Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Abortion is a different case where we disagree on personhood. And I can actually understand making that argument if you genuinely believe it's a person from conception. Your problem will be convincing people who don't share your religiously founded conviction.

A more appropriate and broader analogy for most questions of morality where another's rights aren't infringed would be making masterbation illegal. Do you think it should be if your religion tell you it's wrong?

---

Atheists can't believe that abortion is murder?

---

They can, and this also varies heavily with the stage of development of the fetus. The conviction that all abortion is murder is overwhelmingly religiously grounded but sure someone could make that decision outside of religion. If you want to make a secular argument for the case you can and some try-again you are left convincing people.

AGC said:

---

Your post is off too. Christians didn't 'force' many of those things in the way you're conceiving of it. There weren't a bunch of secular materialists or Muslims being shouted down when it was done. We had state churches and a de facto religion in the public square. Your understanding of these things is projecting contemporary ideas backwards in a way that isn't appropriate; it's like watching downton abbey and thinking it's historically accurate.

---

I completely disagree. First, it seems like you are suggesting that persecution of a minority is justified by not qualifying as 'a bunch'. Is the persecution of a small group of Christians justified if they live in a region where a different religion occupies the public square and de facto morality?

More importantly, any 'witch' burned to death by Christians has had something forced upon them. They wanted 'x' and the Christians denied them 'x'. Any atheist, non-Christian, adulterer, homosexual, or 'other' that is treated poorly, given less legal rights, denied from public office, bullied, harmed, killed, whatever is having something forced onto them. They have wanted 'x' and have been punished for pursuing 'x'.

Next, there were absolutely a 'bunch' of people shouting these actions down. Change occurs when enough people shout these actions down that they can make a difference. Gay marriage is not legal today because Christians believed that gays should have the same rights as them. It is legal because enough people began to call out religious bull**** that Christianity was reluctantly forced into loosening its grip on part of the public square.

And colonialism wasn't achieved through force????? Christians spread to already inhabited regions of the world in the Americas, Africa, and Asia (where a separate de facto religion occupied the public square) and imposed their will through brutal force. The Nazis have the Holocaust. The Communists have Stalin and Mao. And the Christians have colonialism. You cannot possibly convince me that Christianity doesn't have a history of 'not minding its own business'.

None of this makes you, AGC, personally responsible for these bad things. When secularists do bad stuff, I should be able to call them out. When Christians do bad stuff, you should be able to call them out. If morality is objective the way you believe it is, then historical context is irrelevant.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

To be blunt, no everyone isn't that way. Some of us can see the distinction between something we personally find wrong harmful misguided or offensive and what we can insist upon from others at the point of a gun. Usually through a lens of infringement of liberties we collectively have decided are essential. Even if that's something totally crazy like trying to buy a beer on Sunday morning.

---

Well my assertion is easy to disprove. Just show me one group in the entirety of history that didn't legislate their morality. Many modern European states outlaw Nazis because they are evil. France outlawed burkas. Russia and the Middle East criminalize homosexuality. China criminalizes political agitation. Laws inherently reflect the morality of the people making them. I think there's a argument to be made about the limits of laws and government in a multicultural society. That discussion woudl be very fruitful. But let's not pretend like American Christians are unique in trying to legislate their morality as they are not even unique in that regard in our own country.

---

Virtually the entire first world largely refrains from this. There is a trend in Europe against free speech in terms of Nazi's et al. They tend to see this as a defense of the rights of the people who would be harmed by those groups and I disagree. I think it's disingenuous to argue all groups are as big of busybodies as so many American Christians are.

That's revisionist history. Same-sex sexual activity was against the law in Texas until 2003 when SCOTUS ruled such laws unconstitutional. Those laws have not been repealed, either.

Also, Texas passed laws specifically banning same-sex civil unions (not just marriages) in the early 2000's and those were in place until once again SCOTUS nullified them in 2015.

You specifically said it was "less about what they could" do and "more about what they were called" when neither of those is true as i pointed out.

Average Guy said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

You specifically said it was "less about what they could" do and "more about what they were called" when neither of those is true as i pointed out.

---

I don't see that you pointed that out at all. Sure there was a law against sodomy, and as you pointed out, perhaps there still is. The law was essentially moot way before Lawrence, long before scotus changed the constitution regarding marriage. Preventing civil unions also didn't prevent anyone from "doing" anything.

Gay marriage was about what the rest of us could do or say.

---

How was it moot "way before" before Lawrence when Lawrence vs Texas itself was about a man being charged with breaking the anti-sodomy law?

