0
0

/r/TraditionalMarriage - A community to promote and discuss the beleif that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman (reddit.com)

submitted by TM_mod

sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]lower_echelon_peon 13 ポイント14 ポイント

Why does this really need a subreddit? It seems that you all are going to run out of things to talk about pretty quickly. Since this is the majority position it seems pretty self explanatory- It's like starting a subreddit to peanut butter and jelly sandwiches "A community to promote and discuss the belief that a peanut butter sandwich is compromised of peanut butter and jelly." Watch out for those peanut butter and banana people...

[–]fresh-n-new 14 ポイント15 ポイント

Somebody else putting a banana in their peanut butter and jelly sandwich really ruins peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for everybody else.. somehow..

[–]AtheistLeo-D 10 ポイント11 ポイント

What am I going to tell my kids when they see somebody eating a peanut butter and banana sandwich? How could I even explain it to them?

[–]ancientfth 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I'm fine with your eating bananas in your peanut butter and jelly sandwiches as long as you don't come to my church and force us to offer them at our next pot luck.

[–]fresh-n-new 5 ポイント6 ポイント

That's never been a possibility and that will remain as such.

[–]ancientfth -5 ポイント-4 ポイント

That's never been a possibility and that will remain as such.

That's an extremely naïve way of thinking, one that I am sure the pending plaintiffs are counting on.

[–]Atheistchopperharris 6 ポイント7 ポイント

You're absolutely right. There's ample precedent from years of lawsuits that successfully forced churches to perform mixed-race marriages after Loving vs Virginia.

Oh wait...

... no there isn't.

[–]ancientfth -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

Apples and oranges. Interracial marriage was a totally different issue.

Again you're thinking naively

[–]Atheistchopperharris 4 ポイント5 ポイント

Different how? Interracial marriage was far more unpopular when Loving vs Virginia was passed than same sex marriage is now. I'm not naive, I'm just not as paranoid as you.

[–]ancientfth -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

Different how?

Different issue. Also with interracial there was no legitimate reason for churches to object.

Also interracial couples didn't have hoards of lawyered up crusading lobbyists who didn't hesitate to continue the fight even after their cause was won. They went on and lived their lives within the new rights they had justifiably won. We won't see that wit marriage equality.

I'm not naive,

Sorry, when you sit there and say "everything will be fine for everyone" you are being naïve and...

I'm just not as paranoid as you.

...by making statements like that you are part of the concern. You are attempting to browbeat anyone's concerns into the ground with comments like that trying toe silence them. Then when the lawsuits start you'll say "why didn't you speak up? Too late now."

[–]Atheist213286444478 4 ポイント5 ポイント

Different how?

Different issue.

You didn't explain why.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtN9JSxsmzE

[–]the_rabble_alliance 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Interracial marriage was a totally different issue. Again you're thinking naively

Also with interracial there was no legitimate reason for churches to object.

Have you ever actually read "Loving vs. Virginia"? My guess will be no, but evidently, you are still a constitutional scholar in your own mind.

The trial judge, Leon Bazile, actually justified the anti-miscegenation laws of Virginia based on a (flawed) Biblical understanding:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1

So you either do not know the law, history, or are willfully glossing over facts to make a flawed argument.

You are correct that there were no legitimate reasons for Christians to object to interracial marriage, but sadly, many of them tried to mask their prejudice behind Scripture. Does that sound like a familiar tactic?

[–]Atheistchopperharris 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Given your confidence that these lawsuits will occur, I have to assume that you are a lawyer. Could you therefore explain what kind of lawsuit would force a church to marry two people (any two) against its will? For bonus points, you could also explain how such a lawsuit would survive a constitutional challenge. Thanks. Oh, and it's "hordes" by the way.

[–]fresh-n-new 5 ポイント6 ポイント

Same sex marriage is already legal in many states and countries. Do you know of any instances in which a church was forced to perform a same sex marriage against its will?

[–]ancientfth -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

Why would they risk everything they have accomplished by causing a backlash by trying to force it now?

[–]Atheist213286444478 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Why would they risk everything they have accomplished by causing a backlash by trying to force it now?

