Sunday Assembly Detroit is forming. If you're interested in either organizing or simply participating, give the page a 'like'.
https://www.facebook.com/SundayAssemblyDetroit
Printable View
Sunday Assembly Detroit is forming. If you're interested in either organizing or simply participating, give the page a 'like'.
https://www.facebook.com/SundayAssemblyDetroit
Hell no-----
Entertaining this is definitley not worth me losing my soul....
Can't stand know-it-alls, be it atheist or Christian, which is why I'm agnostic.:)
Not sure why this is needed when you can be atheist/agnostic and go here:
http://www.1stuu.org/
[[Unitarian Church)
Maybe, just maybe, we don't want to assemble in a church that, for all its inclusiveness, is still based on judeo-christian mumbo-jumbo: "Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves"
gee, there's that god thing again.
Just for clarification, if asked "do you believe in god?" do you respond "yes?" If not, you are an atheist. "I don't know" as an answer to that question is just a weak way of saying "no." I don't know if there is or isn't a god or gods [[although if there is one, I see no reason for there not to be others - is there one of anything in the universe?)
As an Atheist, I have NO need to get together On Sunday. Why would that day be the one to congregate?
Q: Did you hear the one about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac?
A: He stayed up all night wondering if there was a dog? ;)
Oh boy this is going to be a wild thread...:eek:...
sure will be!!!
This thread kind of makes me sad. Tolerance should a motto.
I believe Jesus Christ died on the Cross to save me from going to Hell
I believe if the SMART August 2014 Property Tax Renewal fails in all three counties of Oakland, Wayne and Macomb Counties that it will improve mass transit for everyone.
I believe in One God and that we were all created equally and we should all have rights.
Anyone want to debate me?
Anyone want to challenge me?
http://www.uua.org/beliefs/welcome/atheism/index.shtml
Some UUs believe in god, some don't. You are welcome either way.
A church without God is NOT a church! I'm not interested of join that club. Sunday Assembly Detroit is not a church, it's a cult-like club compared to Jim Jones' People Temple, Doe and Ti's Heaven's Gate and David Koresh's Davidians and Prophet Jones' Dominionites.
I figure this is as good a place as any to say, Wu-Tang..... Wu-Tang is the greatest.
A prejudice by any other name is still a prejudice.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistb...heitsHated.htm
Every single study that has ever looked at the issue has revealed massive amounts of bigotry and prejudice against atheists in America. The most recent data shows that atheists are more distrusted and despised than any other minority and that an atheist is the least likely person that Americans would vote for in a presidential election. It's not just that atheists are hated, though, but also that atheists seem to represent everything about modernity which Americans dislike or fear.
The most recent study was conducted by the University of Minnesota, which found that atheists ranked lower than "Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in 'sharing their vision of American society.' Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry."
How can you tell if someone is an atheist unless he is obnoxious about it? It has been years and years since anyone asked me what religion I follow. You just show respect, bow your head, and keep quiet when a prayer is offered. You can take part and join in the Christmas carol sing-a-long or you can plead more urgent business.
I don't think that answer shows a great deal of thought, Hermod. Is it not common for religious people to ask strangers and new acquaintances what church they attend? You don't have to be a pushy, proselytizing religious person to feel people out about religion early on, just a religious person. And I've had people I think I know well sit around me at the bar and talk about "those atheists." It's really odd to overhear people say, "Atheists are the worst people in the world." It makes me smile and want to ask more about these "atheists," of which I am one, but enjoying seeing groupthink in action.
These anti-atheist prejudices are amusing and contradictory.
Atheists are incapable of belief.
But also atheists are unreasonably certain of their beliefs!
Atheists are angry, pushy, scary!
But, oddly, they also don't care!
Atheists don't have a moral compass and are more likely to sin.
But studies show that atheists have better statistics when it comes to violence, crime and divorce.
I figure a lot of this prejudice is based on projection. That pushy, religious people look into their supposed "other" and see their own excesses reflected back at them in their fevered imaginations.
I am a cheerful atheist. I don't push my philosophy on anybody else, and I don't want their philosophies pushed on me. I think religion is poetry and art, and appreciate it as such. I don't know the answers, but I appreciate the beauty of the mysteries of the cosmos and wouldn't intrude on their mysteriousness by pretending to know all the answers.
Yeah, like those obnoxious blacks fighting for civil rights. And those detestable gays fighting for equal rights. Atheists are completely respected throughout the world!
Without snark, since religion isn't part of my life, it only comes up when others bring it up. Typically Christians. "God" comes up at least a few times a year, and since I have no shame in being an atheist, I don't have a problem making that clear.
More wars have been fought, more people killed, more blood shed over Religion, then anything else. Each aggressor always claimed "God was on their side".
I usually like to sit back whenever one of these threads comes out, have a bowl of popcorn... and listen to you all preaching to the choir... ops, did I say preaching and choir!! :eek:
While I'm a religious person, I like to think I'm not a religious person. I take all faiths, including my own, with a grain of salt. I don't think somebody is orchestrating our lives, and I don't really know if there is an afterlife. I have a natural distrust of clerics, and don't believe anyone has a monopoly on the truth. That said, something inside me has always reached for the spiritual.
This is a strange concept for me, though. If I were an atheist [[I was certainly agnostic during my life), why would I do what appears to be "playing church"? I'd much rather be at home reading the Times.
I think the real issue here is the loss of community. People no longer get involved with their neighbors, serve with fraternal organizations, go to lectures or speeches together, or volunteer. This appears to me, anyway, to be a substitute for all. With everyone nowadays it's stare at the phone, all day, every day. Hundreds of channels but zero friends. You live in a pristine community but don't know your next-door neighbors.
Seems like an a-okay way to spend some time, though, so what do I care? I certainly fully support their right to assemble peaceably and would die to defend such a right.
Before I went to the link, I thought, "I don't need that."
But this made it sound nice to me:
Sunday Assembly is a godless community that meets monthly to hear great talks, connect for service projects, sing songs and generally celebrate life.
Granted, it's still not for me.
Tolerance does not mean you have to agree. Unfortunately, a lot of people require agreement when they ask for tolerance. For example, its not possible to dislike gay lifestyle/activities and not be painted as 'homophobic' by those who want tolerance.
I advocate for pure tolerance, untainted by agreement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plwq4jE8O1o
"On Sunday, who knows, you might spot a herd of Lutherans"... :)
This thread's about atheism. I only used the intolerance of gay rights advocates as an example of advocacy gone wrong.
I may not agree with Atheists, but I've complete tolerance for people getting together peacefully and for better purposes.
On gay-dom, you are right that if you dislike gay people as a class, you are by definition homophobic. What I was saying is that you can disapprove of the ACTIONS of gay people, and not be homophobic. Hate the sin, love the sinner. For the record, I do NOT see gay acts as a sin. I often do see gay pride as being [[the sin) 'Pride'.
Can you explain this further? Any way I cut it, I can't make sense of it.
I fail to see the differentiation, unless I view it as a game of semantics. When we're making a judgment on actions that don't involve us and don't affect us, our "tolerance" can be called into question.
I think you can't make sense out of it because, in my opinion, there isn't any. I think it really is just a game of semantics. If one "disapproves" of gay "actions" one really just does not like gay people. More and more, people just will not own their homophobia. What's a gay "action" anyway? Sex? Same-gender attraction? The whole "hate the sin but love the sinner" schtick is simply thinly-veiled homophobia too. "I love you, but just not who you are..."
Its like someone saying "I'm not a racist, I just think the races shouldn't mix."
Example, I do not agree with the act of 'gay marriage'. I'm however tolerant and willing to grant exactly the same rights -- except the word 'marriage' -- because in my view that word is taken. Am I homophobic?
To pull us back to the thread... I ask that we be tolerant. And that includes tolerant of those who are not has 'enlightened' as we are. So long as their actions don't cause us tangible harm.
Sure, I'll challenge all of this...
So which is it? You do not agree with the "act" of gay marriage or you're okay with the "act" but not the descriptor? You can't have it both ways.
This "argument" has circulated through homophobic circles long enough to have been long ago discredited by anyone interested in its validity. It seems only to persist for homophobes to feel better about their homophobia. You're not fooling anyone other than yourself.
I mean, it's an argument about the word. And for that matter, it's a word with an add-on. It's "gay marriage". What changes? Why does it matter? Definitions have evolved for as long as language has existed. This is manufactured outrage over an issue you're not honest with yourself about.
As far as your convenient "tolerance" comments go...being tolerant does not extend to intolerance. That's as intellectually dishonest as it comes and is an embarrassing refrain most often used by conservatives who think they're being witty. It doesn't work.
Denying rights, even when carefully veiled, definitely does do everyone tangible harm.
I'm totally riding the wave on this thread. I hope nobody chokes on their popcorn.
During National Brotherhood Week,
National Brotherhood Week,
It's National Everyone-Smile-At-One-Anotherhood Week.
Step up and shake the hand,
Of someone you can't stand.
You can tolerate him if you try!
--Tom Lehrer
What happens if you cross a Unitarian and Jehovah Witness?
?
You get someone knocking on your door for no particular reason.
I think that for a lot of non-believers who were raised going to church the act of going somewhere for fellowship and community on a Sunday morning has some significant meaning and comfort. Being from a non-religious family myself, I always thought that one of the real benefits of my atheism was having my Sunday mornings free.
So I was rather baffled when I first ran into this phenomena of what I thought of as the Church of God [[Without God). But having more recently run into a lot of people who have left the world of religion, and having even gone a couple of meetings of things like the Ethical Humanists, I think I understand it a little better. It's still not for me, but I do have some insight into why others feel a need for it.
I am a churchgoing Catholic, but I was an avid atheist for about 10 years in my youth. Churches provide religious teaching & guidance, of course. But they also provide fellowship and community. So I understand people's desire to join a group for that purpose. I find a lot of organized atheists to be actively anti-religious, campaigning against and maligning other people's beliefs. If that's not the case here- and I don't have any reason to believe it is- then I wish them the best and hope they find organizing to be fulfilling and worthwhile.
I'm Roman Catholic and I could care less about people's sexuality. I think priest should be able to get married and we should allow woman to be priest. I can also say no other religous organization has done as much for the poor as the Catholic Church and they keep on doing. I'm proud to be Catholic,
Precisely what rights do I deny? None. Except the right to the word. And while you say words don't matter -- you insist on your terms.
Tolerant so long as you get your way. And I'm a backward-thinking conservative. Nothing I said was conservative. Unless you think denying the word to gays is wrong. And you can't tolerate differing opinions, it seems.
Try telling the gay community that the word doesn't matter. Good luck with that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/us...=fb-share&_r=0
“It is becoming increasingly clear to judges that if they rule against same-sex marriage their grandchildren will regard them as bigots”
Yep they will. Maybe even their children. Its difficult to sound credible protecting 'marriage' as a word solely for heterosexual unions blessed by god when it has also been used to define civil unions that have nothing do do with any church.
"It's" not "its". Apologies.
Thanks.
This is what really interests me. Why two reasonable people can talk right past each other. I don't get your points, and you don't get mine.
I do struggle with how to express ideas and have a reasonable debate on issues, not personalities. I am really curious about how people think and what leads them to what I perceive as rigid opinions. I suspect you don't think of yourself that way. Neither do I. But we both think of each other that way.
Is the Sunday Assembly of Detroit going to be SAD?
I am an avid supporter of gay marriage, and have been for twenty years. I am not for judges deciding the matter though, for 2 reasons.
1) What a judge grants, a different judge can take away.
2) It causes political blowback and causes people to harden in their opposition to gay marriage.
Over time legislators and voters are [[already) making gay marriage legal; that trend will continue unabated.
I do think that legal [[civil) marriage should allow any consenting adult to marry any other consenting adult. But I think the laws permitting gay marriage should make certain that those who oppose gay marriage are not trounced upon. People who act on their own religious beliefs should not be punished or ridiculed for it. The New Mexico baker who doesn't want to bake a gay wedding cake should not be obligated by a court to do so: we would not tolerate a court instructing a kosher deli requiring to a make a ham sandwich for gentile. A county clerk, however, as a function of their public duty, should not be able to deny a marriage license due to a moral opposition to the would-be wedding. For the purposes of law and interactions with the state, gay marriage should be legal. Private people in their own business and life should be free to make their own judgments. I won't see any more Woody Allen movies because he married someone who is essentially his daughter. But I think he should be allowed to make movies; he just won't get my money.
That is a great one.
I saw a "christian" story recently;
A guy was desperately looking for a parking spot because he was late for a very important meeting. He looked upwards and pleaded to God to find him a spot and he promised he would go to church every Sunday for the rest of his life and give up drinking. Immediately, a spot opened up in front of him. He quickly reversed in and looked up to God again and said "You can forget it God, I've found one"
MikeyinBrooklyn; In your world, how do you equate
"I do think that legal [[civil) marriage should allow any consenting adult to marry any other consenting adult". with "I won't see any more Woody Allen movies because he married someone who is essentially his daughter." ?
Were they not both adults? Does your freer thinking carry its own built in limits now that you're getting yours?
Would there be a pay raise? ~rubbing hands with glee~
Coracle, I was making the point that there is a difference between legal marriage and people's personal moral opinions. As adults, Woody and Soon-yi are [[and should be) free to marry; I, as an individual, am free to feel that marrying the man who was the romantic companion of your mother in your house while you were growing up is kind of gross. Consenting adults should be free to legally marry; thinking adults should be free to have their own opinions. I think butcher shops should be able to sell horse meat; I personally wouldn't dine with someone who ate it. Government shouldn't be in the business of approving or disapproving of personal relationships.
You're not talking past me. Your points have no merit and there are gaping holes in your ideology. You either don't get it or pretend it's untrue.
My opinions on this matter are 100% rigid because I am right. And history has been and will continue to be on my side.
There is NO such thing as a Religious Marriage in a Legal Sense. When a Couple gets Married in a Church, A Court Ceremony or the like...The Couple Signs an agreement and it MUST be registered within 5 days to be legal.
I got Married in a Catholic Church on my second time and was told that it wont be legal until the County of Records can record it and make it Legal. Hense...Religion in this Country do's NOT make Marriage LEGAL!!!! Recording with the County DOES!!! Signing a Document is what enables me and her to claim rights to property and tax rights!
What one legislature or group of voters decide can be taken away as easily [[or easier in many cases) than issues settled by judicial precedent. And putting rights up to popular vote has generally worked, um, not so well in this county.
Would you have wanted Mildred and Richard Loving to wait until the Commonwealth of Virginia repealed is odious anti-miscegenation laws? They were married in 1958, sentenced to jail in 1959, and only avoided serving time because of a deal for them to move to D.C. When the courts overturned the law in 1967, 16 [[of course all southern or border states) still had anti-miscegenation laws on the books. If not overturned by the courts, how long would they have still been in effect?
Have you been following the current proposal in Kansas [[passed by their GOP House but likely to die in their Senate, which was originally thought be be ready to pass it) that would allow virtually every provider of any good or service in the state to deny service to any LGBT person because of their "religious" convictions?
First, discrimination based upon race is not comparable to discrimination based upon sexual orientation, for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, skin color is a characteristic that can be detected at first glance. As such, in the old south, it constituted an existential threat to any person of color not behaving as the law and culture instructed. 3500 black people were hanged in the old south; I suspect there have not been 3500 gay-targeted murders. Second, the US Constitution had already been amended to protect citizenship & voting rights for black Americans, establishing legal precedent for anti-discrimination court action. No comparable legal standing for a case against gay discrimination. Third, marriage between a man and a woman had long-term legal recognition, going back as far as recorded law. The Lovings were not allowed to enter into that traditional institution. Gay marriage is new; it is not something with a history, legal or otherwise, before recent years. It would be silly to think that it would just be simultaneously absorbed by everyone all at once. It will take some people time to see that it is not highly consequential to non-gay people, and a net benefit for society. That is already happening [[even in the South, polls show rapidly shifting attitudes towards gay marriage, and acceptance of gay people in general).
As for the proposed Kansas legislation [[I have not followed it), I have several reactions. 1) If your summary is a true distillation of the bill, I find it unlikely to pass. 2) How would the providers of most goods or services be able to ascertain the sexual orientation of their would-be consumers? 3) If such legislation did pass, it would certainly not be followed by most businesses, and certainly none that do business elsewhere as well. Many businesses would willingly cater to the gay clientele; we gays earn and spend more per capita than heterosexuals. 4) The bakery in New Mexico that received national attention for not wanting to make the wedding cake for the gay couple's ceremony offered the names of bakeries that would make their cake, and said he would cover the difference if they were more expensive. The couple involved knew full well he was a devout Christian, and chose him in spite of the fact that there were many other competent cake makers available. 5) How would a situation such as this be different from a kosher restaurant refusing to serve cheese on your roast beef sandwich? Should the state intervene to prevent the deli owner's religious beliefs from determining the status of your food? Should convents be required to admit men? [[Note: the federal government does not currently consider convents to be religious institutions). Should a tax exempt Baptist community center with a black congregation be allowed deny use of it's meeting space to a white supremicist group? It is ultimately an awful thing to have the government determining the validity of the citizens beliefs. People on the Left used to embrace the argument that the government should not make moral decisions; but now that some judges are ruling for them, they are gobbling it up. That is chilling. By this line of thinking, since every possible action a human takes might at least possibly affect someone else, no action a human takes should be allowed to be affected by their religious beliefs, lest they be "imposing their beliefs" on someone else. George Orwell would not need to write fiction today.
I support gay marriage because it is a good idea, for both the couples involved and society as a whole, I think. The commitment and responsibility make for more stable and happy lives for many people. Stable and happy people are are better builders of strong communities. I do not like gay marriage because we are oppressed victims, but because we are ready to step up and join everybody else.
P.S. DotWC: You have already established in the past that I am unaware of the oppression under which I am living. I hope I wake up from that before my wedding!
Actually Mikey, I'd say that as a true conservative you are primarily concerned with your own oppression or perceived lack thereof. If you do not feel oppressed you are not at all concerned if others are or feel they are. But then again, I come from a very conservative background and I know that empathy is generally a dirty word to conservatives.
As a gay conservative, if you are to have a wedding you will either [[a) go to a more liberal state to take advantage of rights not afforded to you by those you vote for, or [[b) will go to a state to take advantage of rights afforded to you by a judge, whose decision you disagree with. And you are willing to wait in the back of the bus for the dominant society to dole out rights as they see fit. And if they don't, no problem. Sort of the Mary Cheney approach to life.
Empathy is not a dirty, when it motivates private action, but I keep emotion out of public policy. I don't favor making policies based on emotions. And, DotWC, I would select choice "A" married in one of the several states where the elected legislature legalized it, not subject to judicial overturn. That will include Michigan, and most states, in the next few years. About judicial decisions: judges are not the be all and the end all. Take for instance the Virginia marriage decision from Friday, where the judge cited language in what she termed "the Constitution" but meant the Declaration of Independence. That is an error of legal judgment a smart high school civics student could detect, and will take several minutes in an appeals court to overturn. Basing one's freedom on the creative writing skills of a politically motivated judge is bad governance. And it screws over those who "get married" just to have their marriage placed in limbo.
Now the race is on for me to find a husband before Michigan legalizes marriage. And I ride wherever I want on the bus; but I prefer to walk.
Not sure how we got off on this tanget, but FYI Unitarians also support marriage equality. :)
http://www.uua.org/lgbtq/witness/marriage/
No need to hurry. Your fellow conservatives are not about to change their bigotry. And I assume you agree that in any state that legislatively approved of same gender marriage, you would have personally opposed those progressive legislators? You can keep voting Republican/right wing , and keep fantasizing that they don't hate you.
Christians are the largest persecuted religious group in the world. Atheists receive some persecution, but not nearly as much as Christians. Source:
http://www.pewforum.org/2014/01/14/r...pecific-groups
Atheists are mentioned nowhere in that article, therefore it is not exactly a good source for your second comment. For more on atheist persecution, look here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2268681.html
Hi rb336. Atheists are part of the group labeled "others". Check the chart labeled, "Number of Countries Where Religious Groups Were Harassed, by Year".
Most people who oppose gay marriage are not bigots, they have a different point of view on a recent societal change, informed by their own life experience. To label them "bigots" would mean that just about everyone was a bigoted gay hater just a few years ago. Even the people who are now proponents of it, would have been oppressive trolls a short time ago. Of course they weren't: they changed their opinion over time. Some people aren't there yet, but they will be. Ten years ago you could count on one hand the number of national politicians that favored legal gay marriage. Not favoring legal gay marriage is not similar to lynching people. Pretending a difference of opinion is an attempt to impose a new Nazi regime is absurd, and trivializes real bigotry. I have lots of conservative friends; some favor gay marriage already, some will take more time. But I'm working on it. But I know they'll never come around if I call them hateful bastards and slam an indignant door in their face. I want to persuade people, not destroy them.
Did you read beyond one graph? Did you understand the methodology?
By their definitions, atheism could not be counted accurately. The impinging on the practice of religion is something you can quantify. It's a lot more difficult to do that with a population that, by definition, doesn't practice religion.
That said, atheists are said to represent less than 2.0% of the world population. Christians make up about 32.0%.
While no doubt a very true statement for some -- or maybe even many, I think you are wrong about that as a generalization.
I suggest to you that you are not using the right measuring stick. Opposition to welfare does not say anything about empathy. It says something about the conservative view of the effectiveness of welfare. It doesn't work.
