DOMA has started to fall.

[GAYtheist]

Furthermore, I have many gay friends. Some lesbians as well. But the only one who participates in the parades and is the most politically active and open about pushing for equal rights is a die-hard Christian. There are gay Christians who disagree with the way the laws currently stand so I don't know how you can frame this as an attack on Christianity.

I actually find this both cool, and kinda sad at the same time. I think all gay people should be fighting for their rights, so the ones that aren't, in my personal opinion need to get up off their butts and get to it.

Otherwise, yay gay Christians!

[Tank]

I personally think the state should only recognize civil unions and leave "marriage" to the churches...they can have that word I'm not that attached to it.  However, per the State of Oklahoma I am married (says Certificate of Marriage on the paperwork) even though neither of us is the least bit religious and we did not hold the ceremony in a church.  We would have opted for a civil union had it been made available to us and we are a male/female couple.

Beat me to it. Everybody gets a 'Civil Union' and woo merchants can call it what they like. Civil Union sounds far more secular and it has no historical interpretive baggage.

[GAYtheist]

I personally think the state should only recognize civil unions and leave "marriage" to the churches...they can have that word I'm not that attached to it.  However, per the State of Oklahoma I am married (says Certificate of Marriage on the paperwork) even though neither of us is the least bit religious and we did not hold the ceremony in a church.  We would have opted for a civil union had it been made available to us and we are a male/female couple.

Beat me to it. Everybody gets a 'Civil Union' and woo merchants can call it what they like. Civil Union sounds far more secular and it has no historical interpretive baggage.

The thing is that the right wingers will never go for it. What needs to happen is the government getting of its proverbial fat ass, and legislating it, and not allowing our rights to be put up to vote. Same thing with ENDA, Trans-rights, or any minorities rights.

[bumbleking]

It ain't over ‘til at least five SCOTOS justices agree that the 14th amendment says so, or ‘til there's another amendment that's drafted and ratified by 2/3rds of our congress and senators (and another 2/3rds from the states).

And yet, the system works, it always comes through. Slowly, sometimes, but it will eventually secure every kind of citizen their equal protections and privileges like it was “destined” to do.

Darwin bless America, the home of human evolution.

[Thumpalumpacus]

intolerance of intolerance

What's really sad is that freeservant doesn't even realize that, in this statement, he is confessing to intolerance.

What's even sadder is that he'll want to argue, "But I know I'm admitting to intolerance!"  At least until now.

Freeservant, answer me this: you claim to be Christian.  You claim to worship the Almighty God.  Why on earth does he need the support of mortal law?  Is his judgment so undependable that you feel the need to add your two cents' worth?  Who are you to appoint yourself God's back-up?  And isn't that Pride?

You take care of your sex life.  Let gay folk take care of theirs.  If your god is real, then it'll all come out in the wash.  Attempting to legislate "his will" only makes you look like you don't really believe he'll follow through, o ye of little faith.

Religious laws are ipso facto an admission of doubt.

[bumbleking]

Thumpy, why are you trying to persuade a Christian on some kind of religious grounds? Their religious arguments and reasons shouldn't matter that much in this debate, since this ought to--and will have to be--decided on constitutional grounds (and there is no ‘christ·ian’ in “con·sti·tut·ion”). This is America man, the land where only Christians should have to care what other Christians think.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thumpy, why are you trying to persuade a Christian on some kind of religious grounds? Their religious arguments and reasons shouldn't matter that much in this debate, since this ought to--and will have to be--decided on constitutional grounds (and there is no ‘christ·ian’ in “con·sti·tut·ion”). This is America man, the land where only Christians should have to care what other Christians think.

If you wish to change minds, you must first speak the language of your listener.

[Tank]

Thumpy, why are you trying to persuade a Christian on some kind of religious grounds? Their religious arguments and reasons shouldn't matter that much in this debate, since this ought to--and will have to be--decided on constitutional grounds (and there is no ‘christ·ian’ in “con·sti·tut·ion”). This is America man, the land where only Christians should have to care what other Christians think.

If you wish to change minds, you must first speak the language of your listener.

Yep. If one is perceived as an enemy then you're wasting your time trying to win hearts and minds. It just ain't going to happen. Best case be seen as a friend, next best as cooperative neutral but never as an enemy. Winning an argument is not the same as changing a person's mind as the beaten individual simply leaves or concedes defeat, but they don't usually change their minds.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thumpy, why are you trying to persuade a Christian on some kind of religious grounds? Their religious arguments and reasons shouldn't matter that much in this debate, since this ought to--and will have to be--decided on constitutional grounds (and there is no ‘christ·ian’ in “con·sti·tut·ion”). This is America man, the land where only Christians should have to care what other Christians think.

If you wish to change minds, you must first speak the language of your listener.