I'm finding it a little hard to believe the intellectual honesty of someone saying that the only thing obergefell was about was what "the rest of us could do or say"

Why do you keep bringing up abortion when I've repeatedly said I don't have an issue with Christian's bringing this one up as it's not simply a personal moral issue that doesn't infringe the rights of others from the perspective of the Christian?

How many times do I have to say it?

Yes rape slavery and murder are moral questions, but they are those that take away the ability of others to choose for themselves a way to avoid such things. These are the sorts of things societies agree to enforce with violence.

Trying to treat this as analogous to blue laws, gay marriage or sodomy is unthinking.

And did you even read through the link you sent? I can't really imagine that was a serious response as a comparison to people who want gay marriage outlawed or antisodomy laws re-enacted

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

How I've seen it; (not mine, shamelessy stolen)

Secular Person: "I want to do 'x'"
Christian: "You're free to do it."

Secular Person: "But you think 'x' is wrong."
Christian: "Yes."

Secular Person: "Because you want to control me."
Christian: "No, You're free to do whatever you wish."

Secular Person: "But you think 'x' is wrong."
Christian: "Yes, but only because I want what's best for you."

Secular Person: "But I want to do 'x'."
Christian" "You're free to do it."

Secular Person: "But I want you to say that 'x' is good."
Christian: "I can't say that."

Secular Person: "Why are you such a hateful intolerant bigot?"

(Note: This conversation is much different regarding things that directly affect the life, health, or well-being of a child; born or unborn)

---

The entire post is idiotic, but this part is especially precious.

Average Guy said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

How I've seen it; (not mine, shamelessy stolen)

Secular Person: "I want to do 'x'"
Christian: "You're free to do it."

Secular Person: "But you think 'x' is wrong."
Christian: "Yes."

Secular Person: "Because you want to control me."
Christian: "No, You're free to do whatever you wish."

Secular Person: "But you think 'x' is wrong."
Christian: "Yes, but only because I want what's best for you."

Secular Person: "But I want to do 'x'."
Christian" "You're free to do it."

Secular Person: "But I want you to say that 'x' is good."
Christian: "I can't say that."

Secular Person: "Why are you such a hateful intolerant bigot?"

(Note: This conversation is much different regarding things that directly affect the life, health, or well-being of a child; born or unborn)

---

Good grief, do Christians in this country honestly think this is how it has gone down? Lets say 'x' is gay marriage for the first 239 years of this country's history and for the entirety of Christian world history when Christians have held political power. How well does your post hold up?

---

This actually illustrates his point. The gay marriage thing was less about what gay people could "do" (co-habitate, make life time commitment, live in every way as do "married" people) and more about what everyone else had to call them.

---

Complete BS! No one is forcing you, personally, to call them anything you don't want to call them. Your free speech remains in tact, no? It was about equal legal recognition. Prior to Obergefell, many of these couples 'living in every way as do married people' lacked all of the legal and financial benefits that married people do. How many times during those debates did we hear politicians say marriage is for one man and one woman only. They were not advocating for their personal or religious freedoms to recognize or not recognize SSM. they were advocating in this context to inflict a legal definition that excluded rights to same sex couples on an explicitly and openly religious foundation.

This all is a wonderful example of Christians having an understanding of 'freedom of religion' that includes them having the freedom to legally persecute 'others' on theological grounds. It took a decade or so before most Christians realized how dangerous and backwards the position was and today most Christians in the US very much support SSM even if the are morally opposed to it.

There is no way to spin the SSM debate from a decade ago that shows Christians as 'live and let live' / 'minding our own business'.

Average Guy said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Average Guy said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Average Guy said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

How I've seen it; (not mine, shamelessy stolen)

Secular Person: "I want to do 'x'"
Christian: "You're free to do it."

Secular Person: "But you think 'x' is wrong."
Christian: "Yes."

Secular Person: "Because you want to control me."
Christian: "No, You're free to do whatever you wish."

Secular Person: "But you think 'x' is wrong."
Christian: "Yes, but only because I want what's best for you."

Secular Person: "But I want to do 'x'."
Christian" "You're free to do it."

Secular Person: "But I want you to say that 'x' is good."
Christian: "I can't say that."

Secular Person: "Why are you such a hateful intolerant bigot?"

(Note: This conversation is much different regarding things that directly affect the life, health, or well-being of a child; born or unborn)

---

Good grief, do Christians in this country honestly think this is how it has gone down? Lets say 'x' is gay marriage for the first 239 years of this country's history and for the entirety of Christian world history when Christians have held political power. How well does your post hold up?

---

This actually illustrates his point. The gay marriage thing was less about what gay people could "do" (co-habitate, make life time commitment, live in every way as do "married" people) and more about what everyone else had to call them.