You might try looking at other measuring sticks.
It is not a true conservative value to ignore the poor. It is a true value to believe that private and religious giving produce better results than state welfare has shown. I'll take the Little Sisters of the Poor over Obamacare's contraceptive mandate any day.
^^^ WM you make compelling points re. the default generalizations out there from one might say a more chess-level evaluation relative to politics, views and values.
Often the checkers-level broad assessment is that conservatives: Mean. Take away stuff and are bad, vs 'perfectly' opposite liberals: Empathetic. Good and give us stuff.
That narrative at best is permeable as we see in the worse case 'taking' and politicking on all sides and gifts that come with a price [[obligation). Thus I weigh anchor towards neither party or side too heavily.
In any event Timeo Danaos et dona ferente is my approach when the gov. and lawmakers promise or dictate too much...
Amen. I personally like a government that looks out for all citizens -- but the degree of that looking out for is very limited. Warming shelters, not subsidized housing. Free dental, not free Viagara. A soup kitchen, not food stamps.
Cruel am I? You can decide. I don't see that government bearing gifts has solved any problems. [[Although I really liked what Bill Gates said on Charlie Rose the other week about how international aid is changing the face of the world for the better. And his money's there too -- Mr. 1% personified isn't greedy -- but is improving life on government scale with corporate rip-off profits going to good. I like that much more than having Rick Santorum or Barney Frank making those decisions.)
I think that's a most valid generalization and here's why: conservative strategists notoriously sought to elevate, and succeeded in elevating, sociopathy to the level of an aspiration among their followers. Ever since, their followers have been falling all over themselves trying to appear less empathetic than the next conservative. We've all seen it played out in plain sight.
But I'm sure you're aware of all that as the namesake of an Ayn Rand character.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyiinBrooklyn
How incredibly soon they forget...Quote:
Originally Posted by noise
It appears that this thread has gotten way off-topic. Back to the atheism issue.
Disclaimer: I believe in "God," both the intellectual and religious concepts. To believe in the religious concept, one must have the "gift of faith." Not everyone does of course.
From pre-historic times through the ages people have attributed god-like status to every imaginable object, e.g. the sun, the moon, the stars, witch doctors etc. It is understandable that there must be athiests when the concept of "god" is so viewed. I'd be one too.
However, I don't understand how intelligent people with some degree of formal education don't believe in a "first cause, uncaused," one of the several proofs of the existence of "God" by St. Thomas Aquinas. Intellectually, I believe that thinking people can't ignore that the physical universe was not spontaneously created out of nothing. Even the "Big Bang" theory doesn't claim that occurred.
In other words, we're all here as a result of an initial event, creation of the universe, caused by whatever you want to call it, a supreme being, first cause, uncaused, "God" [[for lack of a better word), Allah, Yahway, Harold, or [[insert here your own word.)
The issue here is one of semantics.
Labelling your opponents as hateful homophones is an intellectually lazy attempt to disqualify them from debate. Most people, including most liberals, were opposed to legalized gay marriage just a few years ago. Most Democrats opposed it within the last few years, including our president. In fact, as recently as early 2012 [[and all throughout the 2008 campaign) he articulated that marriage was between a man and a woman. Bill Clinton signed the most anti-gay federal law of the last 50 years [[DOMA)!
So, what to take away from this? When a liberal changes his mind, everyone on the other side is suddenly just an awful human who's opinion is beneath contempt and ought not to be considered. Even though they agreed with them the day before.
I think the intelligent and pertinent argument to be made for legal gay marriage is that it will strengthen gay relationships and provide legal grounding for spousal rights and responsibilities. The liberal argument is that we are weak victims who should be pitied and protected. Also, my reasoning calls upon gay people to step up, and engage in committed, monogamous relationships and be a part of the larger society. There is a reputation among gay men particularly that we are promiscuous, self-segregating hedonists. I relish the chance to disprove that by showing we can be good parents, informed voters, successful business owners, and yes, church-going members of the community. That doesn't need pity. It needs a chance.
Of course, it could simply be a case of: you used to be wrong, now you're right.
Unless you want to have an intellectually stimulating discussion about the merits of returning to the days of slavery.
And that is definitely not the "liberal argument" for gay marriage. WTF is wrong with you?
I'm not sure of just how many criss-crossing, digressive arguments may be in play, here in this thread, but I think MikeyinBrooklyn is winning his.