What do you mean?

Where is this coming from?

[–]ancientfth -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Do you think that once legal marriage equality is achieved that these lobbying groups are just going to close up and go home? No legal gay marriage is only the first step towards the larger goal of silencing anyone who disagrees with them and imposing 100% affirmation by society. In time I predict some of these groups will actually try to criminalize heterosexuality and Christianity. Straight Kids will be ostracized if they refuse offers of gay dates, and parents who encourage them too could be jailed. People who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman could be arrested, jailed, fined and lose their jobs.

Now I support the right of gay couples to obtain a legal civil marriage and the rights thereof. But keep it on the civil level and out of the churches and leave everyone else alone.

I have advocated a complete separation between civil and religious unions. Yet many gay marriage supporters ridicule or outright oppose that suggestion. Why do you suppose that is. because they know if Religious Union is completely removed from Civil Marriage, then the courts can't touch it. They also know that once people start getting Religious Unions and start seeing their Civil Marriage as a meaningless procedural formality, then the Civil Marriage loses value among the whole of society. When religious couples started telling others that they are United rather than Married, their achievement is not as complete.

[–]Atheist213286444478 2 ポイント3 ポイント

O.o

Your second paragraph being reasonable, makes it hard to believe the first one comes from the same person. GSM are minorities, your first paragraph seems to present them as if it were otherwise.It's that sort of tinfoil-hat speech that got the editor fired, not disliking gays. I almost thought you were going to mention the gaystapo.

SSM has been legal in some countries around a decade: Netherlands(13 years), Beilgium(11 years), Spain (9 years), Canada (9 years).

I haven't heard anything similar to what you say in the third paragraph. I don't want to call religious unions meaningless (as you said), but AFAIK the civil marriage is the one that offers the legal protections. Your third paragraph is closer to the first than the second.

[–]the_rabble_alliance 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Why would they risk everything they have accomplished by causing a backlash by trying to force it now?

Soooo...the answer is no? You could avoid the hyperbole and just give a direct answer next time.

And since you are also a legal expert, you can also tell me the last time that a divorcee sued the Catholic Church to force the church to host a wedding which violated its own religious tenets regarding remarriage after divorce.

[–]ancientfth -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

You could avoid the hyperbole and just give a direct answer next time.

That WAS a direct answer with an explanation as you would have twisted a simple no into something else.

And since you are also a legal expert,

Never claimed to be one.

you can also tell me the last time that a divorcee sued the Catholic Church to force the church to host a wedding which violated its own religious tenets regarding remarriage after divorce.

Again different situation.

[–]Atheist213286444478 1 ポイント2 ポイント

That WAS a direct answer

Not really.

A direct answer to

Do you know of any instances in which a church was forced to perform a same sex marriage against its will?

Would be no, or yes, here they are[...].

The problem with your answer "Why would they risk everything they have accomplished by causing a backlash by trying to force it now?" is that it relies in your unbacked wild assumptions.

[–]the_rabble_alliance 1 ポイント2 ポイント

And since you are also a legal expert,

Never claimed to be one.

You are rationalizing and justifying your opposition to marriage equality based on legal presumptions, so you are indeed claiming to be a legal expert.

Again, on what basis are your legal fears warranted in of the "ministerial exception" that exists under ""Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission"?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf

[–]Secular Humanistraluth 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Since this is the majority position...

citation needed

[–]lower_echelon_peon 6 ポイント7 ポイント

In Christianity it is. Not many outside of Christianity cares enough about it to start a subreddit

[–]AtheistProfoundDingDong 6 ポイント7 ポイント

Maybe he means among Christians? I just did a quick google search and the most recent poll I found was from the Washington Post and had support for same sex marriage at 59 percent.

[–]TM_mod[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Since this is the majority position it seems pretty self explanatory

It's not the majority position here on reddit. Far from it.

It's private because otherwise no discussion would take place. Every post would be downvoted into oblivion, users would be harassed, and it would be flooded with trolls. Read the comments made by /u/fresh-n-new -- I'd rather not have people like that derailing otherwise rational conversations. From my experience the people angry that the subreddit is private are the people who only wanted to come in and downvote 10 pages of posts on principle. Criticizing us for being private has always been a means to that end. Hope this helps. Feel free to request membership if you're interested.

