Why is such a large percentage of organized religion against gay marriage?
I understand that they believe marriage is between a man and women, but why do they spend so much time and money trying to stop same-sex marriage all over the world?
There's the obvious answer of: Same sex marriage leads to more births which means more followers. But gay people aren't going to have children anyway. Why not allow them to be part of their church instead of ostracizing them? Ostracizing them means less members, and people who support same-sex marriage may also leave because they support their gay friends.
I recently got married (my wife is Catholic, I'm not) and I was amazed at how much two things were stressed: 1) Gay marriage is not okay and 2) Don't wrap your dick.
I just don't get it.
people fear that their way of live is at threat
I don't think anyone truly believes that society is going to fall apart, they just believe that things are going to be different in an unforseeable way and people don't really like that.
To what purpose?
That said: even in societies that had homosex, gay marriage was out of a question. Homofaggotry was just seen as either
>An upgrade of a sex-sex friendship
>A sexual fetish.
Gay marriage was invented by communists to enlist the support of degenerates to the revolutionary cause.
The kind of religious people who are opposed to gay marriage are often anti-communist.
Cuba is pro-gay now. The entire LGBT rights movement is a wing of communist parties in Latin America.
Doesn't it have it's roots in stoic philosophy and similar where the exultation of excessive or devotion to pleasure is seen as 'bad'. Homosex, seeing as it cannot lead to procreation is purely an indulgent activity in carnal pleasure hence why it is seen as wrong and unrestrained - it literally flies in the face of modesty, conservative values, and moderation, things all praised by Abrahamic religions and who had heavy influences from those early stoic philosophies and their ilk.
When will you people see?
>How is it that nearly every religion hates gays etc.
Dude, all the religions you are talking about come from the same place, that's why they are so similar. Judaism came first, then big-dicked Christianity, and then strings of heresies, which made cultural differences in their respective areas. They're different words for the same cultural ideals that originated in the same place. Nearly every other religion had multiple gods and some had no problems with gay shit (see Ganymede and Zeus)
Because marriage is a religious tradition, allowing gays to marry is like separating Jesus from Christmas, it makes the whole thing meaningless. I'm not against the idea of gays being together, but surely they could have had all the rights and privileges of marriage in a civil union union or something, a rose by any other name. But no, they had to cry over not having the other kid's toy.
Gay marriage is literally cultural appropriation.
>Dude, all the religions you are talking about come from the same place, that's why they are so similar.
How come Hindus, Folk Chinese religions, Shinto and tribalshit religions had 0 things to say about formalizing same sex relationships? To them marriage = Man+Woman.
The closest one can get to formalizing a relationship between two males is sworn brotherhood.
Our western conception of monogamous marriage basically stems from Greece and Rome and it wasn't particularly religious back then. Every responsible roman citizen was just expected to do it. It's a cultural tradition more than anything.
Honestly I don't get why gay people marrying seems to ruin marriage for straight people.
because all cultures have traditionally never had gay marriage.
Most religious people are traditionalist rather than truly spiritual. The reason they don't like gay marriage and worship a seemingly illogical dogma is because it's a tradition.
Most organized religion (i.e., Abrahamics) forbid homosexual acts as well as just gay marriage. It's only because they've lost the battle to criminalize homosexuality in the act that they've fallen back to gay marriage.
Realize that a huge, huge majority of "organized religion" are Abrahamic religions. Judaism, Christianity, Islam - they have holy books that say homosexuality (the act itself, specifically) is not only a sin, but it departs from the plan that God has created for human beings, whom he loves and wants the best for.
Basically, it departs from the Holy purpose of God.
Speaking as a Christian, I can only tell you what I and my fellow believers tend to believe. I might be off base with my assumptions that Muslims and Jews believe the same thing for similar reasons.
Interesting opinion. Historically, there's been a push to criminalize homosexuality? How did that go? What's the status right now? Are homosexual acts legal or illegal in most countries?
movements have a lifetime. most sects of religion are way far to the wrong half. that's when the ideas and structure no longer provide comfort and meaning and the entire thing devolves to compulsive bitching about stress and not having anywhere to put it. since they aren't doing anything together the relevance of the entire thing is only going downhill until it creates more problems than it addresses, people begin to get tired of it and start tearing it down.
this whole 'issue' is just irrelevant bitching about a relatively meaningless topic, perpetrated out of boredom and ennui. every other social structure has the same phenomenon because this all applies to all of them.
>like separating Jesus from Christmas, it makes the whole thing meaningless.
It doesn't make sense in a secular government to forbid things for religious reasoning. It'd be like Muslims trying to ban pork because their book has a problem with it.
I think it has to do with them either believing that gay marriage is genuinely detrimental in society or it's an attempt to retain relevance and cultural power. Your everyday soccer moms and protesters probably haven't thought that far because THA BAIBLE SEZ but the higher ups, the organizers and priests, they have to know what they're doing.
There's still anti-sodomy laws in the legal code in some states. Texas is one example I'm pretty sure. These are never enforced though.
Historically it was always punishable in the west. Occasionally with death if it came down to it.
Because their metaphysics demonstrates that sticking your dick up a dude's ass is an immoral abomination.
Sodomy was looked down upon since the early days of the west, eventually barred legally, and then became acceptable around the time of the Free Love movement in the 20th century.
Outside the west, criminalization is still prevalent. Christians between all denominations tend to be split on the issue of sodomy legally. One group wishes to keep it criminalized and demonize the homosexuals (both the sexual act and the orientation) while the other tends to want to decline such a thing but isn't sure how to do it without trying to legitimize sodomy in a society. The former group is most recognizable as the Evangelical lobby that has heavily influenced Uganda to bring about that bill about death penalty for homosexuality (the orientation, not just sodomy).
