Same sex marriage; A look at CP's gradual acceptance

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

As to my thoughts on the matter, I found this on Facebook, and thought it well described the situation:

"To all of my friends and family who honestly believe that yesterday's Supreme Court ruling somehow infringes on your religious freedom, I have one word for you: Bacon.

I'm serious. BACON.

Bacon is legal in the United States, right? "Of course it is," you say. "What's your point?" Well, bacon is legal in the United States, even though most Jewish people believe it to be a sin. Does your love of bacon infringe on their religious freedoms in any way? Should it be illegal for you to purchase bacon, just because they believe that you're sinning when you do so? The fact that bacon is legal doesn't force anyone to eat it, and the fact that it's against some people's religion doesn't prevent those who want to from eating it. That's pretty much the definition of "Religious Freedom".

Why is gay marriage any different? Tradition? The Biblical admonishment against pork goes back just as far as its condemnation of gay sex (the scriptures that reference them aren't even all that far apart from each other), so that can't be it. I think the uncomfortable Truth is that you like bacon, so you ignore that scripture (along with all of the other Old Testament laws that you pay no attention to), but the thought of gay people having sex makes you feel icky, so you hold up that scripture as justification for your homophobia. If thinking about gay people having sex really bothers you that much, then here's a thought: Just stop thinking about gay people having sex. Problem solved.

There's a reason that your religious beliefs aren't The Law in this country (no matter how much you might sometimes want them to be). Remember the uproar about "Sharia Law"? Well, do you know what Sharia Law actually is? It's a faction of Islam that wants to enforce its religious beliefs on others, by having them made into law. Sounds terrible, doesn't it? You know what else would be terrible? Having YOUR religious beliefs made into law (or anybody's really). Why is Sharia Law a "bad thing", but outlawing things that your religion is opposed to is supposedly a good thing? Surely you see the hypocrisy there.

But back to bacon... If you believe that bacon is a sin, then don't eat bacon. If you believe that gay marriage is a sin, then don't get gay married.

That's Religious Freedom."

I see what you're getting at, but I think there is a difference. If you are against eating bacon, the view from the bacon-eaters is ok whatever or oh this person is following his religion, that's cool. However, if you are anti-same sex marriage, the view is increasingly this person is either an outdated fool or a religious fanatic or both. So, the difference I think is the backlash, you're not crazy if you don't eat bacon, but are if you oppose same sex marriage.

[calf]

Originally Posted by Muta

Why do married couples / common law couples get financial advantages over non-married / single people? That's discriminating.

The marriage thing bugs me, since it means you get a financial advantage if you're religious. What if you're atheist / agnostic, and a religious institution such as marriage simply doesn't apply to you? You get left in the cold.

It's not so much that marriage = tax breaks.

It's more that as a married unit, since you (usually) share finances as a unit, you can be taxed as a unit and share some deductions/credits that one might not be able to fully use.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by calf

It's not so much that marriage = tax breaks.

It's more that as a married unit, since you (usually) share finances as a unit, you can be taxed as a unit and share some deductions/credits that one might not be able to fully use.

Perfect, thanks. Thought you got tax breaks if you were married, which would be discriminating at its core purpose.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

I see what you're getting at, but I think there is a difference. If you are against eating bacon, the view from the bacon-eaters is ok whatever or oh this person is following his religion, that's cool. However, if you are anti-same sex marriage, the view is increasingly this person is either an outdated fool or a religious fanatic or both. So, the difference I think is the backlash, you're not crazy if you don't eat bacon, but are if you oppose same sex marriage.

Um, what?

There's no equivalency. The question is wh ether you'd be considered a fool or a religious fanatic if you publicly lambasted people for eating bacon, loudly decried it as a sin or demanded the government prevent people from eating bacon.

You'd better believe that if you did that, people would call you a nutbar.

On the other hand, no one is calling you crazy if you don't want to get same sex married - just as they don't if you choose not to eat bacon, as you correctly note.

[jayswin]

Yeah, WCWNitro, I think you may have missed the point in that Bacon analogy.

