5 ms·

FTA: I’m glad that an arena full of Republicans stood up to applaud when I said I was proud to be gay, because gay pride shouldn’t be a partisa

FTA: I’m glad that an arena full of Republicans stood up to applaud when I said I was proud to be gay, because gay pride shouldn’t be a partisan issue. All people deserve respect, and nobody’s sexuality should be made a public fixation. From the 2016 party platform[1] of that arena full of Republicans[2]: In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. And, to the people who will say 'Obergefell is simply antithetical to Republicans because it's a states' rights issue,' you're not fooling anyone. ---- [1] "A party platform is sometimes referred to as a manifesto[1] or a political platform. Research on American politics suggests that platform positions offer an important clue to the policies that U.S. parties will enact." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_platform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_platform [2] https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/document...

nikcheerla 10y ago
Why exactly do you think those two positions are necessarily in opposition? You can be proudly gay while still believing that 'marriage' is only between men and women. AFAIK this is a pretty common belief among those who are both Christian and gay.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > You can be proudly gay while still believing that 'marriage' is only between men and women. AFAIK this is a pretty common belief among those who are both Christian and gay. Is there any reason to believe this is a common alignment of views? While I haven't seen things broken out at that detail level (e.g., gay marriage views of gay Christians), in general, belief that society should accept homosexuality tracks pretty well with belief that gay marriage should be allowed; I'd be very surprised if, even among, say, Evangelicals (the Christian religious subgroup polling shows most opposed to gay marriage), the share of that population that is gay isn't mostly part of the 27% (from Pew earlier this year [0]) of that group that says that gay marriage should be accepted. [0] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/12/support-steady-for-same-sex-marriage-and-acceptance-of-homosexuality/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/12/support-stea...
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    Is there any reason to believe this is a common alignment of views? Why does it have to be common? I wouldn't consider it to be a valid position, but I would find it plausible that some people would think so.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > Why does it have to be common? The post I was responding to claimed a belief that it was a common view among gay Christians; I was asking whether there were facts on which that belief was grounded.
      - stcredzero 10y ago
        Well, there's also Milo Yiannopoulos.
  - nikcheerla 10y ago
    That's a good point – I was just going off of public figures who have stated similar views. I'd like to see that data actually. I know a grand total of one evangelical and maybe 5 non-agnostic Christians, so I can't say for sure what the set of 'gay Christians' believe. Maybe that speaks to a larger problem?
    - angry-hacker 10y ago
      Dolce and Gabbana is a good example from outside of States.
  - gd1 10y ago
    It's perfectly possible to believe that society should accept homosexuality and also be against gay marriage. It's a complex issue. 'Marriage' is a religious ceremony, and freedom of religion and association is a thing. If the Christians don't want to let the gays join their club and do their funny little ceremony, then so be it. Any change needs to be driven by the Pope and the church itself, not enforced by the state. That is completely distinct from the concept of a legal union as defined by the state, which should be available to all consenting adults. Hell, as a mathematical type myself, if you can get it working in 2 dimensions you should be able to generalize to n dimensions, so why not legalize a union between any n consenting sentient beings while we're at it? The bigger mystery is why any non-christian gay people would care...?? If you're not Christian, you shouldn't care about a religious 'marriage', only civil unions. If you are Christian, you should take it up with your Church and work on change from within. I mean how is it going to work? If you're a Christian gay and you feel hurt and not included because your faith denies you the right to a religious marriage, are you really going to feel any more included when the state kicks the door down and forces them to accept you? They have to decide to accept you on their own. I just don't get the whole issue.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- aaronbrethorst 10y ago
