 AM

44. An Atheist inspired Dr. King

but you only hear about his religion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #44)

Tue Jul 7, 2015, 10:29 PM

71. And you never hear about A. Philip Randolph

Curious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #71)

Tue Jul 7, 2015, 11:39 PM

72. That's who I was thinking of

He probably wore a t shirt tho.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Tue Jul 7, 2015, 11:31 AM

57. marriage has nothing to do with religion

 

any judge, captain or legal official can officiate at a wedding. some religions dictate ceremony, or rites, but thats just show business control. marriage is a legal contract,not very binding at that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to larkrake (Reply #57)

Tue Jul 7, 2015, 02:17 PM

65. Captain is an urban legend. Legal official varies from state to state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to larkrake (Reply #57)

Tue Jul 7, 2015, 04:11 PM

69. A fact which is irrelevant to this topic nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #69)

Tue Jul 7, 2015, 10:25 PM

70. It's like when a certain someone stumbles into the AA group...

...and tells them there's no such thing as race.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread