Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
Mon Jul 6, 2015, 02:31 PM Jul 2015

Never forget

That opposition to marriage equality was 100% religious based. And it came about in spite of religion, not with it's assistance.

There were theists who weren't against it, but religion in general is against it. Even Episcopalians who allow it wiin the church in america are defying their dogma and it's causing a split in the church, and in Africa the church is fighting against it.

75 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Never forget (Original Post) Lordquinton Jul 2015 OP
Not a fair accusation. You could certainly say the majority of religious organizations Maedhros Jul 2015 #1
Yes all religions Lordquinton Jul 2015 #2
It appears you are as blind to some people as you believe they are blind to you. Maedhros Jul 2015 #5
Just because there is nothing to see Lordquinton Jul 2015 #12
Maybe you should read your own thread? Maedhros Jul 2015 #13
It was an ad hom Lordquinton Jul 2015 #18
Again, an observation based upon your post. Maedhros Jul 2015 #23
You are not even wrong here Lordquinton Jul 2015 #24
Enjoy your anger. Maedhros Jul 2015 #27
The question is why aren't you angry? Lordquinton Jul 2015 #29
UU churches have been safeinOhio Jul 2015 #10
So UUs and Quakers can consider themselves exempt Lordquinton Jul 2015 #14
Not at all, safeinOhio Jul 2015 #15
Let me rephrase Lordquinton Jul 2015 #19
Forget United Church of Christ we can do it Jul 2015 #17
Might as well, since they have less than 1 million members and shrinking. AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #20
Post removed Post removed Jul 2015 #47
This message was self-deleted by its author AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #48
I said pathetically tiny percentage, not simply 'pathetic'. That's your ad hom, not mine AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #50
You know you are pathetically tiny when you can't even... stone space Jul 2015 #51
Perhaps the networks had conflicting political purposes. AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #53
You mean homophobia? stone space Jul 2015 #55
Networks have owners. AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #56
Care to give us a major religion which loves the idea and fought for it? mr blur Jul 2015 #3
There are a number of sects - Unitarians, for example - that have no problem with gay marriage. Maedhros Jul 2015 #4
Unitarians are a pathetically tiny percentage of the religious population. AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #8
Unitarians don't count. stone space Jul 2015 #45
You seem to be having some trouble following the logic. AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #52
No, I said a major religion. Not a minor sect. mr blur Jul 2015 #16
Hinduism and Buddhism - do they count? Maedhros Jul 2015 #22
Good thing no one did that Lordquinton Jul 2015 #25
Count as what? Act_of_Reparation Jul 2015 #33
Is that the religion, or the people? [n/t] Maedhros Jul 2015 #42
I'm sure you can provide a link to some Hindu text that forbids homosexuality. Maedhros Jul 2015 #43
Of course. Act_of_Reparation Jul 2015 #49
I stand corrected. Maedhros Jul 2015 #58
Right now, you'd give Michael Flatley a run for his money. Act_of_Reparation Jul 2015 #60
You call me dishonest? Whatever. Maedhros Jul 2015 #61
Look, many Catholics are undoubtedly reasonable, caring, welcoming people. mr blur Jul 2015 #62
Yes - and any Catholics on this discussion board are almost certainly the caring type, Maedhros Jul 2015 #66
"My point is that by doing so you are demonizing people as well" trotsky Jul 2015 #63
No, not whatever. Act_of_Reparation Jul 2015 #64
So again, you are more concerned about the feelings of people Lordquinton Jul 2015 #67
^^This^^ (nt) mr blur Jul 2015 #68
In the U.S., the contrxtual battleground of legalizing same sex marriage in the last 20 days, no AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #35
Post removed Post removed Jul 2015 #46
Again, you are confused. AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #54
Results of jury decision. nc4bo Jul 2015 #59
Buddhist and Hindus safeinOhio Jul 2015 #11
Oh boy, and combined they round out to a whole 1% of the U.S. Population. AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #21
Right. Hindus care so little that homosexual acts are illegal in India. Act_of_Reparation Jul 2015 #34
"In general" implies there were very few exceptions, which is true. Warpy Jul 2015 #6
Perhaps, but the OP doubled-down and confirmed he meant "all." Maedhros Jul 2015 #7
You misunderstand. AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #9
The phrase doesn't mean "all." AlbertCat Jul 2015 #26
But he specifically said "all" in a follow-up post, so I can assume that's what he meant. Maedhros Jul 2015 #28
I did post it here knowing the audience Lordquinton Jul 2015 #30
you all are angry, and need a target for your anger. AlbertCat Jul 2015 #31
"You all" are the posters that keep dropping these broad-brush polemics Maedhros Jul 2015 #32
For political purposes, in the U.S., it is monolithic. Hats how you get Prop 8 in Cali. AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #37
I covered that in the OP Lordquinton Jul 2015 #40
"the opposition to gay marriage - it's founded in ignorance and bigotry." - and religion. Warren Stupidity Jul 2015 #74
I don't see anyone denying your first statement edhopper Jul 2015 #36
Then your ignore list is well tuned. AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #38
I see people denying all religion oposed it edhopper Jul 2015 #39
That's what I see, too. Mariana Jul 2015 #73
Sets, subsets edhopper Jul 2015 #75
Never forget... MellowDem Jul 2015 #41
An Atheist inspired Dr. King Lordquinton Jul 2015 #44
And you never hear about A. Philip Randolph Act_of_Reparation Jul 2015 #71
That's who I was thinking of Lordquinton Jul 2015 #72
marriage has nothing to do with religion larkrake Jul 2015 #57
Captain is an urban legend. Legal official varies from state to state. AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #65
A fact which is irrelevant to this topic nt Lordquinton Jul 2015 #69
It's like when a certain someone stumbles into the AA group... Act_of_Reparation Jul 2015 #70
 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
1. Not a fair accusation. You could certainly say the majority of religious organizations
Mon Jul 6, 2015, 02:42 PM
Jul 2015

