Rush Limbaugh concedes conservatives 'lost' marriage debate - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40106461]Whether or not Christians or any particular sect of them are correct in their religious beliefs, the fact of the matter is we live in a secular nation and civil equality comes before religious beliefs of any church, temple or mosque. Unless an angel of God comes down and says, "Don't do this", then I have no issue with gay marriage/civil union. Listening to NPR, who broadcasted a lot of interviews on the rightwing side of the issue, most don't care about gays getting together - they just want the word "marriage" off and put "civil union" in their place. To me, that's the pettiest argument in the world and only complains about semantics. Marriage or civil union, whatever the name is it's essentially the same - especially when the law gives equal benefits to both. As for the minority of those rightwingers who go further and say marriage is to build a structured family fit for procreation - I hope they get a divorce after their 50s, because they can no longer procreate, so why should they get the tax benefits for such (under their own definition)? I should note - I'm a Christian and I have absolutely no issue with gay marriage.[/QUOTE] As for your point, I'm only playing the devil's advocate for the first type of christian who have the word attached to their belief. Yes, it's petty, but it's their belief. As for the second type, who are just against homosexuality in general yeah they need to remove their heads from their asses. Onxe again I'm just stating their reasons. I don't endorse or support them in any way so I don't know why anyone would tell me to fuck off. [editline]31st March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;40106526]Why do we have to level with people who say that gays shouldn't marry? I know their viewpoint but their viewpoint is useless.[/QUOTE] If you said "I don't know their viewpoint and theit viewpoint is useless" that just reeks of bigotry and ignorance. That's my point.

[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzar;40106551]As for your point, I'm only playing the devil's advocate for the first type of christian who have the word attached to their belief. Yes, it's petty, but it's their belief. As for the second type, who are just against homosexuality in general yeah they need to remove their heads from their asses. Onxe again I'm just stating their reasons. I don't endorse or support them in any way so I don't know why anyone would tell me to fuck off.[/QUOTE] Stop playing devil's advocate, and actually support the side you believe in. [editline]31st March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Nebukadnezzar;40106551]If you said "I don't know their viewpoint and theit viewpoint is useless" that just reeks of bigotry and ignorance. That's my point.[/QUOTE] I know it, so we have no problems here! The US has no official religion, so religion should have no part at all in politics. The fact that gay marriage even needs to be debated is disgusting.

[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzar;40106551]As for your point, I'm only playing the devil's advocate for the first type of christian who have the word attached to their belief. Yes, it's petty, but it's their belief. As for the second type, who are just against homosexuality in general yeah they need to remove their heads from their asses. Onxe again I'm just stating their reasons. I don't endorse or support them in any way so I don't know why anyone would tell me to fuck off. [editline]31st March 2013[/editline] If you said "I don't know their viewpoint and theit viewpoint is useless" that just reeks of bigotry and ignorance. That's my point.[/QUOTE] You shouldn't deny some poor bastards right to marry their significant other because some wanker believes that they shouldn't be allowed to. We all know their view point, we thoroughly don't give a fuck.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40106495]Just to be clear - you're ashamed because of Limbaugh associating with your side, or because of gay marriage?[/QUOTE] I am ashamed of Limbaugh. I support gay marriage entirely. My brother is gay, also.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40106461] Unless an angel of God comes down and says, "Don't do this", then I have no issue with gay marriage/civil union.[/QUOTE] If that happened I'd still be supportive of it If you didn't want me disagreeing with you, you shouldn't have given me free will God

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;40106538]Except we're not, because we're not the ones trying to stop a group of people achieving what should be a basic right that should have been given to them decades ago.[/QUOTE] And they'll turn around and say your viewpoint is worthless because they're not the ones trying to redefine marriage to fit the whims of a bunch of hedonists. Why do they need to learn what your viewpoint is, when clearly you're wrong? See? I can turn any viewpoint into an indefensible position to justify willful ignorance from the other side. It's all a matter of perspective. If you are so utterly convinced of your viewpoint that you can say with a straight face 'Yeah, well I don't NEED to understand their viewpoint because they're WRONG!' you've already given up all pretense of moral superiority in the debate.