---

Complete BS! No one is forcing you, personally, to call them anything you don't want to call them. Your free speech remains in tact, no? It was about equal legal recognition. Prior to Obergefell, many of these couples 'living in every way as do married people' lacked all of the legal and financial benefits that married people do. How many times during those debates did we hear politicians say marriage is for one man and one woman only. They were not advocating for their personal or religious freedoms to recognize or not recognize SSM. they were advocating in this context to inflict a legal definition that excluded rights to same sex couples on an explicitly and openly religious foundation.

This all is a wonderful example of Christians having an understanding of 'freedom of religion' that includes them having the freedom to legally persecute 'others' on theological grounds. It took a decade or so before most Christians realized how dangerous and backwards the position was and today most Christians in the US very much support SSM even if the are morally opposed to it.

There is no way to spin the SSM debate from a decade ago that shows Christians as 'live and let live' / 'minding our own business'.

---

Of course they did. And they're still right, despite any scotus rulings. Regardless, Texas laws against sodomy were a complete non-issue kind of like laws which prohibit people from carrying wire cutters in their pockets, they didn't even rise to the level of commonly flouted laws like speed limits. With those laws, lots of people get cited, pay fines, and moderate their behavior in front of policeman. No one moderated or hid their homosexuality because they were worried about sodomy laws. Hell, most people probably didn't even know the law existed. I didn't, the Sullivan ruling was a surprise to me at the time.

Prior to Obergefell, and even prior to Sullivan, gays were free to live together in every way as married couples. Legal recognition was about placing obligations on others, particularly what they could say via both legal and social pressure. The whole woke war on gender and words in the years since has only made that clear to everyone.

But it seems obvious to me that it's important for the left to believe that the pre-Sullivan days were an awful period of persecution of gays. Don't let me stand in your way. Carry on.

---

You have a lot of complaints about the 'left's' demand for social acceptance of homosexuality. A war on words. Conservatives invented a legal term with 'civil unions' as a way of permitting sorta similar legal rights while still being able to enforce a religiously motivated legal and social distinction to SSM. I'm sorry to break it to you, but conservatives are just as obsessed as the liberals with trying to force a social agenda. T

Your comparison of SSM to carrying wire cutters is bizzare. Are you offering this as justification for keeping sodomy laws? You seem perfectly okay with the sodomy laws existing since they were relatively inert. Your post screams to me like "Doesn't affect me, why should I give a *****" I look forward to your setting me right on this point.

I don't think anyone here is saying that the days leading up to Sullivan and Obergefell were awful. At least not compared to how homosexuals have been treated in other places or historically. I may have made the mistake of assuming you believed in religious freedom and were not in favor of Christian theocracy. Someone who values religious freedom should be concerned about the existence of laws that discriminate against some people based on religious values. It doesn't take a radical woke SJW to be disappointed in SSM restrictions. . . . just anyone who cares about religious freedom.

You've revealed, I think, that you think marriage equality should not be extended to homosexuals. In which case, I think you have a very low bar for what you consider woke. If thinking that making laws which specifically promote Christian ideals and discriminate against others is woke, then consider me:


(clarification - I'm not saying i'm triggered. I am saying that I might as well be her compared to your low bar of wokeness)

Alright, enough for today. There is a new bottle of bourbon and some ribs calling my name.

---

I think, then, that we're in agreement that prior to both Obergefell and Sullivan, same sex couples could "do" the marriage stuff, that the major complaint was what everybody else had to call it.

---

They could 'do' most of the marriage stuff prior to those cases in most (not all) states because civil unions started to become a thing in 2000 starting in Vermont. In 2015, 13 states still had bans on gay marriage. In those states they absolutely could not 'do' the marriage stuff and did not have equal legal rights.

Again, this was disturbing to those of us that believe in religious freedom. I'm pointing this out because I'm not sure you are one of these people and I want to be sure you understand where I'm coming from.

The larger context of this discussion has to do with how Christianity has treated homosexuality over the whole of its 2000 year history. Or it's 4000 year history if you include its roots. Obergefell was the case that setted (hopefully) the legal discussion about marriage rights of same sex couples. You pointing out that the 'turning point' in society may have occurred slightly before this case does little to address this larger context.

Basically, you are defending religion as 'minding its own business' by focusing on the past few decades and ignoring a 2,000+ year history. If I grant you that Christians began 'minding their own business' regarding legal rights for same sex couples some years prior to Obergefell, then what explanation or justification would you offer for their religious persecution by Christianity for the thousands of years earlier? Can we agree that for most of US history and for the vast majority of Christian history, Christians treated homosexuals very poorly?