The dominoes keep falling around the faith-based opposition surrounding same-sex marriage (Page 4)

Zanjan: Ork, half of your previous post was irrelevant and one quarter was inaccurate : No one is forcing anyone to be gay or hetero, and no one is forcing anyone to be religious or sectarian.

So, I focused on the only meaningful sentence left. Your full sentence was this:

"That's the thing, it's NONE OF ANYONE'S BUSINESS how others live their lives, as long as other people are not hurt by their actions in any way."

I didn't extract anything out of context - I commented on the whole sentence by highlighting its object.

You've completely missed my point...... again.

Point - -> Who are you to say what hurts another and how? Do you think the wrongdoer cares? Do you think if the one who is hurt doesn't say anything, means no pain has been inflicted and no damage is done? Don't you realize that so many damaged people have no idea what caused it?

The one who does the hurting has no concept of what he's inflicting on who, or how far reaching that pain goes. This is because he's only focused on himself. Thus, laws need to be made to protect those people, families and interests he's oblivious to, now and for the future.

Don't confuse religion with personal values.

LiptonCambell: >>>and no one is forcing anyone to be religious or sectarian.

Aren't you? You are expressing outrage that your personal religious beliefs are not imposed on society via law.

Otherwise, why would you care if Homosexuals get married? If you were tolerating other peoples beliefs, all that would matter is people in your own congregation, who share your own religious beliefs, don't get gay married.

Instead, you wish to keep your religious beliefs to be upheld BY LAW, against those who do not hold your religious beliefs.

>>>Do you think the wrongdoer cares?

Are...are you calling a homosexual couple, wrongdoers?

>>>Do you think if the one who is hurt doesn't say anything, means no pain has been inflicted and no damage is done?

Do you think that the opposite is true- that if you force someone to follow your beliefs when they do not hold them- that no damage is done?



How about this Zanjan- define the harm homosexual couples create when they marry?

davesdatahut: Lipton, your attempt to counteract the obvious religious bigotry being spewed in this thread is admirable. I drove down that road some time back and hit the dead end. It will be interested to see how your attempt goes.

davesdatahut: Near, as we have discussed in the past, it is of great comfort that not all religious people hold Zanjan's views on these issues. As a matter of fact, the numbers holding her views are dwindling gradually and should continue to decline. Or so we can hope.

orkanen: I'll try explaining the whole post for you, sentence by sentence, so even you understand:

"That's the thing, it's NONE OF ANYONE'S BUSINESS how others live their lives, as long as other people are not hurt by their actions in any way."

This is an introduction to the text that follows, as well as a tribute to near50ohoh's post. It also relates to the topic of this thread, attacking the notion of religionists, who believe they have the right to interfere what others, particularly homosexual couples, do in the privacy of their own homes. It does not stand on its own, it certainly does not represent on its own, the intentions of the post.

"Forcing upon others your religion is hurting other people."

This sentence is a general statement, requiring further information. Alone, it does not convey the full message of the post, but leads up to and strengthens it. Every single religion is dogmatic, including yours. Deny it all you want, this is still a fact. It has a text, written down in a time when less was known about anything and everything in reality than at present day. I have no problems saying, while simultaneously expecting this sentence to be taken out of context, that some things in any religions are universally accurate, correct and valid. Most of what are found in religions however, is wrong, despite what divine inspiration the creators of said religion believed to have had when they made it up or wrote it down.

"Forcing upon others the rules and regulations of your religion is hurting other people."

Here is the climax of the post. In this thread, the topic concerns the fall of the faith based opinion on same sex marriage. If people as religious as you had the power, as they have had before, this would never become accepted, just as it was before. Do I need to go in detail here, or do you understand that I hint towards what is now known as the dark ages? What is the punishment for homosexual acts within the three desert dogmas again? Wasn't it death? How is that not hurting people?

"Doing your best to destroy other people's education is hurting other people."

Despite this sentence not containing the word "religion" in it, it still belongs to the same, single paragraph the post consists of. Therefore, it is still directed at religion. It is a continuation of the previous sentence, expanding what religion generally does to any education its followers feel threatened by. You need look no further than any state in America where leaders are overly religious, how education is treated there. You can also glance towards any country with religious rule, same thing there. History is full of events where discoverers are persecuted and facts are rejected because they go against the beliefs of religionists in power.

"If you so want it, go hurt yourself, but leave others out of it."