[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzar;40106551]As for your point, I'm only playing the devil's advocate for the first type of christian who have the word attached to their belief. Yes, it's petty, but it's their belief. As for the second type, who are just against homosexuality in general yeah they need to remove their heads from their asses. Onxe again I'm just stating their reasons. I don't endorse or support them in any way so I don't know why anyone would tell me to fuck off. [editline]31st March 2013[/editline] If you said "I don't know their viewpoint and theit viewpoint is useless" that just reeks of bigotry and ignorance. That's my point.[/QUOTE] You don't have to play devil's advocate. We understand perfectly their reasoning and we perfectly disagree with it. We're not ignorant or bigoted toward them just because.

if people actually read the bible instead of believing what people saw, they'd realize that they only mention marriage man + woman in one single tiny line that's quite insignificant. if we listened to everything the old testament told, we'd be sacrificing lambs and shit. I am catholic and I think our beliefs on marriage is stupid. No matter what your belief is, you have the right to love whomever you want.

[QUOTE=redBadger;40107104]if people actually read the bible instead of believing what people saw, they'd realize that they only mention marriage man + woman in one single tiny line that's quite insignificant. if we listened to everything the old testament told, we'd be sacrificing lambs and shit. I am catholic and I think our beliefs on marriage is stupid. No matter what your belief is, you have the right to love whomever you want.[/QUOTE] if we listened to everything in our scientific textbooks, the world would be fucked up if we listened to every law, the world would be fucked up seriously how does that argument pass. "Yep, my holy book sure is stupid a lot of the time and you shouldn't listen to everything it says" should you really have as much stock in your holy scripture as you do in your alzheimer's afflicted racist uncle

The Catholic Church lost the power to dictate what marriage is once the state started attaching benefits to married status and the Church was perfectly okay with it IMO. Once that happened, it became a state issue as much as anything else and thus should be presented equally. If the Catholic Church had opposed any such benefits and kept marriage securely within their own domain, maybe they'd have a leg to stand on in this debate. But they didn't, so they don't.

[QUOTE=redBadger;40107104]if people actually read the bible instead of believing what people saw, they'd realize that they only mention marriage man + woman in one single tiny line that's quite insignificant. if we listened to everything the old testament told, we'd be sacrificing lambs and shit. I am catholic and I think our beliefs on marriage is stupid. No matter what your belief is, you have the right to love whomever you want.[/QUOTE] Huh is Romans 1 old testament I could have sworn it wasn't...

Ideally, Christians really ought to hold themselves to the Gospels and nothing more in the Bible. Especially the Old Testament which was attached to it for political reasons.

[QUOTE]“Marriage is one thing, and it was not established on the basis of discrimination,” he continued. “It wasn't established on the basis of denying people anything. [B]‘Marriage’ is not a tradition that a bunch of people concocted to be mean to other people with. But we allowed the left to have people believe that it was structured that way. [/B]“[/QUOTE] except the left isn't saying that at all. The left is saying exactly that it shouldn't be that way. Besides, if it wasn't made to exclude gays, then why can't gays marry? and to be honest, the right makes it sure as fuck seem like it. [QUOTE=Nebukadnezzar;40106339]God you guys are so left it's sad. You bandwagon so hard you can't consider other viewpoints. Think for yourselves sometimes. I understand his point here even if I don't like him. [B]Christians define marriage in a way we don't. For them it's defined as between a man and a woman. It's a religious thing. Not a political thing. [/B]They don't want the word 'marriage' attached to something counter to their beliefs. Completely understandable. The problem is marriage is simultaneously a social process/event that has gotten meaning apart from the christians'. We WANT this pop culture version of marriage while they DON'T want their religion to be changed. They truly think they are the victims. It's analogous to asking for an atheist christmas or gay passover. They don't, and shouldn't, happen in the views of the religious party. Now does this mean I don't support gay marriage? Hell no, but take 2 seconds to consider other people's opinions. No doubt people will misinterpret this and rate me dumb, but that will really just reinforce the point for thr people who get what I'm saying.[/QUOTE] I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you but Christians do not 'own' marriage. Marriage is a concept no one ones. Wolves, in a way, marry, people long before religion married. Marriage is a natural concept, it is simply the bonding of two lovers/mates.