I'd have to disagree here. This is not an issue of falling back on a topic but opposing changing opinions on a topic as they come.
It's more the other way around. Historically, almost every country in the Western world at least has criminalized homosexuality (usually under the guise of sodomy) and has been that way for hundreds of years. It's only in the post 1960s that you've seen for a push to legalize it.
All three had faggots. Just recently over in China, a woman killed herself for being the equivalent of a beard (同妻, literally a "homo wife").
You're confusing homosexuality, gay marriage, and "gay marriage".
Every culture ever has had homosexuality. For whatever reason, some men like to stick their cocks in other men's asses, and some lesbians like it when women eat them out. Why? Fuck if I know. No one knows. Yet.
Gay marriage is something new. In every culture except modern Western ones (including past Western cultures) marriage was a contract between a man and a woman to make children. Homosexuals physically cannot make children so the point is moot. The Chinese, Ancient Greek, Javanese, Medieval French, and Japanese concepts of marriage are fundamentally different from the modern Western
"Gay marriage" in the American sense refers to the act of Homosexuals receiving federal tax breaks because they signed a contract saying they are married. The tax breaks were put in place to ease the burden of child rearing, which homosexuals do not do.
Married couples can often end up paying more when filing jointly, it's not so cut & dry. Even if it were a tax break though it would only make sense to give it to straight marriages that could or will actually produce children, which is not the case.
Civil unions do no give the same rights at all in quebec. They are kind behind the rest of the country on that.
Doesn't count as marriage for: Inheritance, right not to testify, visitation, and alimony among other thing.
>m-marriage has always been one man and one woman!
Because Christians and muslims are bigots and prudish, and love to condemn their fellow man for "sins" that they made up.
More accurately, religious leaders are bigoted hateful prudes, and the typical followers just get indoctrinated to repeat what they are instructed to.
>You're confusing homosexuality, gay marriage, and "gay marriage".
I don't think I ever made that confusion. I merely pointed out that opposition to gay marriage isn't some Christian/Jewish/Islamic obsession like fedorafags believe
>Even if it were a tax break though it would only make sense to give it to straight marriages that could or will actually produce children, which is not the case.
Generally true. The issue here rests on two claims:
>A general protection of the martial act in principle, despite lack of likelihood.
>A belief of man and woman together adding each their own unique element to the socialization of children.
The latter point is obviously a highly contentious issue.
ITT:Symbolist retards complaining about symbolist things.
Theologically the solution for this problem is to create a legal status of civil union allowing you to solve inheritance problems easier. Literally the only problem is that they call it marriage.
At the same time there are people who care about minor words so much that they rave against gay marriage and that they can't accept the term civil union instead of marriage.
The factual situation doesn't matter anymore. This is where humanity is now. Arguing about pointless words in symbolwankery.
Symbolist retards everywhere.
>It's the year of our Lord, Jesus Christ, 2016 and people there exist people who think homosexuality is OK but polygamy is wrong
Q2: Concerning opposition to secular gay marriage.
A2: To the Orthodox, marriage is the consecration of a union between two opposites to create harmony, it represents the union of both sexes of humanity in spiritual and physical communion. So gay marriage, to the Orthodox, is like saying that a man's union with himself should be legally recognized as marriage--it's incoherent. Furthermore, this harmony of the sexes is seen as the source of the continuation of the human race; sex today is almost completely detached from genitive act, but what’s more concerning is that procreation is being utterly detached from sex. Artificial insemination today, but eventually you will have artificial wombs, it might lead to a caste system where everyone is predestined for a specific function, or it might lead to a world where parent(s) (being a single mom is increasingly seen as more noble, while being a married mother in a functional relationship is being portrayed more frequently as oppressive) use magazine covers to design their kids. Kids could either become consumerist products, or meat robots, and they won’t be valued innately for being humans either way, the value would be *conditional* (see A1b of this FAQ); just as tragically, the last bastion of the once thriving sphere that existed outside the market and the state, will have one or the other inserted in it as a go-between. But if heterosexual marriage is strengthened, the traditional family will stay durable, and its nobility will appeal to those who might otherwise not be interested--is gay marriage an attack on heterosexual marriage? Yes, absolutely, because it detracts from the value of heterosexual marriage, in the same way as if it were legal to marry oneself and anyone who didn't recognize it were called a bigot: it destroys the fundamental fabric of what marriage is about when you are forced to see this sort of thing as equal and the same as a true marriage.
The liberal FAQ: http://pastebin.com/bN1ujq2x
And what's more fundamentally different, 1 man + 3 women who all produce offspring through sexual intercourse between the wives and the husband for the propagation of his family line and the society at large or 2 men/women who need outside help testing kids they are not related to soley because they like the idea of having tiny humans to raise and being denied said tiny humans for any purpose is denying them their rights as if offspring are material possessions or pets and not actual people?
Constantine's cool though. He's like the Orthodox version of WOLFSHEIM. Sure I don't like when he occasionally rags on uniquely Catholic parts of Catholicism but hey, at least Orthodox theology isn't the heretical mess that every Protestant sect ever is.
I don't think anyone's making the argument that all gay couples should have free access to adoption. Adoption in and of itself is a hell of an ordeal for straight couples to get approved even.
And to be honest I'm not sure what the hell you're rambling about in regards to children not being treated as humans.
>I understand that they believe marriage is between a man and women, but why do they spend so much time and money trying to stop same-sex marriage all over the world?