  It's discriminatory and unconstitutional. For what it's worth, I don't think the government should be involved in marriage in any way, shape, or form. States should issue civil union licenses, IRS 1040 forms should refer to one's civil partner, and medical decisions should be deferred to one's civil partner. In that model, a marriage would be a purely symbolic act between you, your partner, and whatever higher power you believe in. Not the state. Also, out of curiosity, which of the many biblical models of marriage do you subscribe to?
  - nikcheerla 10y ago
    Who are you asking? I'm atheist, and I don't think any other posts in this discussion ever reference 'biblical models of marriage".
    - aaronbrethorst 10y ago
      What do you think 'one man and one woman' is if not a biblical model of marriage?
      - nikcheerla 10y ago
        I was just discussing what other people believe. I completely agree that the government should be out of the marriage business anyways.
      - gakada 10y ago
        It's a Hindu model of marriage, a Chinese model of marriage, … Hell, even the Ancient Greeks didn't practice gay marriage (as far as I know!)
      - pandaman 10y ago
        It's called "monogamy" and existed in such biblical places as the USSR and PRC.
        FireBeyond 10y ago
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  The religious mindset fosters all kinds of cognitive dissonance. "Sure the GOP will accept us -- as long as we keep a low profile, don't call them on their open bigotry, and don't ask for too much in the way of actual rights" being just another recent manifestation.
  - aaronbrethorst 10y ago
    Dan Savage has written quite regularly about Log Cabin Republicans. Here's a great, recent piece: http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/07/18/24357871/the-utter-failure-of-the-log-cabin-republicans http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/07/18/24357871/the-utte...
  - nikcheerla 10y ago
    Be charitable. Clearly that's not actually what 'gay Christians' believe.
    - jshevek 10y ago
      You are absolutely right. This close to an election, its hard for some people to be charitable in politics.
- bmm6o 10y ago
  If they really respected him they wouldn't treat people like him like second-class citizens.
- brown9-2 10y ago
  AFAIK this is a pretty common belief among those who are both Christian and gay. Citation?
marcoperaza 10y ago
>And, to the people who will say 'Obergefell is simply antithetical to Republicans because it's a states' rights issue,' you're not fooling anyone. You shouldn't just dismiss the most important argument with a snarky comment. The federal government's powers are enumerated and very clearly do not include marriage. If you believe that the primary role of legal marriage in a society is to encourage child-rearing in stable homes, then it's a totally logical position to believe that there is no Equal Protection violation that would warrant the intrusion of the federal courts into a state matter. (edit: Because the professional offense-takers are apparently on the prowl, let me clarify: I am referring to the raising of children by their biological parents. Yes, research proves that gay couples are just as good at raising children as straight couples, which is another reason why I support gay marriage. I'm explaining the legal reasoning argued by one of the parties in the case.) Now of course, the only reason that there was a legal case to begin with is because some states didn't recognize gay marriage. But believe it or not, American political parties do not represent totally coherent strains of thought. The two-party system requires both parties to be big tents that accommodate different interests. The Republican party is an overlapping and often uneasy alliance between evangelicals, social conservatives, libertarians, defense hawks, and nationalists. There are plenty of Republicans who support gay marriage, plenty who don't, and plenty who don't care. One data point: I consider myself a Republican and I support gay marriage. I actually agree with the court's decision as well. I know many people who share my political affiliation and feel the same way. As an aside, marriage law is so broken that I'm surprised anyone, gay or straight, even wants to have a legal marriage.
- aaronbrethorst 10y ago
  If you believe that the primary role of legal marriage in a society is to encourage child-rearing in stable homes, then it's a totally logical position to believe that there is no Equal Protection violation that would warrant the intrusion of the federal courts into a state matter. Just to make sure I'm clear, you're not implying that gay couples are incapable of rearing children in stable homes, right? The child-rearing argument is completely broken. If it was true, then marriage of divorced or widowed senior citizens would be forbidden.