were against marriage equality but "in general" implies all of them, which is not true.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
5. It appears you are as blind to some people as you believe they are blind to you.
Mon Jul 6, 2015, 03:16 PM
Jul 2015

Painting everyone with the same broad brush is as silly with religious people as with LGBTQ people.

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
12. Just because there is nothing to see
Mon Jul 6, 2015, 04:22 PM
Jul 2015

Doesn't mean I'm blind.

Thanks for the ad hom in place of an argument, really supports your case.

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
18. It was an ad hom
Mon Jul 6, 2015, 05:30 PM
Jul 2015

When you posted it you did not support it. So despite your efforts at time control, the facts don't support you.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
23. Again, an observation based upon your post.
Mon Jul 6, 2015, 05:55 PM
Jul 2015

Are all feminists man-hating lesbians?
Are all environmentalists dope-smoking hippies?
Are all undocumented immigrants criminals and rapists?

You are engaging in the same kind of hateful stereotyping, ascribing to all members of a group (religious people) characteristics present in a sub-set of that group (conservative Christian homophobes). This is obviously, logically false.

Are there religious people who are hateful and ignorant? You bet! But religious people are not a monolithic entity - there is great diversity between religions and within religions. If you want to disparage conservative Christian homophobes, then qualify your statements. Insulting everyone who is religious just makes you look bad.

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
24. You are not even wrong here
Mon Jul 6, 2015, 06:33 PM
Jul 2015

Few to none feminists are man hating lesbians
few to none environmentalists are dope smoking hippies
few to none undocumented immagrants are criminals and rapists

To even try to make the comparisson is an insult.

My main point is sill uncontested: that the forces against marriage equality are 100% religious.

I also never said religious people, in fact i specifically said that i wasn't talking about religious people. I specified religion.

Stop playing with straw. And go stuff the qualifers, that your arguing about not hurting the few minor sects that aren't completely monstrous over groups at are suffering and dieing from opressin of the majority speaks volumes about your motives.

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
14. So UUs and Quakers can consider themselves exempt
Mon Jul 6, 2015, 04:42 PM
Jul 2015

And they can know that silently so they don't give cover to the likes of the RCC who is waging global campaigns against it, among other religions.