>I understand they believe squares arent round, but why do they spend so much time and money trying to stop people from making round squares all over the world?
Gay marriage has zero continuity with the institution of matrimony, even the ancient Greeks would think it's ridiculous, just like people who think masturbation is healthy would say self-marriage is ridiculous. The only way gay marriage is feasible is by radically defining matrimony, and when you forcibly, legally redefine the term to be something that has no continuity with the prior institution, you destroy the prior institution.
This is really strange to me, as a Catholic. I live in Newfoundland, and grew up back and forth between Newfoundland and Ireland (mom is from St. John's, dad does shipping work between Waterford and Newfoundland and elsewhere). I've spent time in Italy, and mainland Canada and England (but most Catholic churches in England are Irish and foreigners anyway) and I've never encountered this mad "condoms are evil" vibe and while some of the congregation may be against same sex marriage the clergy I've known have never deionized it. Have I lived an insular Catholic existence, or is this an artifact of USA's intolerance taking root in the Catholic Church there?
Still not sure how broadening the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples is destroying the institution of marriage itself. I get it from the Orthodox perspective, but that has zero relevance on secular marriages.
Yeah the greeks might have thought it shouldn't be allowed but why should that have on bearing on us today?
Or the more common answer, 'just don't think about it'. Given that the world hasn't ended yet and gays can marry, we can leave the theological fretting to the dwindling numbers of Christians
>Still not sure how broadening the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples is destroying the institution of marriage itself.
It implies a nominalism that the Christian cant accept, it would be like broadening the definition of "two" to include "three" and "four"
Sounds like a lack of cognitive ability on the Christian's part.
Really this sounds more like marriage is held to be some sacred title. Besmirched by filthy homos and their gay lust or something.
Again I get any religion not wanting to allow gay marriages in their church. They should all have that right. But it makes zero sense to want to also ban it in a secular government.
Because marriage is about procreation and uniting humanity's two halves. That's the whole point of marriage, it's not, "official government recognition that I wub him". If you make it the latter to the exclusion of the former, it is a fundamentally different institution.
Marriage is no longer a religious matter, but a secular and legal one. The instant marriage offered rights and privileges that were strictly secular (for example, hospital visitation) the church lost the moral authority to define any aspect of it.
If the church didn't want Caesar's law redefining its concepts, it should have kept its concepts out of Caesar's law.
"Humanity's two halves" is theological talk so it can safely be discarded in a secular marriage. Procreation has not been a requirement for marriage in a very long time.
I really am not seeing how this excludes your former definition though. You can still get married and an orthodox priest can oversee the ceremony and it can still be about making babies if you so desire. Better yet the Orthodox church can deny that gay marriages count as "real marriage". As long as you both have the same legal privileges.
>Really this sounds more like marriage is held to be some sacred title.
Marriage IS sacred in Christianity, and it is a metaphysical reality in the natural world. You literally cannot change it
>But it makes zero sense to want to also ban it in a secular government.
Well the secular shouldnt be opposed to the religious in the first place. It is a modern myth that something is "secular" if it constantly opposes God.
Even as a secular matter, it was about what I said it was about. Church marriage has to be done by the Church regardless, but it is replacing the secular institution of marriage as well.
>"Humanity's two halves" is theological talk
No, even if you don't see theological significance, the poetic and emblematic and symbolic depth. Marriage is not solely a thing itself, but also a grander of symbolism.
The secular needs to be independent of the religious. The religious should not interfere with the secular. That's why it's a secular government. On that foundation is where secularism is built.
Marriage has been around for a long time. It wasn't always Christian and it still isn't always Christian. Even the concept of it having to be between 2 people only is relatively recent. It does not belong to Christians only and they don't get to make the rules outside of their church.
It is not replacing the institution of matrimony, because for some time now matrimony has not been exclusively about childbirth. This is one of many extensions of the secular concept of "family" and the functions/privileges/responsibilities associated with it.
According to you and the church, ok. "Symbolic and poetic depth" does not allow you to refuse legal privileges to a portion of the population however.
Again, where the church is concerned gay marriage isn't real. Where you need to take a backseat however is on a legal level because religious reasoning cannot have any influence on decisions made in a secular government.
It's the idea you deserve to have children. In that case you don't see them as people, but possessions.
You don't deserve children. This is also why artificial insemination and other such procedures are condemned. They take pregnancy, the outcome of sexual union that may or may not occur every time but once it does it is joyous as you now participate in the glory of creation by bringing forth new life into a service you can order when YOU want it and cancel when you don't want it anymore. Bob and Joe employing a surrogate is not authentic. It involves no marital love. The surrogate is to this couple as the USPS is to a toy collector, a means to get what you want because you think it looked cool and you want it and should have it. The child isn't even the two's actual child. It's one of the guy's and depending on who provided the ovum, the surrogate's and/or the surrogate's and egg donor's since the child develops maternal attachment to the surrogate that it will never be able to exercise. Once it's born, the anonymous donor and/or surrogate never come back into its life.
Plus you see that same shit with surrogates who conceive more than the intended amount and the parents have any unwanted offspring aborted because "I wanted 1, not 3." It's sickening. There is no joy there. There is only greed.
Something is "secular" if it is indifferent to the existence of what religions worship. The only reason to oppose homosexual marriage is because "God commands it," so unless you can come up with other arguments that do not rely on the existence of a God then from a secular viewpoint you aren't arguing anything.
Matrimony has always been about childbirth. It might have been perverted by those who do not fulfill that after marriage, but the institution itself was always about inaugurating a new family, the continuation of humanity through the union of its halves.
