North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban

[Lobotroth]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

That is an interesting question, and I obviously can't know how everyone processes this sort of belief.

In my own personal experience, I would suggest that in a twisted sort of way the opposition to same-sex marriage is actually rationalized on a weird sense of empathy. Conservative Christians believe that homosexuality is an abomination of nature, and that the practice and tolerance of homosexuality will result in an unacceptable rate of social decay. In their minds they are protecting society from something that they see as extremely harmful.

Furthermore, this sense of empathy likely also extends to practitioners of homosexuality: I would expect that most conservative Christians would consider the ban on gay marriage to be for their own good. If these people can prevent the practice of homosexuality, then they will have succeeded in protecting would-be practitioners from the dire consequences of their sin.

This can't be serious. Complete and utter garbage.

[TorqueDog]

Absolutely sickening and despicable result, but I'd be lying if I said it surprised me, given what state this occurred in. Legislating away people's rights in the name of protecting the 'grand design' of a God whose existence cannot be proven. And people wonder why I'm an antitheist and not just an atheist.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Conservative Christians believe that homosexuality is an abomination of nature, and that the practice and tolerance of homosexuality will result in an unacceptable rate of social decay. In their minds they are protecting society from something that they see as extremely harmful.

That's funny; I see religious belief as extremely harmful, has a clearly demonstrable affect on the decay of societies (acceptance of homosexuality does not) and that tolerance of religious belief should be discouraged and ridiculed for what it is; a delusion.

Yet they see their own bigotry as divine while the protests of the rational person are met with cries of "offensive" or "religious discrimination".

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Did anyone else find it a little odd that he was an Eagle Scout? Didn't the Boyscouts of America ban homosexuals? I wonder how he and his family handled that.

My boys went to Beavers and Cubs,even though "atheists" are prohibited from joining. We decided the benefits of the program outweighed any concerns we had.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

lol except for allowing someone to have dominance over you

So, are men who are submissive in heterosexual relationships "less manly" by your 2,000 year old view?

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

That is an interesting question, and I obviously can't know how everyone processes this sort of belief.

In my own personal experience, I would suggest that in a twisted sort of way the opposition to same-sex marriage is actually rationalized on a weird sense of empathy. Conservative Christians believe that homosexuality is an abomination of nature, and that the practice and tolerance of homosexuality will result in an unacceptable rate of social decay. In their minds they are protecting society from something that they see as extremely harmful.

Furthermore, this sense of empathy likely also extends to practitioners of homosexuality: I would expect that most conservative Christians would consider the ban on gay marriage to be for their own good. If these people can prevent the practice of homosexuality, then they will have succeeded in protecting would-be practitioners from the dire consequences of their sin.

I don't doubt the sincerity / empathy to be a factor.

But I do think a rather large part of it is a (false) sense of oppression / victimhood that these people are feeling. You can get the vibe from watching Hannity and similar right wing icons. There is too much anger and frustration for this to be driven by empathy. I think many voting for this ban think it is a pivotal point where they stand up for their faith. I don't think they're as much invested in the actual civil repercussions of their vote, nor do they consider the absurdity of the "oppressed Christian" in the USA.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Lobotroth

This can't be serious. Complete and utter garbage.

Unfortunately, this is exactly how many people of faith actually think through this issue. A prime case of this sort of thinking in action can be seen in the work of Robert Gagnon, but I assure you that he is but one of a fairly high number of highly trained and vocal opponents to same-sex marriage.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Reaper

So, are men who are submissive in heterosexual relationships "less manly" by your 2,000 year old view?

Of course they are ......and it doesn't have anything to do with the bible.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Is your capacity for empathy missing or something? It's incomprehensible to me that you can't comprehend how a man could love another man. You know how you love your wife? It'd be exactly like that except instead of your wife being a woman, she'd be a man. How can that be hard to wrap your head around?