To borrow a phrase, you don't get a cookie for being a decent person.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
20. Might as well, since they have less than 1 million members and shrinking.
Mon Jul 6, 2015, 05:34 PM
Jul 2015

One million believers in a 310 million-person nation, polling between 75-85% religious.

That's less than 1%

Don't hurt yourself celebrating

Can you find a ~1 million member secular org opposed to same sex marriage? Even that many?

Secularists as a whole haven't been a problem, by LESS than the LARGEST statistical outlier religious supporters that haven't been a problem.

Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #20)

Response to Post removed (Reply #47)

 

stone space

(6,498 posts)
51. You know you are pathetically tiny when you can't even...
Tue Jul 7, 2015, 12:07 PM
Jul 2015

...get TV networks to air your church ads.

I mean, how often do TV networks turn away cash?



 

stone space

(6,498 posts)
55. You mean homophobia?
Tue Jul 7, 2015, 12:17 PM
Jul 2015
Perhaps the networks had conflicting political purposes.


A definite possibility, I would think.

When religion conflicts with homophobia, the networks in question choose homophobia over religion.







 

mr blur

(7,753 posts)
3. Care to give us a major religion which loves the idea and fought for it?
Mon Jul 6, 2015, 03:07 PM
Jul 2015

Or even one which doesn 't claim that their god invented/'defined' marriage.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
4. There are a number of sects - Unitarians, for example - that have no problem with gay marriage.
Mon Jul 6, 2015, 03:14 PM
Jul 2015
http://www.uua.org/lgbtq/marriage

We respect the worth and dignity of every person, and that applies equally to people of all sexual orientations and gender identities. UU congregations and clergy have long recognized and celebrated same-sex marriages within our faith tradition.

Since 1973, when the Office of Gay Affairs (now Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Ministries) was established, the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) has made an institutional commitment to full equality for bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer-identified people. In 2004, UUA staff member, Hillary Goodridge was the lead plaintiff in the Massachusetts marriage case (Goodridge vs the Dept of Public Health: Legal at Last), which paved the way for marriage equality in other states. The UUA has filed court cases, joined amicus curiae briefs, written, petitioned, visited, and called legislators, made 1-on-1 visits with friends, family members, and strangers, staffed phone banks, held press conferences, conducted worship services, and everything else needed to make marriage equality a reality throughout the United States.

The UUA is currently featured in a “friend of the court” brief submitted to the Supreme Court in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges. The Court is hearing arguments on this case in 2015, and its ruling will affect the future of same sex marriage across the country.


Claiming that all religions are against it is just not true.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
8. Unitarians are a pathetically tiny percentage of the religious population.
Mon Jul 6, 2015, 04:05 PM
Jul 2015

Like, that wasn't even funny.

 

stone space

(6,498 posts)
45. Unitarians don't count.
Tue Jul 7, 2015, 09:40 AM
Jul 2015
Unitarians are a pathetically tiny percentage of the religious population.


Saying that minority faiths like the UUs count would be every bit as pathetic as saying that atheists count.

There aren't enough of us atheists to count, so we just don't matter. We're too pathetically tiny to matter.

Same thing with UUs.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
52. You seem to be having some trouble following the logic.
Tue Jul 7, 2015, 12:11 PM
Jul 2015

Atheists/secularists poll in favor of and materially support same sex marriage. There are no large secular orgs that oppose it. Please correct me if I am wrong on that point.

The largest religious orgs that support it, are actually smaller than the secular orgs.

Meaning, the op laid blame where it belongs, with religion. The small percentage of outliers doesn't disprove the point. In fact, it serves to highlight the flipped opposite support. Secularists that oppose are a tiny unorganized percentage of secularists. There are no majority secular orgs in the millions working to prevent it.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
22. Hinduism and Buddhism - do they count?
Mon Jul 6, 2015, 05:44 PM
Jul 2015

The point is that one cannot paint all religious people with the same broad brush. That would be as offensive as painting all gay men as prancing sissies.

Act_of_Reparation

(9,104 posts)
33. Count as what?
Mon Jul 6, 2015, 10:32 PM
Jul 2015

Religions? Sure.