[–]lower_echelon_peon 9 ポイント10 ポイント

It is a free country- You can do what you like and sidehug your way to the promised land. No thanks, I am not interested. I will be promptly banned as I do not share your belief system on a civic level. This is America- If someone can legally caress their ar-15 in a chipotle, someone should (and do in some states) have the right to marry whom they will. To have their loved one have access to their bedside, inherit their belongings and make medical decisions on their behalf...

[–]tualatin -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

Hey, different poster here. I'm also from /r/traditionalmarriage. If it means anything to you, I'm in favor of the rights you mentioned. I think there should be a civil union institution for non-marital relationships with equivalent rights. But I think it's also important to make a public policy distinction between marriage and other sorts of unions.

I would go further than you would in one sense: I would be okay with giving union benefits to throuples and same-sex sibling couples, or even to roommates in non-romantic but committed relationships. But marriage exists as a public institution not just for giving benefits to people who love each other, but for regulating sexual reproduction with appropriate norms.

[–]Evangelical Lutheran Church in AmericaIrondog1970 8 ポイント9 ポイント

I believe marriage for all regardless of the gender of the couples, but if Christians object, they can support traditional holy matrimony.

[–]ancientfth -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

but if Christians object, they can support traditional holy matrimony.

How about the churches getting out of civil marriage altogether, as ours has done.

[–]whils 7 ポイント8 ポイント

regulating sexual reproduction

I hate to be that guy, but where do infertile straight couples fit in that concept?

[–]tualatin -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

Is it okay if I link you to a Youtube video? I promise it's short, and it's not hard to watch. It's Alan Keyes addressing this question very eloquently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrD8zvCUtWc

[–]Atheist213286444478 9 ポイント10 ポイント

That's not eloquent, good on him on not stumbling while speaking, but all I heard was "definition, definition, definition, DEFINITION, and if you change the definition the institution crumbles".

[–]Atheistoctarino 6 ポイント7 ポイント

I think there should be a civil union institution for non-marital relationships with equivalent rights.

So, what would the difference be between civil union and marriage?

[–]tualatin -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Probably just the name. In addition, gay unions could do away with the non-consummation requirement for annulment eligibility, and same-sex sibling couples would be allowed.

[–]Atheistoctarino 8 ポイント9 ポイント

Probably just the name.

I feared separate but equal was the answer.

[–]ancientfth -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

I feared separate but equal was the answer.

Either way you still end up there, if not with Marriage and Civil Unions; then with Civil Marriage and Religious Unions.

[–]Atheistoctarino 4 ポイント5 ポイント

Either way you still end up there

Why?

if not with Marriage and Civil Unions; then with Civil Marriage and Religious Unions.

Are you positing those scenarios as the only possible alternatives?

What does the second scenario entail?

[–]ancientfth -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

What does the second scenario entail?

Civil marriages would be the sole business of the state. Only the state would contract Civil Marriages.

Churches would not recognize nor have any involvement with Civil marriages and would require their couples to have Religious Union.

[–]Humanistrsuperq 5 ポイント6 ポイント

marriage exists as a public institution not just for giving benefits to people who love each other, but for regulating sexual reproduction with appropriate norms

Wait, when was this decided? Did I miss a meeting?

[–]tualatin -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

If it were for giving benefits to people who loved each other, wouldn't we have to include throuples, sibling couples and even non-sexual or non-romantic groups of loving, committed individuals?

[–]Humanistrsuperq 4 ポイント5 ポイント

Sure, why not? I don't see why it's my business. Marriage means a lot of things to numerous groups of people, and I don't see why I should push for others to live by my definition of it.

If a church down the road believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, fine. If the gay couple across the street believes it can also be between a man & man or woman & woman, fine. If a brother and sister believe it's between a man and a woman who are related... Fine. I might find it weird and not for me personally, but I also like spray cheese on chocolate biscuits.