It's still the same paragraph from the same post, the word "religion" still applies, despite not being in this sentence. I know full well you believe in your god and your particular flavour of faith, and I couldn't care less if I tried. It's your prerogative. It's not up to me to decide how you perform your rituals, when, where, or with whom, as long as it is with consent. I prefer knowing that what I believe in, is demonstrably true, which is my prerogative. You should try it some time, might even do you good.

It saddens me to say, if you cared as much for honesty as you care for your religion, this explanation would not have been necessary. As of this, I expect you to cherry pick from it, twisting it into expressing your own meaning. Which is dishonest, but you know that already, don't you? Not that you care.

davesdatahut: Ork, the reply you get should be interesting. I suspect - as I suspect you suspect - it will be loaded, coated and cloaked in double-talk, dishonesty, twisted half-truths and tight-fisted dogma aimed at squashing all notions that ALL citizens who abide by our civil laws should be treated with equal protection under the law. Such is the nature of religious extremism and its associated self-righteous bigotry.

orkanen: Therefore the final paragraph.

davesdatahut: Recast by me....same message. To be continued...

near50ohoh: In the context of a condemning society and archaic laws, gay ppl have needed to protect themselves from discovery and no doubt when the truth was discovered, ppl were hurt. Expectations were shattered and the deception itself had to be worked thru. Lives had to be rebuilt.
Then there was the issue of gay youth who felt alienated by society to the point where they committed suicide. That did certainly cause pain.
Where gay ppl married to retain stature and had families then decided to live authentic lives and disrupted that home and family.
Had they been left to their own devices and tolerated minimum none of this deception would have been necessary though. But it did occur.
The world has made a lot of progress but we aren't there yet. So I see a balancing act at this point of how much gets told still. How much the gay person feels obliged to protect themselves. At least now, it's mostly extremists they struggle against though. We can only hope it settles down as their human rights are given/taken back and they are allowed to be authentic.
But the hurt was felt in that context and can't be ignored if we want to look at the whole story.

Two ppl having sex and loving each other only hurts if they feel they have to hide to protect themselves from society. Otherwise it hurts no one.

near50ohoh:

davesdatahut: Get out from under the chair. You got no reason to be under there.

near50ohoh: wasn't sure how it would be received and didn't have a slicker so.....

davesdatahut: I think you knew how it'd be received, or know how it will.

near50ohoh: no I really didn't I left my crystal ball at my last residence I guess

davesdatahut: On the subject at hand, a very telling story out of the National Football League - not exactly a bastion of civility. Note in the reading that the homophobia was apparently motivated by............religion!
http://deadspin.com/i-was-an-nfl-player-until-i-was-fired-by-two-cowards-an-1493208214

LiptonCambell: Oh, I found someone who is hurt by others getting gay married ;

Trestin Meacham, Utah Man, On Hunger Strike For As Long As Gay Couples Can Marry

A man has revealed that he has been on a 12 day hunger strike and will continue to starve himself until gay couples in Utah are banned from marrying.

The US state earlier this week officially filed to ask the US Supreme Court to put on hold the issue of marriage licences to same-sex couples.

Trestin Meacham has told local media that he will fast until gay couples are once again banned from marrying in his home state.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/04/trestin-meacham-gay-hunger-strike_n_4540369.html



Guess he's going hungry....

orkanen: Guess he'll starve to death then.

near50ohoh: er heard of IV's?? He's not Gandhi fer frick's sake!! force feed.

davesdatahut: The man should be permitted to starve himself if he wishes. Society has no business telling him what to do to himself.
Indeed, he will get hurt by gay marriage, at his own hand.

near50ohoh: fanaticism is being viewed as a mental disorder now, And most certainly if he is willing to die over it. Starvation is not a good way to go.

orkanen: I'm just waiting for religion to become considered as a mental disorder. That would be something.

orkanen: And no, I don't go hoping the guy dies from starvation because of his delusion.

davesdatahut: Organized religion, in some forms, does constitute a mental disorder, especially the part where they gather around and chant stuff to someone who's not there. If a person did this in the village green, or a public park or beach, they would most likely attract the attention of the police and be removed to the care of mental health professionals.

davesdatahut: As for the starving guy, I hope he comes to his senses and doesn't kill himself. I suspect he is not right in the head, which would be a key barometer of religious fanaticism. Or is it the other way around?

near50ohoh: Aspects are as of now but belief isn't so far. It's all about the lengths ppl are willing to go to. Otherwise most ppl in the world would be mentally ill. (oh yeah according to Freudians they already are, we already are? )