I don't think christians think a man loving another man is wrong...obviously......it's a man lusting for another man that is the issue.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Is your capacity for empathy missing or something? It's incomprehensible to me that you can't comprehend how a man could love another man. You know how you love your wife? It'd be exactly like that except instead of your wife being a woman, she'd be a man. How can that be hard to wrap your head around?

I think what Textcritic is trying to get across is it's just something he can't imagine partaking in because he has no sexual attraction towards men. Doesn't seem like he's necessarily against it, just can't understand it. Like a woman can't understand what getting kicked in the balls feels like.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Of course they are ......and it doesn't have anything to do with the bible.

The other acolyte of CP bigotry arrives!

[calgaryrocks]

Originally Posted by Reaper

So, are men who are submissive in heterosexual relationships "less manly" by your 2,000 year old view?

I was just joking. there is no need for people to measure their manliness (although many do). the term macho is silly, what does it even mean?
and "less manly" than who? people have thier sexual preferences, which is fine, none of my business. I still don't think it is what God intended, but I don't think it's right to restrict others freedoms. what is my 2000 year old view exactly?
edit: if you want to measure manliness, I guess being overly submissive in a relationship is less manly (hetero or homo). but what is submissive? not always getting your way/what you want? well I don't think that is a healthy relationship, but never standing up for yourself or what you want or being the leader in the relationship, that is probably less manly

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by troutman

My boys went to Beavers and Cubs,even though "atheists" are prohibited from joining. We decided the benefits of the program outweighed any concerns we had.

I joined Cubs and Scouts despite coming from an atheist family. My grandfather was against it saying that the organizations were for grooming soldier fodder for war.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

...But I do think a rather large part of it is a (false) sense of oppression / victimhood that these people are feeling. You can get the vibe from watching Hannity and similar right wing icons. There is too much anger and frustration for this to be driven by empathy. I think many voting for this ban think it is a pivotal point where they stand up for their faith. I don't think they're as much invested in the actual civil repercussions of their vote, nor do they consider the absurdity of the "oppressed Christian" in the USA.

You are probably correct. "Fear" is likely the prime motivator for these people, who are terrified by God's wrath and the imagined consequences that they are certain to follow from homosexual behaviour. And this is also most definitely fuelled by an over active persecution complex. Even though Christians are the least marginalized people on the planet, it is easy for them to imagine a growing "spiritual" oppression that fits with their dualistic cosmology, and the epic battle between the forces of good and evil.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Of course they are ......and it doesn't have anything to do with the bible.

A man that feels they need to dominate over a woman in bed in order to be manly is anything but.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I don't think christians think a man loving another man is wrong...obviously......it's a man lusting for another man that is the issue.

BS.

If that was the case, there'd be no drive to ban gay marriage. In fact, Christians would actively be encouraging the recognition of gay marriage. Marriage is, afterall, an institution in which two people commit to a stable, long-term, loving relationship.

[Hilch]

I wonder what percentage of people that voted against it have been divorced or broken one of gods rules? Religion is the root of all evil all it does it bring hate towards others.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I don't think christians think a man loving another man is wrong...obviously......it's a man lusting for another man that is the issue.

If people think banning gay marriage is going to stop gay people from having sex, they are even more clueless than I thought.

[CaptainCrunch]

Its those #######s who want to marry their horses that I'm voting against. MArriage is a person marrying a person, not a person marrying a farm animal or a piece of farming equipment.

[The Goon]

I don't agree with the decision in NC, but the result doesn't bother me as it does many other people online. Change is not an immediate on/off switch; it's a slow process and in some places slower than others.

Same-sex marriage in Canada has only been legal since 2005, not 1867. If it was put to the public even 25 years ago, I'm sure a similar result as NC would have occurred. Different countries and states are going to adopt this in different time frames. Attitudes will change, and I'll bet there will be a different result in another ten years.

[CaptainCrunch]

If anything this is a positive (not really but) as it will eventually force this into the consititutional arena and will be put in front of the Supreme Court where this debate really belongs.