[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzar;40106507]Stop acting like I'm an idiot. I agree and support gay marriage and I even said that in my post but you still can't blindly support something without understanding the viewpoints of the opposing party enough to say, "Yes, I see, but I STILL think you're wrong." If we don't we're just as bad as they are.[/QUOTE] Yeah but dude most people understand their viewpoint, that it goes against their religious views. The problem is we live in a secular society where religious law (ostensibly) doesn't exist. Laws are made to be fair and reasonable, and there is no fairness or reason in forbidding two consenting adults from enjoying the material and emotional joys of marriage. Christians can get mad that it doesn't subscribe to their views, so can Jews and Muslims. Marriage as a monogamous bonding between two people pre-dates almost all major religions anyway.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;40107271]The Catholic Church lost the power to dictate what marriage is once the state started attaching benefits to married status and the Church was perfectly okay with it IMO. Once that happened, it became a state issue as much as anything else and thus should be presented equally. If the Catholic Church had opposed any such benefits and kept marriage securely within their own domain, maybe they'd have a leg to stand on in this debate. But they didn't, so they don't.[/QUOTE] There are some pretty significant financial and tax advantages to being married. Keeping those advantages away from one group because of who they are, and what your Holy Book "says" about the group is bullshit and has no business here. Our elected officials waste a whole lot of time on their morality causes, instead of actually trying to do something productive. Great avatar btw.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40107297]Ideally, Christians really ought to hold themselves to the Gospels and nothing more in the Bible. Especially the Old Testament which was attached to it for political reasons.[/QUOTE] I don't mean to steer this thread into a tangent but I have to point out something that really bugs me that I've been seeing everywhere. I never liked this notion that a belief in only the New Testament is universal. A lot of those who have read and studied the Bible noted the verse in Matthew 5:17, which reads "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Many interpret this as meaning Jesus' sacrifice did not destroy the laws in the Old Testament, but that he fulfilled the law by obeying it with divine perfection. [editline]31st March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;40107278]Huh is Romans 1 old testament I could have sworn it wasn't...[/QUOTE] Romans is part of the New Testament.

[QUOTE=elevate;40107428]I don't mean to steer this thread into a tangent but I have to point out something that really bugs me that I've been seeing everywhere. I never liked this notion that a belief in only the New Testament is universal. A lot of those who have read and studied the Bible noted the verse in Matthew 5:17, which reads "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Many interpret this as meaning Jesus' sacrifice will not destroy the laws in the Old Testament, but he will fulfill the law by obeying it with divine perfection.[/QUOTE] The way I saw it, and was explained to me by others is, Jesus said "do this, not that. This is what you're suppose to do," then goes on to say "I'm fulfilling the law." By that, I got that Jesus was explaining a reinterpretation of the laws - basically saying, go by the spirit of it, not the letter.

[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzar;40106339]God you guys are so left it's sad. You bandwagon so hard you can't consider other viewpoints. Think for yourselves sometimes. I understand his point here even if I don't like him. Christians define marriage in a way we don't. For them it's defined as between a man and a woman. It's a religious thing. Not a political thing. They don't want the word 'marriage' attached to something counter to their beliefs. Completely understandable. The problem is marriage is simultaneously a social process/event that has gotten meaning apart from the christians'. We WANT this pop culture version of marriage while they DON'T want their religion to be changed. They truly think they are the victims. It's analogous to asking for an atheist christmas or gay passover. They don't, and shouldn't, happen in the views of the religious party. Now does this mean I don't support gay marriage? Hell no, but take 2 seconds to consider other people's opinions. No doubt people will misinterpret this and rate me dumb, but that will really just reinforce the point for thr people who get what I'm saying.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't it be easier for you to advocate civil unions instead of patronizing the majority of users?

[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;40107468]Wouldn't it be easier for you to advocate civil unions instead of patronizing the majority of users?[/QUOTE] Or we could just call it marriage and end this ridiculous farce.

There are a lot of Christians who don't think that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they don't want gays to be together, but rather that the term marriage has a religious context in the US that is separate from the legal functions of a civil union. They may not have invented the term marriage but it's still a viewpoint I can understand, the problem is that a civil marriage has legal rights and protections that a civil union does not. If the legal aspect of civil marriage were rolled into civil unions, then people would be free to call the actual ceremony whatever the hell they want, and the only people still in opposition would be the diehard morons who can't deal with homosexuality at all. It's better than saying my way or the highway and alienating people who would otherwise agree.