Yep. If one is perceived as an enemy then you're wasting your time trying to win hearts and minds. It just ain't going to happen. Best case be seen as a friend, next best as cooperative neutral but never as an enemy. Winning an argument is not the same as changing a person's mind as the beaten individual simply leaves or concedes defeat, but they don't usually change their minds.

I don't mind being seen as an opponent.  My point is that if you can carry the point even when it is framed in the terms of your debater, then the point sinks that much deeper.

I will always be an enemy of bigotry, which is what this is.

[Tank]

I don't mind being seen as an opponent.  My point is that if you can carry the point even when it is framed in the terms of your debater, then the point sinks that much deeper.

I will always be an enemy of bigotry, which is what this is.

I'm not sure I see opponent automatically as an enemy, but I'm not looking for a semantic argument either, I agree with what you're saying. I have spent many years in business in all sorts of rolls that involved negotiation and have found that for there to be a long lasting and mutually respecting agreement it is generally easier to achieve if the discussion never reaches boiling point, if possible. Sometimes the gloves have to come off but that in my experience is a last resort position. I have been in sales situations where I have said some quite brutal things on the basis the sale was lost anyway so I had nothing to lose, 80/20 hit rate on that but it did work sometimes.

It's all good though, I'll be nice Cop and you be bad Cop  

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't mind being seen as an opponent.  My point is that if you can carry the point even when it is framed in the terms of your debater, then the point sinks that much deeper.

I will always be an enemy of bigotry, which is what this is.

I'm not sure I see opponent automatically as an enemy, but I'm not looking for a semantic argument either, I agree with what you're saying. I have spent many years in business in all sorts of rolls that involved negotiation and have found that for there to be a long lasting and mutually respecting agreement it is generally easier to achieve if the discussion never reaches boiling point, if possible. Sometimes the gloves have to come off but that in my experience is a last resort position. I have been in sales situations where I have said some quite brutal things on the basis the sale was lost anyway so I had nothing to lose, 80/20 hit rate on that but it did work sometimes.

It's all good though, I'll be nice Cop and you be bad Cop  

hahah.

On a serious note, I get pretty het up about this, because my son's mother is bisexual, and her and her SigOth are denied the ability to legally marry.  These personal feelings, unfortunately, affect my objectivity.

[Martin TK]

freeservant
Give the Christians a small little thing and just don't call it marriage when you craft a civil union so that it has all the full rights and privileges of what we fudy duddy Christians call marriage.  

Call it an underhanded psychological ploy to make Christians feel that they are not under attack or that this is a method that will lead to further attack.

...Or we could be open about things and just say that the gay marriage thing is truly about attacking Christians and keep up that attack until we have the end times reality of the open attack that will happen to Christians that means that Jesus will soon return.

THIS is a HUGE problem with the whole thinking process of Christians, the ENTITLEMENT CLAUSE!  Religion has been given the "benefit of the doubt" these "small things" for centuries, and at the same time, refuse to budge an inch on anything that they feel is against their belief system.  NO, we should NOT give the Christian Community this "small thing" because then they will want another concession and another, and before you know it, they are getting everything they want, because they are entitled to.

[Martin TK]

Thumpy, why are you trying to persuade a Christian on some kind of religious grounds? Their religious arguments and reasons shouldn't matter that much in this debate, since this ought to--and will have to be--decided on constitutional grounds (and there is no ‘christ·ian’ in “con·sti·tut·ion”). This is America man, the land where only Christians should have to care what other Christians think.

I have to say this and it's meant as a constructive comment, but I think you need to read more about how the whole Christian thought process goes.  This is America, where Christians have been given this sense of entitlement to care about what EVERYONE thinks, and how everyone acts, lives, and is treated by the Government.  This is the problem with religion in America today, in NO other advanced society in the world, is religion allowed to have such an impact on the legal system.

People in countries like Denmark, Finland, Germany, and England LAUGH at us when they see how much power the Religious Right have on American politics and laws in this country.

[Thumpalumpacus]

...Or we could be open about things and just say that the gay marriage thing is truly about attacking Christians and keep up that attack until we have the end times reality of the open attack that will happen to Christians that means that Jesus will soon return.

I'm not sure how I missed this other point, but how on earth does allowing strangers same-sex marriage attack you at all?

[pinkocommie]

...Or we could be open about things and just say that the gay marriage thing is truly about attacking Christians and keep up that attack until we have the end times reality of the open attack that will happen to Christians that means that Jesus will soon return.

I'm not sure how I missed this other point, but how on earth does allowing strangers same-sex marriage attack you at all?

In the exact same way us being open about our atheism is an attack on Christianity.  Which is to say it really isn't, they just want an excuse for their intolerance.  Doesn't take much, apparently.