4 ms·

I understand where you're coming from, but the position that religious fundamentalist activists aren't particularly interested in keeping gays from marrying wou

I understand where you're coming from, but the position that religious fundamentalist activists aren't particularly interested in keeping gays from marrying would seem to be contradicted by their behavior over the last two decades. edit to add: and most of the bible verses they quote to support that view also condemn divorce and sex outside of wedlock, so forgive us for not knowing what is and isn't in danger. You make a persuasive argument that we should be more concerned than we think we should.

kcplate 4y ago
> keeping gays from marrying would seem to be contradicted by their behavior over the last two decades. Sure, but taking a position to prevent something from becoming legally recognized requires far less effort and commitment than taking something presently legal and making it illegal. Abortion was an outlier because there was a tangible victim to rally around in the pro-life activist’s eyes. There simply isn’t a tangible victim they can point to for gay marriage and contraception. Those issues center around behavior they might regard as sinful, but in their eyes the sinner is the only one to suffer. People may not approve…but will they care enough to work against them? I don’t think so. I know a lot of folks who are loudly pro-life, but I can only think of perhaps one that might actively work against gay marriage, and none that would have a strong opinion at all regarding contraception
- ineptech 4y ago
  Er, did you read the news between like 2005 and 2015? Opposition to gay marriage was fairly prominent. It certainly seems to have died down since then, but I would've said the same thing about the pro-life movement until this week. I don't think the view from within our bubbles is a good way to measure these things. For example, did you realize that "pro-life" was a minority view among evangelicals, before I posted that poll? I sure didn't. As for the "victim," the most effective way we know of to reduce the number of abortions is giving young people easy access to contraception, and AFAICT very few pro-lifers are in favor of that. I think it's a mistake to think this is only or even primarily about the fetus.
  - kcplate 4y ago
    > Er, did you read the news between like 2005 and 2015? Opposition to gay marriage was fairly prominent. I didn’t dispute that. I said specifically that it’s easier to work against something that is currently not legal becoming legal. > It certainly seems to have died down since then Because…it’s now legal. > is giving young people easy access to contraception, and AFAICT very few pro-lifers are in favor of that They may not be in favor of it, but it’s legal for young people to use contraceptives, and has been for a long time and there is no where near the passion against it as there was for abortion. However, when you say “easy access” do you mean “free and government supplied”? That is wholly a different argument that has a more “taxpayer support of discretionary human behavior” driver against it.
    - ineptech 4y ago
      > there is no where near the passion against [legal access to contraception] I don't think you've internalized the thing that started this conversation. This is not a victory for the pro-life movement! The pro-life movement has never been less popular, even among evangelicals. In the battle to convince Americans of their cause, they have lost by any measure. Roe was overturned not by "passion" but by a handful of ethically flexible judges. If they can do that with one unpopular thing, they can do it with a second and a third. > However, when you say “easy access” do you mean “free and government supplied”? Yes, but not as an ideological matter, just because that's the most straightforward way to implement policies. In general, "I support policy X" means "I want tax money to be spent on X". That's how governments do things, by spending money. If you don't want to be involved I'm sure we can fund it privately, it's not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things. But it's not clear why would you be against spending tax money to prevent abortions, but okay with spending money to jail the women who've had them. If this were actually about preventing abortions and not punishing sin, it wouldn't matter.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  in their eyes the sinner is the only one to suffer You are applying utilitarian considerations of outcomes to religious dogmatists. Such consider sexual immorality (as defined by them) to be a corrupting influence on everyone peripherally connected to it, and an affront to God. Hence the current moral panic of denouncing all LGBT people as 'groomers' and insinuating or openly accusing people who disagree as pedophiles, which is considered sufficient reason to kill in some peoples' eyes. Now while this moral panic is by no means universal among religious Christians, if you're not aware of it then you just aren't paying attention.
  - kcplate 4y ago
    > Hence the current moral panic of denouncing all LGBT people as 'groomers' and insinuating or openly accusing people who disagree as pedophiles I find it kind of strange that you are conflating marriage equality and concerns over sexualizing young children together. I don’t see people using this sexualization of children as an argument against gay marriage, I see it pretty hyper-focused on the sexualization of young children. I am wondering why you are tying them together if the folks doing it don’t seem to be.
    - ineptech 4y ago
      I have admired your candor in these exchanges, up until this comment.
      - kcplate 4y ago
        Sorry you feel that way, but I just find it a little disappointing that this thread went down this road and someone made this linkage. I don’t see it as a related issue.
        ineptech 4y ago
        I am also disappointed that "someone" has been conflating those two things, but it ain't anigbrowl. In case you're genuinely unaware of where that accusation comes from, an explainer: https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/23/lgbtq-groomers-smear-campaign/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/23/lgbtq-groomers-smear-...

