Never forget

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

Unless you have one in mind that I haven't heard about?

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

Doesn't mean I'm blind.

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

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=206697

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=206705

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=206704

Not an ad hominem attack, just an observation - pithily confirmed by yourself, actually, by demonstrating that you missed the three posts above. Blind, indeed.

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

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.

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.

/bye.

Enjoy your apolagetics

for it forever. Quakers also.

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.

just ahead of everyone else.

You don't get a cookie for not being a monster.

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.

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

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

A definite possibility, I would think.

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

Owners have agendas.

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

http://www.uua.org/lgbtq/marriage



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

Like, that wasn't even funny.

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.

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.

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.

Except you.

Religions? Sure.

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

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

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

"...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

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

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

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.

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.

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

Tiresome indeed.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

never cared much either way.

Hooray.

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

Whoospie.

The phrase doesn't mean "all."

See here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=206695

What non-theistic orgs were against it?

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?

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.

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.

Who's angry?

I'm not angry.


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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Of where all the opposition came from.

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

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".

and vens diagrams

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

but you only hear about his religion.

Curious.

He probably wore a t shirt tho.

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.

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