Do you consider denying the right of self-marriage, to be refusing legal privileges to anyone?
>It might have been perverted by those who do not fulfill that after marriage
So not "always," since you admit there have been times where this is not the case. Thus, at least in a
"perverted," secular sense, there is no problem acknowledging homosexual marriage.
There has to be at least more than one person for a marriage. Being that those legal privileges are between two people. You don't need hospital visitation rights for yourself and how you file your taxes is irrelevant to whether or not you've married yourself. The government has nothing to recognize.
Because its one of the last avenues of imposing their will on the population at large left to them.
They have lost out and failed in almost everthing else bar this and suicide/euthanasia and to a lesser extent medical research
The correct intent was there. If someone where known to be sterile, they probably wouldn't have been able to marry, practically speaking. That's something that you don't generally find out until after the marriage is already conducted, though. But if they knew they were sterile and purposely deceived, that would certainly be considered grounds for the annulment of the marriage.
> On that foundation is where secularism is built.
Then it is a shaky foundation then, no wonder why it isnt consistent.
>Even the concept of it having to be between 2 people only is relatively recent.
it doesnt matter if monogamy happened two minutes ago, it is still a very important property of marriage.
>It doesn't have an inherent nature.
I dont agree with your denial, though, and I dont see a reason to agree with it
>The only reason to oppose homosexual marriage is because "God commands it,"
Of course not, even pagans opposed homosexuality without the need of revelation
>so unless you can come up with other arguments that do not rely on the existence of a God
How is affirming the existence of God pandering to a specific religion? And why should I believe that the secular must be in opposition to God
>Marriage is and was always a solely Christian tradition
I usually avoid these debates but that argument always triggers me hard for some reason.
Why do people care if people live in a way deviant from their own away from them/ out of their timelines?
Lifestyle ending means after your life, that style may end because you don't have to stop living so while you are alive. If you are not alive, what does it matter what goes on? If I died, and THEN the world blew up directly afterward, what could I care?
Not what "should" I care, but that fact that you can't. Because you're dead.
Your argument against lost "lifestyles" is like crying because disco isn't a thing anymore.
Or is it an artifact of both Canadian and Irish cultures?
Perhaps tolerance for different sexualities is higher in both places?
Can't account for Italy though, In my experience all Italians tend to be bigoted towards anyone they can be.
>Of course not, even pagans opposed homosexuality without the need of revelation
"Pagan" is a religious group including most non-Christians. Their conceptions of deities are just as valid as the Christian one, and from a secular viewpoint exactly as irrelevant.
>How is affirming the existence of God pandering to a specific religion?
Which "God(s)"? Yours? That would pander to your religion, over the religions of other groups. To make it fair, secular law ignores all their commands equally.
The point is this. Marriage does not belong to Christians alone and they don't get to decide on its terms outside of a church. A priest is free to tell a gay married couple who just converted that under their definition, they aren't married. But that has no bearing on whether or not secular marriages should be legal.
Your misconception is that secularism tries to piss off religious people or something. The only reasoning accepted in a secular government is independent of religion. Exactly so we don't get situations like condoms and pork being illegal because X holy book says so.
There are things that may be permitted under a secular government that a religion might forbid, like alcohol for the Muslims. But the (lack) of law in place is not to spit in Islam's eye.
If you just can't stand that you're free to move in with the Amish or something.
Legally marriage is more or less the treating of two people as one.
One of the biggest legal rights a marriage rants a couple, the right not to testify against your spouse, is also irrelevant if you are "marrying" yourself as you already have the legal right not to testify against yourself.
That and the other things the other guy said.
Oh and marrying yourself wont change who inherits your stuff.
You don't need to, because visitation rights are not the foundation of marriage, they are built on marriage, not vice versa. Marriage long predates visitation rights in the hospital, and you don't need to be married to someone to give them visitation rights.
But now marriage entails visitation rights. Either we remove all the secular advantages of marriage, or marriage gets extended to include homosexuals. Again, the church should not have integrated its concepts into Caesar's laws if it didn't want to be beholden to them.
>"Pagan" is a religious group including most non-Christians.
With "pagan" I meant groups like the Greeks, Romans, etc. Like the Stoics, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc.
>Which "God(s)"? Yours?
There is only one thing which we can properly call God, the failure of some groups to succesfully refer to Him doesnt imply there is more than one.
>The point is this.
No, the point is that you cant force the religious to submit to an idea of "marriage" that's nothing more than "certified dating". To say they can "keep" their notions is to say implicitly that they arent valid. It is unacceptable for the religious to accept this form of secularism, and there isnt any reason to adopt it either.
>Your misconception is that secularism tries to piss off religious people or something.
the modern notion of secularism is opposed to religion, or any other ideology that undermines it.
Why? one person being sterile doesn't stop you from having a child anymore. My dad was sterile, so with donor sperm but eggs from my mother I was conceived. It doesn't really effect anything other than I know nothing about my biological father except for being a blonde haired-blue eyed English computer scientist.
It makes perfect sense. Your religion is just opposed to it. "Marrying yourself" is legitimately logically incoherent. Marrying another man can actually be imagined in physical space. It isn't nonsense.
>So were two sexes not so very long ago.
And there wasn't a good reason for it from a secular perspective. So it's been done away with.
>Procreation has not been a requirement for marriage in a very long time.