[WCW Nitro]

Unless I'm totally misreading the pulse of society, isn't anyone who is opposed to same-sex marriage pretty much considered a fool in today's times?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

Unless I'm totally misreading the pulse of society, isn't anyone who is opposed to same-sex marriage pretty much considered a fool in today's times?

No less than anyone who would be in favour of banning bacon.

If you don't want to eat bacon, don't eat bacon.

If you don't want to marry the same sex, don't marry the same sex.

There's very few people fighting to ban Canadians from eating bacon, and very few people would have an issue calling them out.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

Unless I'm totally misreading the pulse of society, isn't anyone who is opposed to same-sex marriage pretty much considered a fool in today's times?

Same as anyone opposed to inter-racial marriage, women's voting rights, black voting rights, and slavery.

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

No less than anyone who would be in favour of banning bacon.

If you don't want to eat bacon, don't eat bacon.

If you don't want to marry the same sex, don't marry the same sex.

There's very few people fighting to ban Canadians from eating bacon, and very few people would have an issue calling them out.

Right, but I'm not talking about calling for a ban. I'm saying strictly if you accept that same-sex marriage is law, but are morally opposed to it, not actively fighting to overturn it.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

Right, but I'm not talking about calling for a ban. I'm saying strictly if you accept that same-sex marriage is law, but are morally opposed to it, not actively fighting to overturn it.

I can't fathom how it could be an issue, I mean it really has nothing to do or affect on you (not saying that you are morally opposed, or maybe you are).

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

Right, but I'm not talking about calling for a ban. I'm saying strictly if you accept that same-sex marriage is law, but are morally opposed to it, not actively fighting to overturn it.

What would the moral opposition be? Just curious.

[undercoverbrother]

Flow chart to help:

Spoiler!

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I can't fathom how it could be an issue, I mean it really has nothing to do or affect on you (not saying that you are morally opposed, or maybe you are).

But there are many things that you could be morally opposed to that do not affect you. Like I mentioned before, 2 sisters getting married also would have zero impact on a person, but more people would be opposed to it than same-sex marriage (again, I'm not sayng same-sex marriage would lead to a huge demand for these types of relative marriages)

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

But there are many things that you could be morally opposed to that do not affect you. Like I mentioned before, 2 sisters getting married also would have zero impact on a person, but more people would be opposed to it than same-sex marriage (again, I'm not sayng same-sex marriage would lead to a huge demand for these types of relative marriages)

WCW Nitro, I applaud you commenting and posting in this thread.


But, can you explain to me the moral outrage you have (if you don't have it them I apologize) toward same sex marriage and only same sex marriage?


To clarify: I am not trying to be obtuse. I am really trying to get inside the head of someone that is morally opposed to this.

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

WCW Nitro, I applaud you commenting and posting in this thread.


But, can you explain to me the moral outrage you have (if you don't have it them I apologize) toward same sex marriage and only same sex marriage?


To clarify: I am not trying to be obtuse. I am really trying to get inside the head of someone that is morally opposed to this.

Sure. Basically, my view is that the reason why there are 2 genders in the first place is because God designed it this way as a structure for family and having children. The fact that homosexual couples can't have children in the most natural of ways is a signal for me at least that marriage is between a man and woman.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

Sure. Basically, my view is that the reason why there are 2 genders in the first place is because God designed it this way as a structure for family and having children. The fact that homosexual couples can't have children in the most natural of ways is a signal for me at least that marriage is between a man and woman.

So your view is based on intelligent design.


Are you a Christian?

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So your view is based on intelligent design.


Are you a Christian?

No, Muslim.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

Sure. Basically, my view is that the reason why there are 2 genders in the first place is because God designed it this way as a structure for family and having children. The fact that homosexual couples can't have children in the most natural of ways is a signal for me at least that marriage is between a man and woman.

My wife and I (heterosexual couple) have chosen not to have children. In your view, should our marriage be legal even though it has nothing to do with child-raising?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

No, Muslim.

Thanks for you honesty.


As I don't have a belief in intelligent design I doubt I could ever really understand where you are coming from.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

The fact that homosexual couples can't have children in the most natural of ways is a signal for me at least that marriage is between a man and woman.

What about men or women who happen to be sterile? Or the elderly? Post menopausal women?