[–]tualatin -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

It sounds like you would possibly be in favor of giving benefits to any sort of committed relationship, and maybe leaving "marriage" to the realm of religion and private contracts, however anyone chooses to define it?

[–]lower_echelon_peon 8 ポイント9 ポイント

Ok, So you are in favor of jumping through semantic hoops...

[–]lower_echelon_peon 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Are you a republican or libertarian?

[–]Atheistoctarino 2 ポイント3 ポイント

You're asking questions to yourself. AKA, you replied to yourself.

[–]lower_echelon_peon 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Doesn't help the old credibility does it?

[–]tualatin -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

I don't think that's what I'm doing! And to answer your question below, I'm not actually American, but I'm conservative on most issues.

[–]lower_echelon_peon 6 ポイント7 ポイント

I am a liberal- But the point is that republicans and libertarians have real problems with the word: regulate (per your regulation of reproduction). As a general rule, they are against regulating guns, free markets, corporations, pretty much everything but the personal choices of others-

I cry "semantics" because you basically stated (as I understood it) that you are willing to give all the rights and privileges of marriage to individuals except the word "marriage"

With the user name /r/tualatin, I figured you must be from the Pacific North West

[–]ancientfth -1 ポイント0 ポイント

I cry "semantics" because you basically stated (as I understood it) that you are willing to give all the rights and privileges of marriage to individuals except the word "marriage"

one way or the other it ends pretty much the same. You either have Marriage and Civil Unions, or you have Civil Marriage and Religious Unions. We're still going to have couples using different terms to describe their relationship.

[–]lower_echelon_peon 3 ポイント4 ポイント

I think that is a fine compromise, provided that all are provided the same rights

[–]ancientfth -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

I think that is a fine compromise, provided that all are provided the same rights

So your not going to complain if you have two Civilly married couples and the religious one says they are not a valid couple until they have a Religious Union?

[–]tualatin -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

I cry "semantics" because you basically stated (as I understood it) that you are willing to give all the rights and privileges of marriage to individuals except the word "marriage"

Yes, certainly. You might even agree with me when it comes to throuples and same-sex sibling couples--I don't think you would call these marriage (maybe I'm wrong), but you would be in favor of rights for these groups.

[–]fresh-n-new 4 ポイント5 ポイント

Well don't go around trying to take away and prevent equal rights from people when it has absolutely nothing to do with you and in no what whatsoever affects your life... and people won't disagree with everything you comment.

There is NO REASON for you to actively be trying to take away marriage equality rights from LGBT people. It doesn't affect you whatsoever. Use your Christian motivations for good, not bad. This has nothing to do with Christianity. This brings no good to humanity or society.

[–]ancientfth -5 ポイント-4 ポイント

There is NO REASON for you to actively be trying to take away marriage equality rights from LGBT people.

On the legal context I agree with you. So how about a compromise? I'll keep my religion out of your Civil Marriage as long as you keep your marriage equality out of my religion.

[–]Atheistoctarino 5 ポイント6 ポイント

you keep your marriage equality out of my religion.

I don't know what that means.

[–]ancientfth -5 ポイント-4 ポイント

I don't know what that means.

Includes don't try to browbeat churches into doing or recognizing marriages that conflict with their beliefs and don't be suing churches and clergy for refusing to do certain marriages.

[–]Atheistoctarino 3 ポイント4 ポイント

We agree there then.

[–]fresh-n-new 4 ポイント5 ポイント

That's exactly what it has always been and what it will continue to be.

[–]lower_echelon_peon 8 ポイント9 ポイント

I understand where /u/fresh-n-new is coming from...

[–]ancientfth -5 ポイント-4 ポイント

Why does this really need a subreddit? It seems that you all are going to run out of things to talk about pretty quickly.

I would have thought the same thing for /r/atheism but they manage pretty well.

[–]lower_echelon_peon 4 ポイント5 ポイント

/r/TraditionalMarriage is not nearly as broad of a subject.

[–]ancientfth -5 ポイント-4 ポイント

I suppose ti could be. After all you have the topic itself but also the religious liberty issue as well.