Yes, yes they very much are arseholes.
Hypocrite? Homophobe?
- Thread starter Miss Chicken
- Start date
Yes, yes they very much are arseholes.
A priest who doesn't want to marry gays is not an arsehole, but a priest that tries to stop gays from being married at all is an arsehole.
Just as the woman I mentioned in the OP is an arsehole if she votes against marriage equality.
Just as the woman I mentioned in the OP is an arsehole if she votes against marriage equality.
Yes, even though they're legally entitled to do so. Because every Christian, even priests, make compromises on following the exact word of the Bible, and once you start making compromises, it stops being about following the precise "word of God" (but actually men with millennia old values) and starts being about your personal biases and preferences, like whether or not you find the concept of gay marriage gross or imoral.
Let me turn your question around and change a single word:
"Are priests that won't marry black couples assholes in your opinion?"
Now, knowing you, I believe you would recoil at the thought and find it racist (as most would) before trying to come up with an answer that doesn't force you to admit that, because once you do admit it the whole opposing gay marriage thing kinda falls down like a house of cards. There's no difference whatsoever between the two.
Right alongside some of the staunchest abolitionists using the Bible as their guiding light have been those who have used it to defend slavery, the Ku Klux Klan, segregation, and opposing civil rights. Because words can be manipulated to serve whatever ends you want. When it comes down to it, it's all about your personal biases and preferences, so hiding behind a Bible just isn't going to cut it. And indeed there are Christian denominations and priests who will happily marry or are supportive of same sex couples today, and I commend them for it.
Last edited:
It is rather defeatist and it's a shame to see messages like that repeated on a forum where it really costs nothing to try to change someone's mind. I've definitely been influenced by posters over my years online. We're able to interact with people we wouldn't normally interact with, and we're also freed from some of the barriers that might inhibit this conversation in RL.
Not to mention that these types of attitudes are often used to shut down conversations entirely and prevent change. "It won't change," "What's the point?" "It just makes people uncomfortable," "You can't force your beliefs on others," etc. have all been used to prevent people from having their voices heard.
Saying "we just have to wait" for things to change is cruel and unnecessary.
Especially for those direct affected by it. They shouldn't be forced to wait because a small group has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
You probably don't get why I repeat what I do. I have and love people on both sides of the fence, and I wouldn't call either side names because we can't agree.
She's probably to nice to really start a argument with you on the subject. People are different with different views. While I really don't care about gay marriage one way or the other I think that it would be wrong to force people that are religious to do the ceremony even if they work for the state. I also think its fine if people are against it if their personal faith doesn't allow it. They aren't assholes they just have a different belief system and I can respect that.
^Pubert, I will disagree politely on the government thing. If you know you can't do something that's required in your job because of your faith, you shouldn't take the job or have the conviction to give it up if you believe so strongly. When I went to a Seventh-day Adventist school, I wondered why you take a job if you know you'll have to work on Saturday. That seems like something you should ask of your employer right at the first and get it specified that you can't work on that day. Otherwise, perhaps you are better suited for another job.
As for a justice of the peace, he or she is supposed to do it for people who don't have any particular religious inclinations, correct? And a justice of the peace is there to serve everyone.
As for a justice of the peace, he or she is supposed to do it for people who don't have any particular religious inclinations, correct? And a justice of the peace is there to serve everyone.
It has nothing to do with them having a belief system. It's because they are denying someone's rights because of that, especially if that's their job. Just like someone who is anti-gun shouldn't work in a gun shop, someone who refuses to marry a couple for any reason probably shouldn't be in a position where they can deny it. You can't just deny someone's rights because you personally don't agree that they should have it when the law says that they can.
What if it was black folk and where they sat on the bus.
Give me your bullshit line about being fine about peoples personal faith not allowing it. Do it! I dares you!
More like a town clerk who's anti-gun refusing to give out gun licenses, or a town clerk whose animal rights beliefs have them not giving out gun licenses. They've got a job to do.
It's like Kirk told Styles 'Leave your bigotry in your quarters!'
A lot of people do leave their bigotry in their quarters but then their friends and relatives like to take it out and pet it and talk about how it has a home so, really, it exists.
That's because people who advocate for these kinds of laws like to disingenuously talk about civility and pretend it begins and ends with calling people names, when in reality the far worse and more uncivil act is denying people their basic rights. I have little patience for people calling for civil language while treating others as second class citizens.
Churches aren't required to perform same sex marriages, so that's a non-starter. But if you work for the state you damn well better perform the service. You're a public servant, not a servant of God or of your own prejudices. If you really had convictions, then you should either not have taken the job or you should quit. Trying to stay in the job but not perform your duties makes you an asshole, like Kim Davis.
I notice you didn't answer my question from this post:
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/hypocrite-homophobe.279058/page-4#post-11472608
"Are priests that won't marry black couples assholes in your opinion?"
I answered yours, so if you could do me the same courtesy, I'd appreciate it.
I have no idea what you mean by that. Do you think that being enlightened means somehow believing in everything? Marriage, God, spoon bending, 55mph speed limit? Just... everything?
No, I mean I don't believe in marriage. If people want to live together, they can live together. No need to get a license from the government or have their names recorded in the sacred scrolls or anything.
Do you also think that a state official should be allowed to refuse dealing with black people who come to his or her office?
See the issue? The state should not and cannot discriminate.
To give you another example: I find many conservatives truly disgusting in their hateful opinions. So I have serious moral objections against these people, their opinions and lifestyles.
Yet I would never expect state officials to be allowed to not serve them for these moral reasons.
Last edited:
A
Amaris
Guest
Indeed. Bigotry is one of those things that manifests itself in one way or another. You can't really be a bigot and not express it in some form that could hurt another human being.
I was really talking about the people who were in their jobs years before the decision. But you're right they can either give it up or move onto some other position. As for the justice of the peace I would assume they have no religious inclinations that they bring to the job but some may have.
But the justice of the peace still has to do his/her job. And you'll note that they are there to serve those who may not have religious inclinations. These justices should be neutral on the job, not use their job as a bully pulpit.
The same is true of other government officials. They're there to serve everyone. Would you particularly like it if a judge that was Muslim or Jewish or of one denomination that regards all others as Hell-bound refused to marry people unless they toed the line of his/her beliefs?
If you can't do your job, quit and find one that doesn't conflict with your morals.
Similar threads