Religions generally supportive of gay rights? Sorry, but no.

You do realize homosexuality is punishable by law in India, right?

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
43. I'm sure you can provide a link to some Hindu text that forbids homosexuality.
Tue Jul 7, 2015, 01:08 AM
Jul 2015

I'm open to being proven wrong. If you can show me some legitimate dogma, I'll concede the point.

Act_of_Reparation

(9,104 posts)
49. Of course.
Tue Jul 7, 2015, 12:02 PM
Jul 2015

"...a woman who pollutes a damsel (unmarried girl) shall instantly have (her head) shaved or two fingers cut off, and be made to ride (through the town) on a donkey"

Laws of Manu, Chapter 8 Verse 320





 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
58. I stand corrected.
Tue Jul 7, 2015, 12:39 PM
Jul 2015

However, as I've tried to point out, religions are not monolithic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_topics_and_Hinduism

Hindu views of homosexuality and, in general, LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) issues, are diverse and different Hindu groups have distinct views. Homosexuality is regarded as one of the possible expressions of human desire. Although some Hindu dharmic texts contain injunctions against homosexuality, a number of Hindu mythic stories have portrayed homosexual experience as natural and joyful.[1] There are several Hindu temples which have carvings that depict both men and women engaging in homosexual sex.[2] Same-sex relations and gender variance have been represented within Hinduism from Vedic times through to the present day, in rituals, law books, religious or so-called mythical narratives, commentaries, paintings, and sculpture. The extent to which these representations embrace or reject homosexuality has been disputed within the religion as well as outside of it. In 2009, The United Kingdom Hindu Council issued a statement that 'Hinduism does not condemn homosexuality', subsequent to the decision of the Delhi High Court to legalise homosexuality in India


Act_of_Reparation

(9,104 posts)
60. Right now, you'd give Michael Flatley a run for his money.
Tue Jul 7, 2015, 01:23 PM
Jul 2015

I fully expected you to say something like that.

When the books are bad, it doesn't matter because not everyone takes them literally. When the people are bad, it doesn't matter because their behavior goes against what the books say. Your metric for measuring religion shifts as needed to preserve your preexisting opinions. It's pretty dishonest, frankly.

For better or worse, here's what I think:

Religions are a gestalt of their associated texts, leaders, and constituent followers. Looking at one piece exclusively will only give you an incomplete picture of the whole. Furthermore, there exists no ideal religion. All we have is what we have at this given moment; there's little sense bickering about how "real" Christians "should" act based on your subjective opinion of what "real Christianity" looks like. We have Christians, and based their texts, what their leaders say, and what they profess to believe, we can get some idea of where Christians, in general, stand on certain issues.

By way of this process: There are homophobic passages in Hindu texts, homosexuality is illegal in India, the only Hindu-majority nation in the world, and the law prescribing jail time for homosexual acts was supported by India's major religious leaders. It cannot be said, therefore, that Hinduism is generally accepting of, or even indifferent towards, homosexuality.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
61. You call me dishonest? Whatever.
Tue Jul 7, 2015, 01:42 PM
Jul 2015

I get it: you are dead set on demonizing religion. My point is that by doing so you are demonizing people as well, and those people are diverse in their beliefs, attitudes and opinions.

It's just tiresome.

/bye.

 

mr blur

(7,753 posts)
62. Look, many Catholics are undoubtedly reasonable, caring, welcoming people.
Tue Jul 7, 2015, 02:01 PM
Jul 2015

Doesn't prevent the RCC - which they all support and prop up - from being a backward, misogynistic, bigoted, anti-equality monolith.

Tiresome indeed.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
66. Yes - and any Catholics on this discussion board are almost certainly the caring type,
Tue Jul 7, 2015, 03:29 PM
Jul 2015

not the Santorum type. These posts that may be targeted at the backward misogynist bigots are instead hitting a different demographic entirely.

