Sarah Palin, Republican Vice Presidential Candidate

[aurik]

Pretty sure there's sections in the bible saying you should kill men who lie with other men. That's explicitly condemning male homosexuality, aside from the whole sodomy thing.

But I'm far from a bible expert.

[Day]

It also says you shouldn't cut your hair or eat shrimp I believe.

[aurik]

It says a lot of things, it's pretty trippy.

Then Jesus comes in and says "oh hey you know those last 900 pages? Yea ignore those, here's where the real story starts"

Reminds me a lot of Battlefield: Earth, actually.

[zoobernut]

The reason for the opposition is more than just religious dogma dictating that being gay is wrong. The argument can easily be defeated in regards to religious dogma as the real opposition to "gay rights" is the sin of sodomy, however any research into what sodomy really is pretty much ends the argument. Now the real problem is the gender issues that this brings up along with an argument that marriage is meant to be an institution of rearing children hence "gay marriage" would corrupt it, which of course ignores a few facts that also make it invalid.

But anyway, the point is that opposition to "gay rights" goes a little deeper than some bible saying it's wrong, especially because it does not implicitly say so.

But intention is also very important and when I hear a politician say "I oppose gay marriage because the bible says it is a union between a man and a woman" I believe that is wrong.

And I would be able to understand that argument again if it had anything to do with the legal definition of marriage but everyone is guaranteed equal rights in this country and there is no valid argument that I have seen as to why any two consenting adults should not be allowed to marry under the eyes of government and the law.

Even your term "sin of sodomy" why is sodomy a sin? Where and when was it decided that sodomy was a sin and what was the motivation behind that. As far as I have heard from speakers and read even that notion was and is religiously based.

As for the "institution of rearing children" that argument holds no water either because the ability to have kids and the right to adopt kids is a completely separate issue and allowing gay people to marry will have no merit on whether or not they can have kids. And since when was it a law to have kids period if you are married? There are plenty of straight married couples that did not marry for the purpose of having kids and will never have kids but they still benefit from all the incentives and programs for married couples.

[Bingbong]

I always laugh at the "we need less Government" chant, but not when it comes to certain social issues that the government has no business being a part of.

such as...?

Short of military, and civil protection (EMS/EPA/Board of health/even stretching, SEC) I don't see where expanding government is good for the majority?

[aurik]

Short of military and civil services? That covers pretty much everything, no?

[Dimmauk]

such as...?

Short of military, and civil protection (EMS/EPA/Board of health/even stretching, SEC) I don't see where expanding government is good for the majority?

Was talking about the Government involvement in certain social issues like gay marriage etc...

[Bingbong]

That's like 5% of government departments there.
I wish that was "everything".

[Kuya]

Traditional values, traditional people, wanting to impose traditional values on everyone, etc, conflicts with freedom of choice, blah blah blah. These arguments, under a nation that professes freedom of choice and privacy, etc, shouldn't hold any water but it does, and it does so because whether you're religious or not, traditional gender values will still mold your outlook. So the bulwark that really gives weight to their very obviously theocratic intentions is an issue of gender that is not linked to religion. Which is why you get so many people who otherwise aren't that religious at all, to care for an issue and want to impose themselves on the rights of, for all intent and purposes, citizens of the US, and even go as far as to sensor their existence in the face of their children.

Pretty sure there's sections in the bible saying you should kill men who lie with other men. That's explicitly condemning male homosexuality, aside from the whole sodomy thing.

Like Day already said; it says a lot of things and much of them we aren't even supposed to regard, but even so they have to reach quite a bit to somehow interpret that to mean no gay marriage.

Even your term "sin of sodomy" why is sodomy a sin? Where and when was it decided that sodomy was a sin and what was the motivation behind that. As far as I have heard from speakers and read even that notion was and is religiously based.

Sodomy means all sex outside of marriage and outside the purpose or procreation, evidently it is a traditional value which has very little relevance in today's world, but it is the link between the "gay issue" and their religious sanctioned opposition.

[aurik]

That's like 5% of government departments there.
I wish that was "everything".

Then what else is there?
Space program? That's military.
Welfare? Civil service (you could also contend it's fighting crime)
Road/rail/power projects? Infrastructure is civil, again.

Coming up empty here.

[zoobernut]

Traditional values, traditional people, wanting to impose traditional values on everyone, etc, conflicts with freedom of choice, blah blah blah. These arguments, under a nation that professes freedom of choice and privacy, etc, shouldn't hold any water but it does, and it does so because whether you're religious or not, traditional gender values will still mold your outlook. So the bulwark that really gives weight to their very obviously theocratic intentions is an issue of gender that is not linked to religion. Which is why you get so many people who otherwise aren't that religious at all, to care for an issue and want to impose themselves on the rights of, for all intent and purposes, citizens of the US, and even go as far as to sensor their existence in the face of their children.

Like Day already said; it says a lot of things and much of them we aren't even supposed to regard, but even so they have to reach quite a bit to somehow interpret that to mean no gay marriage.