nikcheerla 10y ago

Why exactly do you think those two positions are necessarily in opposition? You can be proudly gay while still believing that 'marriage' is only between men and women. AFAIK this is a pretty common belief among those who are both Christian and gay.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> You can be proudly gay while still believing that 'marriage' is only between men and women. AFAIK this is a pretty common belief among those who are both Christian and gay. Is there any reason to believe this is a common alignment of views? While I haven't seen things broken out at that detail level (e.g., gay marriage views of gay Christians), in general, belief that society should accept homosexuality tracks pretty well with belief that gay marriage should be allowed; I'd be very surprised if, even among, say, Evangelicals (the Christian religious subgroup polling shows most opposed to gay marriage), the share of that population that is gay isn't mostly part of the 27% (from Pew earlier this year [0]) of that group that says that gay marriage should be accepted. [0] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/12/support-steady-for-same-sex-marriage-and-acceptance-of-homosexuality/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/12/support-stea...
- stcredzero 10y ago
  Is there any reason to believe this is a common alignment of views? Why does it have to be common? I wouldn't consider it to be a valid position, but I would find it plausible that some people would think so.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Why does it have to be common? The post I was responding to claimed a belief that it was a common view among gay Christians; I was asking whether there were facts on which that belief was grounded.
    - stcredzero 10y ago
      Well, there's also Milo Yiannopoulos.
- nikcheerla 10y ago
  That's a good point – I was just going off of public figures who have stated similar views. I'd like to see that data actually. I know a grand total of one evangelical and maybe 5 non-agnostic Christians, so I can't say for sure what the set of 'gay Christians' believe. Maybe that speaks to a larger problem?
  - angry-hacker 10y ago
    Dolce and Gabbana is a good example from outside of States.
- gd1 10y ago
  It's perfectly possible to believe that society should accept homosexuality and also be against gay marriage. It's a complex issue. 'Marriage' is a religious ceremony, and freedom of religion and association is a thing. If the Christians don't want to let the gays join their club and do their funny little ceremony, then so be it. Any change needs to be driven by the Pope and the church itself, not enforced by the state. That is completely distinct from the concept of a legal union as defined by the state, which should be available to all consenting adults. Hell, as a mathematical type myself, if you can get it working in 2 dimensions you should be able to generalize to n dimensions, so why not legalize a union between any n consenting sentient beings while we're at it? The bigger mystery is why any non-christian gay people would care...?? If you're not Christian, you shouldn't care about a religious 'marriage', only civil unions. If you are Christian, you should take it up with your Church and work on change from within. I mean how is it going to work? If you're a Christian gay and you feel hurt and not included because your faith denies you the right to a religious marriage, are you really going to feel any more included when the state kicks the door down and forces them to accept you? They have to decide to accept you on their own. I just don't get the whole issue.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
aaronbrethorst 10y ago
It's discriminatory and unconstitutional. For what it's worth, I don't think the government should be involved in marriage in any way, shape, or form. States should issue civil union licenses, IRS 1040 forms should refer to one's civil partner, and medical decisions should be deferred to one's civil partner. In that model, a marriage would be a purely symbolic act between you, your partner, and whatever higher power you believe in. Not the state. Also, out of curiosity, which of the many biblical models of marriage do you subscribe to?
- nikcheerla 10y ago
  Who are you asking? I'm atheist, and I don't think any other posts in this discussion ever reference 'biblical models of marriage".
  - aaronbrethorst 10y ago
    What do you think 'one man and one woman' is if not a biblical model of marriage?
    - nikcheerla 10y ago
      I was just discussing what other people believe. I completely agree that the government should be out of the marriage business anyways.
    - gakada 10y ago
      It's a Hindu model of marriage, a Chinese model of marriage, … Hell, even the Ancient Greeks didn't practice gay marriage (as far as I know!)
    - pandaman 10y ago
      It's called "monogamy" and existed in such biblical places as the USSR and PRC.
      - FireBeyond 10y ago
kafkaesq 10y ago
The religious mindset fosters all kinds of cognitive dissonance. "Sure the GOP will accept us -- as long as we keep a low profile, don't call them on their open bigotry, and don't ask for too much in the way of actual rights" being just another recent manifestation.
- aaronbrethorst 10y ago
  Dan Savage has written quite regularly about Log Cabin Republicans. Here's a great, recent piece: http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/07/18/24357871/the-utter-failure-of-the-log-cabin-republicans http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/07/18/24357871/the-utte...
- nikcheerla 10y ago
  Be charitable. Clearly that's not actually what 'gay Christians' believe.
  - jshevek 10y ago
    You are absolutely right. This close to an election, its hard for some people to be charitable in politics.
bmm6o 10y ago
If they really respected him they wouldn't treat people like him like second-class citizens.
brown9-2 10y ago
AFAIK this is a pretty common belief among those who are both Christian and gay. Citation?

marcoperaza 10y ago

>And, to the people who will say 'Obergefell is simply antithetical to Republicans because it's a states' rights issue,' you're not fooling anyone. You shouldn't just dismiss the most important argument with a snarky comment. The federal government's powers are enumerated and very clearly do not include marriage. If you believe that the primary role of legal marriage in a society is to encourage child-rearing in stable homes, then it's a totally logical position to believe that there is no Equal Protection violation that would warrant the intrusion of the federal courts into a state matter. (edit: Because the professional offense-takers are apparently on the prowl, let me clarify: I am referring to the raising of children by their biological parents. Yes, research proves that gay couples are just as good at raising children as straight couples, which is another reason why I support gay marriage. I'm explaining the legal reasoning argued by one of the parties in the case.) Now of course, the only reason that there was a legal case to begin with is because some states didn't recognize gay marriage. But believe it or not, American political parties do not represent totally coherent strains of thought. The two-party system requires both parties to be big tents that accommodate different interests. The Republican party is an overlapping and often uneasy alliance between evangelicals, social conservatives, libertarians, defense hawks, and nationalists. There are plenty of Republicans who support gay marriage, plenty who don't, and plenty who don't care. One data point: I consider myself a Republican and I support gay marriage. I actually agree with the court's decision as well. I know many people who share my political affiliation and feel the same way. As an aside, marriage law is so broken that I'm surprised anyone, gay or straight, even wants to have a legal marriage.

aaronbrethorst 10y ago
If you believe that the primary role of legal marriage in a society is to encourage child-rearing in stable homes, then it's a totally logical position to believe that there is no Equal Protection violation that would warrant the intrusion of the federal courts into a state matter. Just to make sure I'm clear, you're not implying that gay couples are incapable of rearing children in stable homes, right? The child-rearing argument is completely broken. If it was true, then marriage of divorced or widowed senior citizens would be forbidden.