99.9% of posters on DU share your distaste for oppressive religion. Posts that slam religion are partly preaching to the choir, and partly attacking the wrong people. I don't see the point.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
63. "My point is that by doing so you are demonizing people as well"
Tue Jul 7, 2015, 02:22 PM
Jul 2015

You haven't really done anything to support that point other than repeating it.

Act_of_Reparation

(9,104 posts)
64. No, not whatever.
Tue Jul 7, 2015, 03:05 PM
Jul 2015

And no, you really don't get it.

If criticism of a belief system is ipso facto demonization of people, then you'd better get your ass over to GD and tell all those bigots to take it easy on conservatism.

But you're not going to do that, are you?

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
67. So again, you are more concerned about the feelings of people
Tue Jul 7, 2015, 04:35 PM
Jul 2015

Who belong to these homophobic organizations, than the people these orginizations are demonizing. You are the reason this stuff has to be posted here. On paper all 1.6 billion Or whatever catholics are anti gay. That's what the vatican projects. They are also anti choice, again according to the vatican.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
35. In the U.S., the contrxtual battleground of legalizing same sex marriage in the last 20 days, no
Mon Jul 6, 2015, 11:13 PM
Jul 2015

No they don't count because together they make up less than 2% of the population.

That and a cup of coffee gets you.... A cup of coffee.

Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #35)

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
54. Again, you are confused.
Tue Jul 7, 2015, 12:15 PM
Jul 2015

The majority of religious orgs opposed SSM. Particularly the largest. The supporters are wholly outnumbered and drowned out by the opposition.

Secular orgs have no such problem. Our majority orgs are in favor. Have been for decades.

Meaning, the op is correct in laying blame at religions feet.

nc4bo

(17,651 posts)
59. Results of jury decision.
Tue Jul 7, 2015, 12:47 PM
Jul 2015

On Tue Jul 7, 2015, 11:26 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Hindus and Buddhists don't count.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=206757

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This poster was already alerted due to calling groups of people pathetic based upon their religious beliefs. The post was hidden. I do not know the time difference between the jury decision and this post, he could have posted this in the interim. However, this person is showing a pattern of general intolerance and bigoted language towards people who practice certain religions.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jul 7, 2015, 11:43 AM, and the Jury voted 6-1 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This poster is displaying his/her rudeness all over this thread. Every rude post should be hidden, IMO.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: calling religious groups "pathetic", is well .. pathetic.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: We all count to a degree, the word pathetic should be reserved for The Cheneys of the world on DU
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Intensionally hurtful...

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
21. Oh boy, and combined they round out to a whole 1% of the U.S. Population.
Mon Jul 6, 2015, 05:39 PM
Jul 2015

Hooray.

(Actually, good for them, good on them, but hardly disproves the OP's specific claim. )

Warpy

(110,744 posts)
6. "In general" implies there were very few exceptions, which is true.
Mon Jul 6, 2015, 03:16 PM
Jul 2015

The phrase doesn't mean "all."

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
26. The phrase doesn't mean "all."
Mon Jul 6, 2015, 06:43 PM
Jul 2015

Thank you.

I wondered when someone was gong to point that out.

"In general" simply does not mean "all". In fact it acknowledges that there are some, not a majority tho', that do not fit into the set.

You could even say: "In general, most people marry a member of the opposite sex"... which is also true but doesn't imply that "all" people marry members of the opposite sex.


Why can't people understand English around here?

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
28. But he specifically said "all" in a follow-up post, so I can assume that's what he meant.
Mon Jul 6, 2015, 06:59 PM
Jul 2015

I get it - you all are angry, and need a target for your anger. Remember where you're posting - there are no conservative Christians here, so these kinds of polemic posts against religion aren't finding their target, they're hitting someone else entirely. Namely, that sub-set of religious people you claim to exempt from your disdain but somehow manage to include inadvertently.

I'm an atheist, but I don't have a hate-on for religion. It's tiresome to see it on DU, because it's just so pointless.

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
30. I did post it here knowing the audience
Mon Jul 6, 2015, 07:22 PM
Jul 2015

Many here want us to forget just how awful these groups are. People are gushing over the pope, hoping we'll forget how terrible he is. Every time we bring up severely problematic issues in religion we get the MRA style "not all religions" instead of "yea, religions are pretty terrible, how can we fix it?"

