Quote# 137778

When we force, or attempt to force, our own personal ways / requests / demands / lifestyles on others, knowing it hurts, scares, and even deeply offends these others as we do so,...are we truly interested in unity or healing? For example, gay "marriage" could have been achieved by "Civil Unions" or some other very meaningful title, but no..., traditional heterosexual one man, one woman "marriage" had to be "redefined". Why? Why this absolute demand at the cost of other's beliefs and sensibilities? Where was the unity interest demonstrated here? Differing opinions clearly existed, yet there seemed to be no desire to "work it out" together, to come up with a mutually acceptable approach. Deeply help spiritual beliefs and a century upon century definition was to be "defeated" / "turned asunder" for the 'victory' of a small group of people. Why? Was this truly a demonstration of the 'tolerance' that they'd passionately spoken of an marched for? How can one be so intolerant of another's deeply held belief as they hold a banner for tolerance? How about a baker, florist, retreat owner, losing their complete livelihood and being sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars, because although they'd served these folks for other needs, they couldn't offend their Lord to help "celebrate" what they feel is a Holy Covenant between one man/one woman? Where is the desire for "getting along", "unity", "live and let live", and "tolerance" here? Where? Love....true love....doesn't care to offend, put down, or demand, yet there is no loving caring "two way street". No, it's my way or the highway! We will make you pay if we don't get what we want! Why? Getting along will require a "two way street" on issues which divide, which offend deeply held foundational religious views, etc.... Real Love, true tolerance, genuine inclusiveness....cannot demand others simply disregard or go against their deeply held religious / personal beliefs. These people love their families, their children, and their children's children and desire to teach them to understand what they hold to be Truth. Why are their rights not held up along side those seeking new rights and societal changes? Why? Love, respect, tolerance, unity...all require a more thoughtful and caring process....one which is far less "in your face"!

wfmcfp, Patheos 14 Comments [4/14/2018 11:03:06 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Christopher

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom

Kanna

If you define "civil unions", it would require every state to change dozens, perhaps hundreds, of laws that refer to marriage. If you just call it marriage, everything works just fine. I think you have just flunked Love, Respect, Tolerance, Live and let live, Unity, and Works well with others. If it were not for your good grades in Penmanship and Lunch, we would have to hold you back to do fourth grade again, but the teacher has threatened to retire if she has to put up with you for one more year.

4/14/2018 2:19:55 PM

Anon-e-moose

traditional heterosexual one man, one woman "marriage" had to be "redefined"


Solomon: 700 wives, 300 concubines.

A certain someone had two daddies: from one of then committing Adultery with the other's intended wife. And she being an underage child bride.

Frankly, and in moral terms, the fact that S-SM exists - and is completely legal - is the least of your problems, wtfmthrfkr.

4/14/2018 3:00:16 PM

NonProphet

I gotta say, the other comments on that page from the rest of the Christians... honestly give me some hope for the religion. Every other Christian there basically told wfmcfp that they're full of crap, and to stop being an intolerant bigot.
And here I thought decent Christians were a dying breed (save for the Quakers & Unitarians).

4/14/2018 5:33:35 PM

Keith

You know, the Constitution offers no suport for your right not be offended.
Of for being offended to grant you special rights to tell othees how to live.

As for scares, why would other people's marriage scare you? You lose nothing, you suffer no harm or hurt, no laws change to take away any aspect of your marriage...

What right do you lose by allowing SSM?
How does it afect your faith or your relationship with your invisible skybuddy?

You can still believe it's wrong, just like vegans believe my breakfast was wrong. But their belief, their taking offense, is not a basis to deny me bacon, is it? Even if they worship a god who says vegan is The Way....

4/14/2018 5:53:08 PM

KingOfRhye

For example, gay "marriage" could have been achieved by "Civil Unions"


No, gay marriage could have only been achieved by gay marriage. Civil unions aren't marriage.


4/14/2018 6:20:34 PM

Kuyohashi

Because having two terms for what is essentially the same damned concept is basically "separate but equal," and a smarter man than I famously pointed out that "separate but equal, isn't equal."

4/14/2018 9:22:46 PM

Churchy LaFemme


When we force, or attempt to force, our own personal ways / requests / demands / lifestyles on others, knowing it hurts, scares, and even deeply offends these others as we do so,...are we truly interested in unity or healing?