It is actually still a thing in many countries. Consummation is part of the law in some EU countries and part of common law marriages parts of the US. Consummation (and in relation, adultery) is a point of contention in the discussion of "marriage equality" as consummation as a legal element is very hetero-centric and thus hasn't been able to be merge well with homosexual unions. Because of that, usually what happens is the marriages aren't equal and you get a case like in the U.K. where consummation/adultery related laws are not valid for gay married couples.
You are right that many ignore the reasoning for marriage that originally was there though. What you get instead is marriage as some sort of "higher form of relationship" that has no intrinsic meaning to itself rather than "it's serious now" now but rather just a means of rights to assist the growth of families.
There is no such thing as a "secular marriage", there are just competing definitions of marriage. Some say it deals with the protection of the marital act and its consequence while others say it deals with the protection of whatever group is raising a child. They all have their competing elements within them.
What truthful rebuke did you just righteously utter of me, you worthiest of souls? I’ll have you know I failed God to the deepest of the pit in my class of worldly sinners, and I’ve been involved in numerous shameful transgressions on God's forgiveness, and I have over 300 confirmed faults. I am depraved in wicked thoughts and I’m the top coveter in the entire legions of the damned. I am nothing to thee but just another Satan. I will praise you to heaven and back with the most contrite of hearts the likes of which has been seen all too often from the sinner, mark my unworthy lips. You think you can serve away with your words of wisdom to me over the Internet? God bless, brother. As we speak I am contacting my holy communion of saints across heaven and your love is being traced right now so you better prepare for the Theosis, militant. The mercy that sustains the shining little thing you call your soul. You’re God's gift, kid. I can be all things at all times to all men, and I can bow to you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just while kissing your hand. Not only am I extensively corrupted by unnameable vileness, but I have betrayed to the entire covenant of the Orthodox Body of Christ, and I will plead her to her full benevolence to sanctify your virtuous spirit off the face of the lie, you little star. If only you could have known what holy gratitude your little “meek” correction was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have blessed your benign tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re reaping the harvest, you God fearing joy. I will weep thanks all over you and you will drown in it. You've found life, kiddo.
They ultimately do, but that's a level of abstraction beyond human experience. As an analogy, humans operate in HTML, macroscopic matter operates in assembly, the universe itself operates in binary. That everything eventually reduces down does not mean the non-reduced forms are not meaningful.
>No, the point is that you cant force the religious to submit to an idea of "marriage" that's nothing more than "certified dating"
You don't have to! Your church is free to not marry gay people and free to deny that it's 'real marriage'. But you can't deny people legal rights for religious reasons.
>the modern notion of secularism is opposed to religion
It isn't. You're interpreting it that way. But that's not the intention and the goal is not to destroy religion. It's to have a government independent of it.
Marrying the same sex is logically incoherent. Just like you can't change this without radically redefining "marriage," you can't have self-marriage without radically redefining "marriage"
>There is no such thing as a "secular marriage",
I have to disagree with you here my man because there actually is. From a catholic perspective I guess not. But it has zero relevance on what the government recognizes are marriage.
>U.K. where consummation/adultery related laws are not valid for gay married couples.
Except for the sodomy laws, I don't see why you think gays can't be treated as monogamous according to the law, or that there aren't straight poly-whatever-us people.
You're being dense as fuck for no reason at all. Marrying yourself can't actually exist. It'd be like having sex with yourself. And no masturbation doesn't count you cheeky cunt.
The "radical redefition of marriage" is this.
>the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.
Fucking hell, how will the Christians survive.
A "separate but equal" solution introduces legal complications and historically "separate but equal" solutions were great at separate but pretty bad at equal. I guess you could try replacing the secular term "marriage" with "civil union" and relegate marriage to a non-legal cultural term as a midpoint.
Marriage is a legal right. We let death row inmates do it.
If you really think secularists are out to get you then you should plan on moving. We don't need your church lording over us.
>You are citing joy as a bad motivation
An incredibly greedy one, not necessarily a "bad" one provided there are other factors. Which you might ultimately reduce down to "good chemicals vs bad chemicals" but that is not the level humans operate on. Providing joy to another, for example.
No, they don't. If that is all they were asking, gay marriage would never have been a thing, since pushing through visitation rights for civil unions would have virtually no resistance, whereas gay marriage has a massive amount of resistance.
>Gay marriage can't actually exist either
According to your church. Meanwhile in reality gay people are getting married. If it doesn't fall under the Orthodox definition of marriage no one gives a shit except the Orthodox. The debate is about the secular definition.
Civil does not mean secular. Just because a government accepts it does not make it "secular" if it based on practicality or some religious doctrine. It is best to drop the secular/civil/religious labels and just talk about what people call "marriage" and what it means.
I'm sorry but I cannot read that right. This post just comes off incoherent to me. Could you reword it please?
>can't actually exist
He means like physically, two people of the same sex can be joined in a union through a stupid ceremony regardless of whether or not your religion approves. Marrying yourself is like purchasing something from yourself; it makes no physical sense. It's what mathematicians would call a degenerate solution
Which was exclusively two sexes not long ago. The same logic that says it doesn't have to be two sexes, can be equally applied to it not having to be two persons. It's incoherent because it conflicts with your very definition of marriage, but same-sex marriage conflicts with the very definition of secular marriage from not so long ago, so that's not really an argument. It would simply require redefining marriage, which is after all exactly what same-sex marriage does.
When the time comes for a referendum on the issue at the end of the year, I'm voting no to spite my roommate who spends too much time campaigning for it.
And there is nothing she can do about it. I love democracy.
I just said greed is not necessarily bad in the correct context. Neither is selfishness, again in the correct context. However, to say planned children are just the result of greed while unplanned children are sources of joy is hypocritical, because the desire for joy ids ultimately greed-based.