So yes, the tone policing that you and others perform just reinforce my point, and justification for posting it here.

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
31. you all are angry, and need a target for your anger.
Mon Jul 6, 2015, 08:18 PM
Jul 2015

Who's angry?

I'm not angry.


Religion is still the only opposition left to gay marriage. That just is.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
32. "You all" are the posters that keep dropping these broad-brush polemics
Mon Jul 6, 2015, 09:04 PM
Jul 2015

against "religion", as if its monolithic.

I'm with you regarding the opposition to gay marriage - it's founded in ignorance and bigotry. Personally, I think people are using religion as an excuse in this regard, because if there's one thing people do exceptionally well is project their own faults and failings onto the deity they worship.

Religion is their weapon, but the problem is the people. As we've seen, there are more and more religious organizations that are coming around to our side of the argument. I think there is more value in praising those that have evolved - I mean, we do this with Hillary, right? - that throwing vitriol at the ignorant. The more you deride the fools, the deeper they dig in their heels.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
37. For political purposes, in the U.S., it is monolithic. Hats how you get Prop 8 in Cali.
Mon Jul 6, 2015, 11:16 PM
Jul 2015

That's how you end up needing the Supreme Court to do what it did, rather than popular vote, of our representatives carrying out the will of the people.

Religion, and religious people. That's how. They were, and are, by and large 'agin' it'.

You can find some paltry statistical outliers, but only apologetics seem confused by it.

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
40. I covered that in the OP
Tue Jul 7, 2015, 12:06 AM
Jul 2015

and while the people are changing views, the religions are not. Religions are monolithic, the RCC has a central leadership that controls it's holdings across the globe, the southern baptists are similar, but mostly in America. They literally are monolithic organizations.

Your problem seems to be confusing religion with the religious. People are changing, but the religion is not. The religions still pull from the same old book that has the same old hatred, and until the hateful parts are actually removed, then the religions are still based in hate.

You seem to want to invalidate the truth in the OP because less than 5% of religions in the US don't have monstrous foundations for their belief (And yes, Buddhism and Hindu, while aren't specifically hateful toward homosexuality, though they have it banned in their home countries, they do have very problematic issues in other areas, like treatment of women).

Perhaps you should think about how people aren't their religion, and read the OP again.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
74. "the opposition to gay marriage - it's founded in ignorance and bigotry." - and religion.
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 07:27 AM
Jul 2015

Religion is the weapon because almost all religions explicitly condemn homosexuality. It isn't just "the weapon" though.

"religion is the weapon but the problem is the people" - hmmm... what a familiar phrase. What does this argument remind me of? Wait, I've got it: "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

You cannot seriously make the argument that if there were no religions in this country there still would have been an organized, and for decades effective, opposition to marriage equality. Well probably you can.

edhopper

(33,074 posts)
39. I see people denying all religion oposed it
Mon Jul 6, 2015, 11:20 PM
Jul 2015

But not that all the opposition was religious.
Two different things.

Mariana

(14,830 posts)
73. That's what I see, too.
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 02:22 AM
Jul 2015

Maybe it's honest confusion. Maybe some of the people who read the OP and replied on this thread truly don't understand English well enough to know that "All opposition to SSM is religious" does not mean the same thing as "All religious people are opposed to SSM".

MellowDem

(5,018 posts)
41. Never forget...
Tue Jul 7, 2015, 12:41 AM
Jul 2015

Another embarrassing history some religions will disavow at some point and then, even claim the success of civil rights as their own making.

 

larkrake

(1,674 posts)
57. marriage has nothing to do with religion
Tue Jul 7, 2015, 12:31 PM
Jul 2015

any judge, captain or legal official can officiate at a wedding. some religions dictate ceremony, or rites, but thats just show business control. marriage is a legal contract,not very binding at that.

Act_of_Reparation

(9,104 posts)
70. It's like when a certain someone stumbles into the AA group...
Tue Jul 7, 2015, 11:25 PM
Jul 2015

...and tells them there's no such thing as race.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Never forget