Summary of conservative responses to this week's Supreme Court rulings


#1

[Read the post]


#2

Oh, come now. It was nothing so reasoned and calm.


#3

They are seething mad. My conservative “friends” are posting all sorts of “but the Bible says” kinds of stuff.

This meme sheds about half of the truth:

The other half is that they fail to recognize homophobia that is thousands of years old, passed down from generation to generation. Instilled in their very core, to NOT examine their own sexuality and discover their own truth about themselves.

Nobody who is threatened in any way by gay people has truly examined their own sexuality. If they did, and understand who they are as a person, then there’s no threat. Poof, threat is gone because I like purple not green. It’s that simple. The Christian Church actively prevents people from a rigorous self-examination, and therefore promotes ignorance. On many levels, but sexuality is the one I’m talking about right now.

Other religions do this too, with a few exceptions in each, among a few aural sects.


#4

I remember NPR playing a clip of someone wondering if their pastor would get arrested one day for refusing to officiate a gay wedding… I was wondering what made them think that a gay couple would want to spend what should be one of the most beautiful days of their lives being married by someone so filled with hate…


#5

Opposition to gay marriage comes out of the intent to control others for one’s own selfish benefit. Those who benefit are husbands, organized religion, businesses, politicians and the government. Children and women are still unconsciously considered as something men own and therefor should have control over. Those in authority – especially organized religion – operate under a tacit chain of command where they pretend to speak for God and those at the bottom end of the chain must obey, with the male husband (and the one who procreates as he wishes) in charge of the wife and children. Organized religion thinks that if same-sex couples can marry, then this chain of command will break, leading to loss of control (and income).
Politicians like to use organized religion (and vice versa) because they can use each other to gain and maintain control via votes and laws.


#6

I’ve been hoping for Scanners-esque head explosions since the self-immolation got called off…


#7

now THAT is ACTING!


#8

I’m baffled by the “it’s against my religion”/“God defines marriage” argument. Presumably being of another religion is also also very much against one’s religion, yet these people aren’t trying to prevent followers of every other religion (and atheists) from getting married, so…

I wonder about these people. It’s not legally allowed to discriminate based on religion, yet the Catholic church isn’t forced to do Hindu weddings. Why they think a church will suddenly be forced to do things contrary to their faith is beyond me.


#9

The fact that it’s even a question whether or not their pastor would be arrested for not performing a same-sex wedding is entirely due to manipulative lying assholes spreading bullshit for decades. And of course, this is just one particular flavor out of the endless cornucopia of bullshit.


#10

Of course, this applies to all human thinking, not just religious human thinking. For instance, I’m always baffled when atheists get all bent out of shape because someone tells them they’ll be praying for them, or that they’ll burn in hell. I mean, these are constructs that – by definition – have no relevance to the recipient, so…

Not to discount the understandable human reaction to whatever rebuke or aggression is implied by such statements, naturally. I’m just saying, none of us are very good at self-confident self-knowledge.


#11

I have always felt and still do that we have been fighting the wrong fight.
Registration or state involvement in marriage only became a thing in the US to keep religious organizations from performing interracial marriage, it is and was for people-we-don’t-like control and high handed social engineering.
I support state recognized contractual civil unions under contract law, that is where it should end for all consenting adults.
For state to dabble in religion, including approving some marriages and not others, especially in an officially secular liberal democratic state like the US is supposed to be has been problematic form the start.
State involvement should bother both liberals and conservatives for different reasons, the state should not even see a religious sacrament or rite in its official business, anything less is discrimination against those who do not, will not, or can not participate in an approved(de jure) religious or religious rite based arrangement.


#12

I can see a vanishingly-small hypothetical where a church might be “forced” to host/sanction a marriage. Like, if it was the only church in an very small town.

But yeah: (anecdotally) most gay people live in large enough cities that they would have plenty of supportive options. And even in pretty small locales, there’s usually at least one Mainline Protestant church. I grew up in a rural IN county with only ~ 15K total residents, and I can easily think of two – three churches there that would sanction a same-sex union if asked (one of which would actively advertise same), not to mention the options in the nearby college town.

So why do they extrapolate to being forced? I dunno, but I suspect it’s a result of a subculture of threat. War on Xmas, sharing human rights you already enjoy = PERSECUTION!!!, & etc. It’s the same sort of zero-sum, hoarding mentality that morphs our social contract into a free handout for “moochers.” I personally struggle with wiring from infancy that causes me to fear that I won’t get “enough,” but letting that thinking pervade every aspect of my life – to the extent of wearing it as a badge – sounds pretty miserable to me.


#13

“Well, it’s about time! Thats all I can say. I live in Orange County, California; in the belly of the ugly beast called Ultra-conservatism, and the only response I heard nearly in chorus was from the divorcees who are now just thrilled to death that this landmark decision for same-sex marriages empowersthem to marry their service dogs!

As Claire Bow once remarked, “The more I know men, the more I love my dogs!”


#14

Anyone know the context/source of the GIF, here?

I enjoy/am repulsed by its creepy rage spasms, and would like to know why they are happening (and to whom).


#15

A beautiful little book describes it perfectly. The Moral Animal, by Robert Wright


#16

Also interesting to watch conservative Catholics’ heads explode over the recent Papal, umm, press release or whatever they call them.


#17

Waiting for the gay divorce parade soon.


#18

Whatever it’s initial intent in it’s involvement, isn’t what it has become more akin to what you describe as what it should be?

Except for (lots) of problems like allowing the question/presence of adultery to enter into divorce granting/settlement proceedings, leaving marriage to religion might have meant leaving divorce to religion too. That would suck balls, because whether by the church or by the state marriage is a civil union that involves property and rights.

The state is essentially straining the religion out of “marriage” over a long period of time, which is what many complain about.

I’m totally cool with that. Laws to demand that people can do what they want, and laws that fairly & justly (not yet, not everywhere) resolve questions of child custody and property disbursement related to the end of a civil union are cool with me.

“Marriage” is something that people have in their own heads, it doesn’t exist elsewhere. It would seem the State is merely forced to use the word to get the concept of equality in civil unions across to people who think what is in their head must be or should be in another’s head.


#19

I don’t get this urge that some people have to make this the hill they’re going to die on. As if people would have taken them seriously and lived according to the standards of their belief system if the decision had gone the other way. As if the fact that their book talks about marriage makes this the final word on the issue. As if this decision affects their own marriages in any way. As if it threatens people’s right to free speech when people act in a way that disagrees with them or are given rights that they don’t think they should have. As if this is the opening shot in an all-out assault on Christianity, and the goal is to destroy marriage from the inside. If people insist on standing in the way and making this about them, they may well be affected by it, but I can’t see why this would need to be the case.


#20

Every community should have a courthouse, right?