It's radically defining because matrimony is institution about inaugurating the two halves of humanity in a higher aspect, and inaugurating the creation of a family in a more practical aspect. You say those do not define marriage anymore, that is a very radical redefinition.
Well yes, you are correct in the sense that our legal definition of marriage has now changed to include gay people. The orthodox definition doesn't have to change at all though. Yet you're still opposed to it based on the orthodox definition which nobody is trying to change.
>Marriage is a legal right
And same-sex people cant marry, there
>If you really think secularists are out to get you then you should plan on moving. We don't need your church lording over us.
Why should I move for claiming that secularism is inherently opposed to religious belief because it undermines its authority? Youre even implicitly admitting it is by telling me I should move if I disagree
>And that's what we're here to decide
Why should you decide? You dont have any claim over it
>And same-sex people cant marry, there
Hate to burst your bubble but they can. Not according to your church, but your church doesn't matter when it comes to the law.
>Why should I move for claiming that secularism is inherently opposed to religious belief because it undermines its authority?
If your religious belief includes dominating the lives of unbelievers then I suppose it is. My point was that the intention of a secular government is not to step on religious people's toes. It's to have a government free of religion.
And I was speaking flippantly about moving. Although maybe you would actually be happier in a theocracy.
>Why should I move for claiming that secularism is inherently opposed to religious belief because it undermines its authority?
Secular authority ignores all religious authority equally. It's the only way to be fair.
>It is best to drop the secular/civil/religious labels and just talk about what people call "marriage" and what it means.
Don't think that actually helps clear anything up. We're back to two sizable portions of the population disagreeing on what it means.
>but your church doesn't matter when it comes to the law.
and your ideology shouldnt matter either, but hey, might makes right, rite? :)
>If your religious belief includes dominating the lives of unbelievers then I suppose it is.
Then it isnt any different from an ideology, and a pretty shitty one in fact
>My point was that the intention of a secular government is not to step on religious people's toes.
Of course it is, seeing how it denies the validity of religious belief
>Although maybe you would actually be happier in a theocracy.
If the other option is a tyranny, I would.
>It's the only way to be fair.
How is it fair? It's pretty much claiming that the "secular" is to be taken as dogma
I don't see how it is fair, it's saying any ideology involving God is automatically disqualified from governance, but if the ideology doesn't have God in it then it's okay. If it were fair, both ideologies with God and ideologies without God would be excluded from governance.
>and your ideology shouldnt matter either, but hey, might makes right, rite? :)
If you really want to get edgy that's what all government is.
>Then it isnt any different from an ideology, and a pretty shitty one in fact
I don't see how. The idea is to free people from religious judgement if they aren't believers. Describe why this is bad.
>Of course it is, seeing how it denies the validity of religious belief
Nope, you're free to be religious so long as you obey the law of the land.
>If the other option is a tyranny, I would.
Theocracy is often another form of tyranny but I guess if you agree with it it seems alright.
Any ideology whose authority derives from the supernatural is ignored. You cannot implement laws "because God commands" any more than you can implement it because "Titania, Queen of the Fae commands. " This is to prevent believers in Allah from imposing their religion on believers of Yahweh (and vice versa), and to prevent a believer in Vishnu from implementing a caste system based on the divine order he believes in.
Here's the issue. You're not a muslim but let's say a muslim organization waltzes into the capital and demands that pork be banned because legal pork is opposed to their religious views. If pork were to be banned would that be fair to you as a Christian?
It's not that pork couldn't feasibly be banned for valid (I'm not saying correct before you jump down my throat) reasons. Such as pork taking too many resources or it being too cruel to slaughter pigs because those are claims we can investigate. We can't investigate "God says we should/shouldn't do x". It's motionless reasoning.
Hey it's not a perfect situation my friend. It would be great if we could choose what nation we were born in but life isn't that fair. Consider a christian commune.
At least you're in a country where it's relatively easy to move compared to say, Yemen.
I'll add something new to the thread (not to the debate, I'm sure it's been brought up before, but I'll say it here because it hasn't been seen in the thread yet):
I literally do not fucking understand the sudden push for gay marriage by anyone who is not themselves gay. Here's why:
>Heterosexual people of my generation are going it less than any other generation before
>Lots of "science" (scare quotes because I'm not educated enough on the topic to know whether it's good or bad science, but nevertheless it's out there in public consciousness right now) saying humans aren't even meant to be monogamous
>Such low perception of the benefits of marriage that one of the primary reasons people don't marry in my generation is supposedly finances - people literally saying they can't afford to marry and certainly can't afford to have kids
>Divorce rates remain unusually high
>Divorce court is universally held (by men at least) to be absolute shit to go through
I mean, the social perception of marriage in general has never been lower. The idea that gay people would want the appellation, this "branding" if you will, is silly. The idea that they would want the approval of a religion that does not condone their way of life is ludicrous on its face. The only real, fundamental reason they could want this, it seems to me, is for the legal equality. Meanwhile, there are actually heterosexual people out there fighting for the right to call the legal equality "marriage."
That's the part that blows my mind. To me it says that either heterosexuals are fooling themselves and they actually still really like the idea of marriage as an ideal relationship, or that they are so stupid they're fighting a battle they don't even have to fight in order to get what they want for the gays.
Is a government stepping into the Orthodox church and forcing you to marry gays, or are they recognizing homosexual marriages on their own authority? If your objection is "they're imposing their ideology on me because they are not letting me impose my religion" then they are doing so in an equal and fair manner with other religions.