Followed by a wall of text complaining that wfmcfp can't force his/her own personal ways on others.

4/15/2018 5:51:30 AM

creativerealms

Christians fought against civil unions as much as they are fighting against same sex marriage. It's homosexuality they have a problem with.

4/15/2018 6:19:18 AM

Swede

If you force something on others, it's rather a demand than a request. And forcing others to adopt a certain religion is hardly a sign of unity or healing.

If civil union was the same as marriage, why have them both? And as civil union is NOT the same as marriage, gay marriage could most certainly NOT be achieved by civil unions.

Who the fuck talked about "heterosexual marriage" before gender neutral marriages were discussed?
It needed to be redefined because it didn't meet the requirements anymore. We redefine things all the time, you silly bint. When I was little, we had two TV channels, now there are hundreds. The phone back then was located in the hall and the computer was a large slow box which needed to call up the net company to be connected, now everyone has a constantly connected phone/computer in their pocket.

You are not forced into anything, asshole. YOU are the ones forcing your lifestyle onto others. You don't want them to get married; that hurts and deeply offends these others. They getting married has no impact on your life whatsoever.

The unity is that everyone is now able to marry their (consenting) significant other.
Did YOU have any desire to work it out together?

YOUR beliefs end where YOUR body ends. You can only decide on spirituality and beliefs for yourself, others have the same right to decide for themselves.

Progress and equality was to be "defeated"/"turned asunder" for the "victory" of a small group of people. Why?
Everything you say can be turned against you, and fits even better that way.



Here we go again: How can one be so intolerant of another's deeply felt love as they hold a banner for tolerance?

Your Bible doesn't agree on your feeling of Holy Covenant.



It WAS your way or the highway for centuries. We have a new majority now, and now it's our turn.
Discrimination is illegal, and if you break the law, you have to pay, yes.
Most streets are two-way, silly-nilly.

Real Love, true tolerance, genuine inclusiveness....cannot demand others simply disregard or go against their deeply felt love.
Why are their rights not held up along side those wanting to keep old rights, societal entropy?
Gay people have been treated to "in your face" discrimination for centuries. If you don't like it when it's done to you, then don't subject others to it either!

4/15/2018 8:54:26 AM

Paul Dirac

"Differing opinions clearly existed, yet there seemed to be no desire to "work it out" together, to come up with a mutually acceptable approach"

Very true, there was little action taken on "civil unions" by those in power and they repeatedly made laws making it clear that "marriage" was only for straight people.

If you had played nice it wouldn't have been made a constitutional issue, you didn't so it was and you got stomped.


4/15/2018 3:04:50 PM

Anon-e-moose

Kim Il-Davis has a legal Damocles Sword over her head after she thought she had the right to have ideas above her station. She was forced to think otherwise.

Romans 13:1-5 forces you to do the same.

Otherwise Matthew 7:1 means you'll regret not coming to our way of thinking.

Now don't make me get out my Josh Buggar, wtf...!

4/15/2018 4:22:42 PM

Titania, The Original

Marriage is still a legal bindng agreement between two consenting adults. Nothing has changed and nothing is being forced on you. You are still free to marry the person of your choosing provided they consent.

4/16/2018 12:49:48 PM




When we force, or attempt to force, our own personal ways / requests / demands / lifestyles on others, knowing it hurts, scares, and even deeply offends these others as we do so,...are we truly interested in unity or healing?



No but it does not stop the Christians




For example, gay "marriage" could have been achieved by "Civil Unions" or some other very meaningful title, but no..., traditional heterosexual one man, one woman "marriage" had to be "redefined".



Well the Bible gave various definitions and different societies had different mores and values. And in ours marriage was what gave benefits to partners in life.



4/16/2018 1:00:22 PM

Canadiest

Up in Canada the 'civil union' was bandied about and it was just as opposed as much an actual marriage union. I expect those against same sex marriage in America would have exactly the opinion, even moreso because your RW has a tendency to slippery slope every issue into the worst outcome. Remember, many still claim Gay marriages are the same as allowing you to marry a child, animal or your car just to irritate everyone with their staggeringly insistence on being pricks.

In Canada it was quickly realized the Civil Union could be argued as the same rights for siblings, long time companions or club members and if they didn't get those benefits they could actually argue Gays were being favored over others.

4/17/2018 8:02:40 AM

1 | top: comments page