Sodomy means all sex outside of marriage and outside the purpose or procreation, evidently it is a traditional value which has very little relevance in today's world, but it is the link between the "gay issue" and their religious sanctioned opposition.

This just further proves what I was saying. The idea of sodomy being a sin was perpetuated by religious beliefs so even if you try to break it down beyond religious reasons the core motivation behind it is still based in religion.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Traditional values, traditional people, wanting to impose traditional values on everyone, etc, conflicts with freedom of choice, blah blah blah.

Republicans are huge hypocrites when it comes to this when they advocate the fed doing something about it. Saying the states can is one thing, but to say the fed should be doing it, ug.

[Plow]

This just further proves what I was saying. The idea of sodomy being a sin was perpetuated by religious beliefs so even if you try to break it down beyond religious reasons the core motivation behind it is still based in religion.

The idea of sodomy as a sin stems from the concept of survival during a time when people died a lot sooner and needed more breeding for the good of the species.

[Beckwin]

republicans are huge hypocrites for asking states to do it too. it's still government getting in someone's personal life; people need to stop acting like state authority is fundamentally different from federal authority.

[Kuya]

This just further proves what I was saying. The idea of sodomy being a sin was perpetuated by religious beliefs so even if you try to break it down beyond religious reasons the core motivation behind it is still based in religion.

No.

If you are saying that they use the argument of sodomy to religiously justify their opposition, then yes, however, the opposition is still there regardless of whether they justified it religiously or not. Let me put it this way, religion picks up exactly what one considers to be moral in any given society, this includes every single institution, what they use to justify their assertions do not matter as much as the fact that they feel the need to justify it. The family institution, the educational institution, the religious institution; it is all opposed to the homosexual issue, because no matter how you cut it, being gay is not seen as a good thing at all. Even now, the condescending attitude that the more liberal side of the debate expresses is "Hey, oh well, you're gay and not straight, too bad".

But now we're getting off track. The original argument you were bringing up was that letting the majority steamroll the opinions and beliefs of other groups is wrong, but you were using "gay rights" as an argument, something which of course i felt the need to clarify because i see that the argument almost always uses the "gay rights" issue as if the debate were fundamentally religious, which to anyone who has ever faced discrimination and violence for being "politically" active in regards to not conforming to either a gender norm or sexual norm, the latter almost always being associated to the former, knows that the opposition they've faced has been more than just religiously motivated.

And to close this, the fundamental reason why there is opposition to gay marriage is because of the idea that gays could raise children, and this means not only that they feel that they will make their own kids gay, but that they will influence other children, and this is wrong to them, once again fundamentally, because not conforming to the gender norm is simply a moral transgression. Their religious justifications came, historically, later.

[Beckwin]

No.

If you are saying that they use the argument of sodomy to religiously justify their opposition, then yes, however, the opposition is still there regardless of whether they justified it religiously or not. Let me put it this way, religion picks up exactly what one considers to be moral in any given society, this includes every single institution, what they use to justify their assertions do not matter as much as the fact that they feel the need to justify it. The family institution, the educational institution, the religious institution; it is all opposed to the homosexual issue, because no matter how you cut it, being gay is not seen as a good thing at all. Even now, the condescending attitude that the more liberal side of the debate expresses is "Hey, oh well, you're gay and not straight, too bad".

But now we're getting off track. The original argument you were bringing up was that letting the majority steamroll the opinions and beliefs of other groups is wrong, but you were using "gay rights" as an argument, something which of course i felt the need to clarify because i see that the argument almost always uses the "gay rights" issue as if the debate were fundamentally religious, which to anyone who has ever faced discrimination and violence for being "politically" active in regards to not conforming to either a gender norm or sexual norm, the latter almost always being associated to the former, knows that the opposition they've faced has been more than just religiously motivated.

And to close this, the fundamental reason why there is opposition to gay marriage is because of the idea that gays could raise children, and this means not only that they feel that they will make their own kids gay, but that they will influence other children, and this is wrong to them, once again fundamentally, because not conforming to the gender norm is simply a moral transgression. Their religious justifications came, historically, later.

I think you can find that a disproportionate amount of atheists tolerate/accept sodomy, gay marriage, etc compared to religious people.

[aurik]

I bet more self-proclaimed religious people act in sodomite porn flicks than atheists.

[Kuya]

I think you can find that a disproportionate amount of atheists tolerate/accept sodomy, gay marriage, etc compared to religious people.

When they get older they do, but to tolerate is one thing, to understand and not see as one thing being better than the other is a completely different issue.

I bet more self-proclaimed religious people act in sodomite porn flicks than atheists.

Hmmm, they're more of the private type.

[Valisk]

republicans are huge hypocrites for asking states to do it too. it's still government getting in someone's personal life; people need to stop acting like state authority is fundamentally different from federal authority.

It is. If states were allowed to implement varying laws/policies/programs, people would be able to choose where they want to live based on the laws that state recongnizes/enforces. If feds enforce it, no matter where you live, you're subject to comply or be disciplined.

[aurik]

Damn that fourteenth amendment!