And while human rights are not material, neither are they supernatural. They are a set of shared definitions authorities choose to adhere to, rather than a source of authority themselves.
>If you really want to get edgy that's what all government is.
Youre the edgy one for believing that though, and youre basically saying all governments are tyrannies, I dont see how that's plausible unless youre a shitty relativist
>Describe why this is bad.
Because it assumes all religious judgements are invalid and a arbitrary standard as The Judgement.
>Nope, you're free to be religious so long as you obey the law of the land.
That sounds like a contradiction, the religious dont obey the law of the land, they obey their own religious law. What youre expecting is that people are citizens first and Christians second
>but I guess if you agree with it it seems alright.
I'm glad you admit secularism is essentially tyranny
Marriage is increasingly irrelevant, but not completely. There are still important legal rights tied up in it, like the often-stated hospital visitation rights. But mostly it's about fairness, Homosexuals should have the same right to choose to get married or not get married, instead of having religious dogma choose for them. There is no place for religious authority to intrude onto secular authority, no matter what exactly is in contention.
>Because it assumes all religious judgements are invalid and a arbitrary standard as The Judgement
This is literally accurate
>I'm glad you admit secularism is essentially tyranny
TIL isis isn't tyranny
Of course we have to recognize them. Don't you recall the business that refused to cater to a gay wedding and got sued? We might not have to perform the matrimony in Church (we don't have to for anyone who isn't Orthodox), but we still have to recognize it in civil society the moment we step out of Church.
No, human rights are the source of authority themselves, the Constitution is considered the highest authority of the nation.
>Youre the edgy one for believing that though, and youre basically saying all governments are tyrannies
Didn't say I believed that. But if you consider a government imposing its will on you in anyway to be tyranny then yes, all governments are tyranny.
>Because it assumes all religious judgements are invalid and a arbitrary standard as The Judgement.
It makes no judgement on whether or not your religion is true. Just that it doesn't apply here. If your complaint is that your religion requires you to impose your religious ruling on others then that's exactly what secularism was conceived of to stop.
>What youre expecting is that people are citizens first and Christians second
That is essentially what you're required to do. If god tells you to murder someone you'll still be prosecuted under the law.
>I'm glad you admit secularism is essentially tyranny
ur a cheeky cunt
>They are a set of shared definitions authorities choose to adhere to, rather than a source of authority themselves.
That's pretty much a denial of human rights, it's pretty much arbitrary and have no reason to adhere to it other than "muh law", it's like the URSS in English
It's exactly about legal equality. I normally try to avoid comparisons and analogies because they are usually stupid on 4chan. But do you also not understand why white people were marching in Alabama for black civil rights? Their motivations are essentially the same.
I can agree with that up to a point, but the entirety of the laws of this country are predicated on a fundamentally Christian/Western religious foundation going all the way back to the Abrahamic and Greek religious beliefs that fathered the whole history of law in the West.
Why is it illegal to kill a man? You can make up bullshit about the economics of murder, but the law was clearly not written from a utilitarian standpoint on a great many fundamentals.
Anyway, to be clear, I understand why gays want marriage (or at least, civil union, but I know why they SAY they want marriage - because of >>616395). I'm just saying I don't understand why anyone else in their right mind would be taken along for the same useless ride when they could get off at a much closer stop and still achieve all the fundamental objectives they set out for.
>but we still have to recognize it in civil society the moment we step out of Church.
Yes. The moment you step into the domain of Caesar, you render onto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Jesus paid the temple tax to enter his "own" temple for this reason. If you live in a society that is not a theocracy, you adhere to the rules of that society. You don't have to adhere to them all within the domain of your own church, and that is your freedom.
haven't read the whole argument but I think he's not arguing for an ideology-free solution so much as a solution that doesn't discount any one ideology right on its face because of the kind of ideology it is. He would rather an ideology "free for all"
Which is, after all, what western civilization really has been the whole time to greater or lesser extents, depending on the seriousness with which a culture enforced the separation of church and state.
protip: the USA was not very serious about this partition.
Not who you're arguing with, but you could argue that a religious judgment is better than a secular judgment because it is founded in what a large number of people hold to be a metaphysically superior source of arbitration; therefore the respect for that judgment in that society will be greater.
>But if you consider a government imposing its will on you in anyway to be tyranny then yes, all governments are tyranny.
I dont think you can make that jump unless you have some pretty controversial assumptions in the first place
>It makes no judgement on whether or not your religion is true. Just that it doesn't apply here.
Why shouldnt it apply if a religion is true?
>If your complaint is that your religion requires you to impose your religious ruling on others then
I dont need to impose my religion on others, I just need to uphold the major precepts of a kind of morality that is compatible with my religion. Secularism isnt compatible with any religion or ideology other than itself.
>That is essentially what you're required to do.
In secularism, yeah, maybe, but that's just another reason to reject it.
>Why is it illegal to kill a man? You can make up bullshit about the economics of murder, but the law was clearly not written from a utilitarian standpoint on a great many fundamentals.
I would argue that the original "religious" laws developed out of earlier "cultural" laws and used religious authority as justifications. Those cultural laws were based on tribes that survived because they adhered to certain utilitarian principles that allowed them to survive, and other tribes that did not adhere to them did not. Nowadays, we do not need religious authority to adhere to laws (for the most part, there are exceptions.) So we should no longer adhere to laws that developed specifically for religious reasons unless they have some other associated benefit, especially if they conflict with a fundamental sense of decency. Fairness, in this case.
If most of the population held God as metaphysically superior, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place, as we would all agree that homosexuality was morally wrong and homosexual marriage is ridiculous.