kcplate 4y ago

> keeping gays from marrying would seem to be contradicted by their behavior over the last two decades. Sure, but taking a position to prevent something from becoming legally recognized requires far less effort and commitment than taking something presently legal and making it illegal. Abortion was an outlier because there was a tangible victim to rally around in the pro-life activist’s eyes. There simply isn’t a tangible victim they can point to for gay marriage and contraception. Those issues center around behavior they might regard as sinful, but in their eyes the sinner is the only one to suffer. People may not approve…but will they care enough to work against them? I don’t think so. I know a lot of folks who are loudly pro-life, but I can only think of perhaps one that might actively work against gay marriage, and none that would have a strong opinion at all regarding contraception

ineptech 4y ago
Er, did you read the news between like 2005 and 2015? Opposition to gay marriage was fairly prominent. It certainly seems to have died down since then, but I would've said the same thing about the pro-life movement until this week. I don't think the view from within our bubbles is a good way to measure these things. For example, did you realize that "pro-life" was a minority view among evangelicals, before I posted that poll? I sure didn't. As for the "victim," the most effective way we know of to reduce the number of abortions is giving young people easy access to contraception, and AFAICT very few pro-lifers are in favor of that. I think it's a mistake to think this is only or even primarily about the fetus.
- kcplate 4y ago
  > Er, did you read the news between like 2005 and 2015? Opposition to gay marriage was fairly prominent. I didn’t dispute that. I said specifically that it’s easier to work against something that is currently not legal becoming legal. > It certainly seems to have died down since then Because…it’s now legal. > is giving young people easy access to contraception, and AFAICT very few pro-lifers are in favor of that They may not be in favor of it, but it’s legal for young people to use contraceptives, and has been for a long time and there is no where near the passion against it as there was for abortion. However, when you say “easy access” do you mean “free and government supplied”? That is wholly a different argument that has a more “taxpayer support of discretionary human behavior” driver against it.
  - ineptech 4y ago
    > there is no where near the passion against [legal access to contraception] I don't think you've internalized the thing that started this conversation. This is not a victory for the pro-life movement! The pro-life movement has never been less popular, even among evangelicals. In the battle to convince Americans of their cause, they have lost by any measure. Roe was overturned not by "passion" but by a handful of ethically flexible judges. If they can do that with one unpopular thing, they can do it with a second and a third. > However, when you say “easy access” do you mean “free and government supplied”? Yes, but not as an ideological matter, just because that's the most straightforward way to implement policies. In general, "I support policy X" means "I want tax money to be spent on X". That's how governments do things, by spending money. If you don't want to be involved I'm sure we can fund it privately, it's not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things. But it's not clear why would you be against spending tax money to prevent abortions, but okay with spending money to jail the women who've had them. If this were actually about preventing abortions and not punishing sin, it wouldn't matter.
anigbrowl 4y ago
in their eyes the sinner is the only one to suffer You are applying utilitarian considerations of outcomes to religious dogmatists. Such consider sexual immorality (as defined by them) to be a corrupting influence on everyone peripherally connected to it, and an affront to God. Hence the current moral panic of denouncing all LGBT people as 'groomers' and insinuating or openly accusing people who disagree as pedophiles, which is considered sufficient reason to kill in some peoples' eyes. Now while this moral panic is by no means universal among religious Christians, if you're not aware of it then you just aren't paying attention.
- kcplate 4y ago
  > Hence the current moral panic of denouncing all LGBT people as 'groomers' and insinuating or openly accusing people who disagree as pedophiles I find it kind of strange that you are conflating marriage equality and concerns over sexualizing young children together. I don’t see people using this sexualization of children as an argument against gay marriage, I see it pretty hyper-focused on the sexualization of young children. I am wondering why you are tying them together if the folks doing it don’t seem to be.
  - ineptech 4y ago
    I have admired your candor in these exchanges, up until this comment.
    - kcplate 4y ago
      Sorry you feel that way, but I just find it a little disappointing that this thread went down this road and someone made this linkage. I don’t see it as a related issue.
      - ineptech 4y ago
        I am also disappointed that "someone" has been conflating those two things, but it ain't anigbrowl. In case you're genuinely unaware of where that accusation comes from, an explainer: https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/23/lgbtq-groomers-smear-campaign/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/23/lgbtq-groomers-smear-...