Breaking: Supreme Court rules SSM a legal right

[HagridOfTheDeep]

So happy right now!

[HagridOfTheDeep]

It astounds me that four of North America's alleged brightest legal minds can't understand that the majority doesn't have the right to suppress via mob rule the natural rights of a minority. It just astounds me. They aren't even capable of seeing the issue from that simple light.

Oh well. They lost!

[HagridOfTheDeep]

How far can I go with my language before being banned? I feel like tonight would be a perfect night for tip-toeing right up to the line. Can someone give me a quota or something?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

So, Badger, in response to inquiry  on homosexuality and the Bible and my thoughts vs SSM:

On homosexuality in and of itself, here are my thoughts and how I see the Bible.
I preface this with the fact that I could use more bible study.

Based on my own experience and obviously so many others, I do believe sexual orientation is not a conscious choice.  I don't know if it's something you're born with, I don't know if it's something learned, but I do remember that from childhood onward, I definitely felt different from others. That's how I Think we can logically conclude, that it is LIKELY a biological issue.

Having prefaced this with that, if homosexuality were itself a sin, because of free will, there would have to be some kind of choice involved.  Coveting is chosen, lying is chosen.  But we know sexuality is not. 
That is why although I think it's ambiguous based on wording/translations in the NT (1 Corinth 6:9), the translation of "homosexuals" has been interpreted by some to be many other things, such as a high priest, effeminate according to some scholars meant a weak person morally.

Furthermore, I do think it's an open question whether gay acts are permissible biblically, but because gay relationships have just as much of an emotional connection as heterosexual relationships, I do not see why God would connect the emotion of love to something that is abomination to God.

As for gay marriage, we can go back to Genesis as to how God defined marriage. Becoming one flesh , fruitful and multiply. I think it's plainfully clear that the institution of  marriage was intended for procreation.


Most of my reasons for opposing gay marriage is that I think there has to be some kind of societal boundary and respecting tradition. 

Constitutionally, I do not think that when the 14th amendment was authored in 1860s, that they were thinking about two men getting hitched.

And I do not like the way gay activists have gone about it.

I hope this helped shed some light

So in a few words, tradition for tradition's sake. Gosh, I can't believe I was once so silly too. Hopefully you'll learn, but you're hanging on much too tightly.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

All the streets in San Francisco are adorned with the flag. 

Essentially, You're going to Pride, whether you like it or not.

So chin up and try to make the best of it. Maybe you'll get laid.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Very interesting to listen to a straight person rail against a member of the queer community for "not listening to the arguments" of people who are against same-sex marriage.

Um, we're the ones who are on the receiving end of this crap all the time. Whatever backwards justification a person can come up with to legitimize their opposition to marriage equality really doesn't mean anything. With respect, same-sex marriage is about people who have same-sex attraction, and only people who have same-sex attraction. So we're the ones who get to be the barometers for whether hate is an active part of the equation. While it may be true that some anti-SSMers genuinely believe they can be against SSM without hating gay people (and perhaps some actually don't hate gay people), what they believe in this situation is moot. Because their words and actions impact the LGBT community whether there's intentional hate or not. And those viewpoints are oppressive, unjust, spread misconceptions, fuel distrust, encourage harassment, beat gay people into submission, nurture self-hate and depression, and, in general, make life worse for people who are not straight. So, for the last time, whether a person "intends" to hate means piss-all. It's a consolation prize. Because their actions and attitudes are hateful either way.

So no, I will not accommodate this garbage just because a few bigoted imbeciles can't get over themselves and accept positive change that has nothing to do with them. If you oppose equal marriage, you are either a bigot or stupid. Prove me wrong.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Yes, calling him that does weaken my point. It doesn't matter what a person is. If they are against equal rights then they are part of the problem.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I said the consequence of their actions is to spread hate. I did not say they themselves are hateful. I said it doesn't matter if the individuals are hateful or not. A few instances of anti-SSMers being nice does not undue the depth of damage they've done in spreading the culture they spread.

If a gay kid hears their parents are against gay rights, the message that it's somehow less acceptable to be gay still comes through loud and clear... with or without hate.

So, again, it doesn't matter. You're missing my point in your obsession to validate those who would see us be lesser members of society... and for the life of me, I can't understand why. If a religion says one thing against all the better judgement of decades' worth of experience in real life, you'd think the intuitive thing would be to realize that affording everyone equal rights is the way to go. Sadly, some people can't see it that way. They should. Religious freedom be damned. Because it really is that simple. "Religious freedom" is not an excuse to treat people who are different in a such a way as to cause them negative outcomes.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Did I advocate anywhere for burning bridges? In that situation, I would not run up to my parents and wave in their face that they're either stupid or bigots (even though I still maintain it would be true). I'm having this conversation here because we can discuss blunt truths without it significantly impacting the daily realities of our lives. Tact is certainly important when power is in play. Here, however, we're having a debate on an equal playing field.

As for their one position rendering moot the good work they do for individual gay people... well, I'm going to have to live with your disrespect. Intentional hate is worse than unintentional hate, sure. But most of the issues that members of the LGBT community face today are a result of the anti-gay culture that has festered in the world for far too long. That is what we need to combat. And arbiters of this culture include people who fight against equal rights for LGBTers. I can't respect theirs as an acceptable position and I can't ignore the consequences of their belief on this particular issue. It's like soft power versus hard power. I'm fortunate that the sense of "wrong" and "disgust" that I once associated with being gay did not come from the hard power of outwardly hateful individuals. But there was still self-loathing—damaging self-loathing—because I knew the stigma and could see those who were fighting to keep it in tact.

And anyway, you say I believe "they're all bigots who are to blame for everything [...] and deserve whatever they get." Uh, what are they going to "get"? The horror of having to treat gay people with dignity? Oh, woe is life for them. Having to actually associate with these sinners? Ick! Having to live with the fact that gays and lesbians can't be denied service for an aspect of their identity that is beyond their control? What has this world come to!

So yeah, I suppose they do deserve whatever they "get."

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Well, it's interesting that you would come in here to blame it on the ruling.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

That's ridiculous, Mecha! This is Christian Nation!1!11!1!!