Most people no longer hold God or the church as the ultimate, singular source of moral authority. Which is why they're mostly okay with things like gay marriage. There are a few holdouts, but that is the general trend and will likely continue that way in the future.
>Secularism isnt compatible with any religion or ideology other than itself.
But it is equally incompatible with all religions. That's fair, since your religion is no more inherently valid than any other.
you are now aware that religion has been part of human culture since at LEAST their encounters with neanderthals 30k+ years ago
you are now aware that despite your best attempt to avoid it, if you live in a common law country, your shit comes from religions.
>you are now aware that despite your best attempt to avoid it, if you live in a common law country, your shit comes from religions.
I said quite clearly that modern law comes directly from religious law, which is why irrelevant aspects need to be shed in the first place.
.9/10 times fags are degenerate freaks. And this is coming from a bisexual. I fucking hate gay culture and think gays should be shunned and ridiculed. I choose celibacy because i dont want fuckinh Aids. Gay culture promotes nothing but being a huge slut. Never is celibacy an option, because almost all fags are whores, period. There are barely any exceptions. I am a rare exception and ive never met another bi or gay person like me. Simply put fags are disgusting and I hate being one so abstain from my lusts and pursue a spiritual life and have gained much from my self control. And Id like to not burn in hell so theres that too. Both the Bible and Quran say fags will burn in hell. Im sure if you are gay and abstain God will spare you. If you are Gay or Bi and reading this, celibacy can be done. Dont let degenerate LGBT propaganda convince you otherwise.
9.9/10 times fags are degenerate freaks. And this is coming from a bisexual. I fucking hate gay culture and think gays should be shunned and ridiculed. I choose celibacy because i dont want fuckinh Aids. Gay culture promotes nothing but being a huge slut. Never is celibacy an option, because almost all fags are whores, period. There are barely any exceptions. I am a rare exception and ive never met another bi or gay person like me. Simply put fags are disgusting and I hate being one so abstain from my lusts and pursue a spiritual life and have gained much from my self control. And Id like to not burn in hell so theres that too. Both the Bible and Quran say fags will burn in hell. Im sure if you are gay and abstain God will spare you. If you are Gay or Bi and reading this, celibacy can be done. Dont let degenerate LGBT propaganda convince you otherwise.
>apology for repost
I'm sure it's the trend and all, but actually polls show most people in the US at least still believe in "God" even if they are not religious.
The trouble comes in defining the increasingly small number of moral items that everyone can agree their conception of god holds. As a result, sure enough, we are less and less convinced as a nation that our laws are good.
I think that would be a pretty good vindication of my point - religious laws (that is, laws supported by widespread religious - or some other ideology which also espouses a belief in supernumerary metaphysical realms) are inherently better than secular laws because of the backing they are believed to have.
ah, then we have no argument, at least not here and now.
defining what is irrelevant and what is not would be a whole different thread where I'm sure you and I would immediately disagree.
>I'm sure it's the trend and all, but actually polls show most people in the US at least still believe in "God" even if they are not religious.
Sure, but do they believe "God and the church" is the singular moral authority, or does their conception of God's morality oddly match the cultural zeitgeist they find themselves in?
I would also argue that distrust of laws and institutions is healthy to a certain point, because that is what results in change. The unhealthy distrust we see nowadays comes from reasonable discourse and distrust being suppressed for too long, and that state of affairs being taken advantage of by those in power.
No argument with any of that; most of it is just a different way of saying what I was already trying to say.
Of course, distrust of laws and institutions is healthy to a certain point... after which you have anarchy. The middle ground is where civilization is at. Theocracy = bad, but Anarchy = bad as well.
Since humans can't stand needing to decide shit for themselves or living next to people who happen to have views they don't agree with, we are cursed to forever sway back and forth on that pendulum.
But then, that's pretty much exactly how the bible laid out the future of human government in the first place, so I guess we're not exactly saying anything new here.
You render unto the state that which doesn't fundamentally conflict with the faith, yes. Anything that conflicts, no, since Christianity itself was outlawed and Christians didn't disregard it because the state said so.
Just look at the goramm ten comandments. If I was a dude trying to come up with some laws and make the plebs follow them because LMAO GOD WANTS IT that's somewhat what I'd come up with.
The gene, which only works for men and not women, makes it more likely for you to end up gay. It doesnt determine it.
You can still choose to be gay without it, or choose not to be with it. The same way that people who like children can choose not to fuck children.
At the end its mostly about culture and upbringing, and making the conscious or unconscious choice, genes can only slightly push you in either direction.
That was some shit tier speculative bullshit... dude your brain is rotting, you should not represent orthodoxy at least just mention you're part of it but don't try to teach from its behalf.
homosexuality is largely due to hormonal conditions in the womb and how they affect brain development, the changes made are permanent and comparable to how gay men's index fingers are generally the same length or longer than their ring fingers
though someone may develop a fetish for traps that is not being gay, it is not an instinct, it is classical conditioning and different
Because the origin of organized religion is societal control and stability, it challenges the notion of God as it questions the legitimacy of Adam and Eve. I'm not a fedoranigger, a creator is plausible but if there is one it's been clearly hijacked by humans misinterpreting their surroundings and overestimating their relevance in terms of the universe. This universe isn't for us, it is so hostile to us in general, there are no fruits beyond the his planet which only exists in peace and stability temporarily.
This picture shows three married heterosexual couples. In the three couples, the man is the same but they're three different and independent marriages.
Anyways, european tradition doesn't have polygamy.