One of my favourite authors did a really good video on "traditional marriage". [video=youtube;uQw0eLzfGNI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQw0eLzfGNI[/video]

[QUOTE=catbarf;40107049]And they'll turn around and say your viewpoint is worthless because they're not the ones trying to redefine marriage to fit the whims of a bunch of hedonists. Why do they need to learn what your viewpoint is, when clearly you're wrong? See? I can turn any viewpoint into an indefensible position to justify willful ignorance from the other side. It's all a matter of perspective. If you are so utterly convinced of your viewpoint that you can say with a straight face 'Yeah, well I don't NEED to understand their viewpoint because they're WRONG!' you've already given up all pretense of moral superiority in the debate.[/QUOTE] You see the problem is, I have the moral high ground and can hold it quite easily, I'm not the one who's trying to stop two folk getting married because I think two guys dicking each other is icky. I don't need moral superiority, I just need them to be wrong, and they are.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40107467]The way I saw it, and was explained to me by others is, Jesus said "do this, not that. This is what you're suppose to do," then goes on to say "I'm fulfilling the law."[/QUOTE] So....Jesus was the Judge Dredd of his time?

they lost because they treated it like a game

[QUOTE=J!NX;40107342][QUOTE]“Marriage is one thing, and it was not established on the basis of discrimination,” he continued. “It wasn't established on the basis of denying people anything. ‘Marriage’ is not a tradition that a bunch of people concocted to be mean to other people with. But we allowed the left to have people believe that it was structured that way. “[/QUOTE] except the left isn't saying that at all. The left is saying exactly that it shouldn't be that way.[/QUOTE] I find it kinda funny. It seems Limbaugh is projecting what his own side is actually doing onto the other side because they're losing the argument. I've known a number of people who do just that when losing arguments. It's like they can't keep their own views separated from others at a subconscious level. [QUOTE=catbarf;40107489]There are a lot of Christians who don't think that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they don't want gays to be together, but rather that the term marriage has a religious context in the US that is separate from the legal functions of a civil union. They may not have invented the term marriage but it's still a viewpoint I can understand, the problem is that a civil marriage has legal rights and protections that a civil union does not. If the legal aspect of civil marriage were rolled into civil unions, then people would be free to call the actual ceremony whatever the hell they want, and the only people still in opposition would be the diehard morons who can't deal with homosexuality at all. It's better than saying my way or the highway and alienating people who would otherwise agree.[/QUOTE] How about getting rid of marriage altogether as a legal institution then just creating civil unions for all regardless of sex/race/religion and giving them the same benefits as we would have done for marriage. Then religious folks can stop shitting all over others for being different than their beliefs allow for and people wanting gay marriage can have the same thing without it having to be a separate institution.

[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzar;40106507]Stop acting like I'm an idiot. I agree and support gay marriage and I even said that in my post but you still can't blindly support something without understanding the viewpoints of the opposing party enough to say, "Yes, I see, but I STILL think you're wrong." If we don't we're just as bad as they are.[/QUOTE] What if you understand the other side of the argument and they are wrong why would you respect that? not everyone gets to be right, so i find it really stupid that we have to act like everyone is [editline]31st March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;40107489]There are a lot of Christians who don't think that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they don't want gays to be together, but rather that the term marriage has a religious context in the US that is separate from the legal functions of a civil union. They may not have invented the term marriage but it's still a viewpoint I can understand, the problem is that a civil marriage has legal rights and protections that a civil union does not. If the legal aspect of civil marriage were rolled into civil unions, then people would be free to call the actual ceremony whatever the hell they want, and the only people still in opposition would be the diehard morons who can't deal with homosexuality at all. It's better than saying my way or the highway and alienating people who would otherwise agree.[/QUOTE] you don't need to do anything but breath to have moral superiority over people who want to stop people who love each other from that very thing.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40108208] you don't need to do anything but breath to have moral superiority over people who want to stop people who love each other from that very thing.[/QUOTE] Personally I'd say a homophobe has moral superiority over like Charles Manson or something and he breathed so.

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;40107597]You see the problem is, I have the moral high ground and can hold it quite easily, I'm not the one who's trying to stop two folk getting married because I think two guys dicking each other is icky. I don't need moral superiority, I just need them to be wrong, and they are.[/QUOTE] And a diehard fundamentalist could just as easily say: 'You see the problem is, I have the moral high ground and can hold it quite easily, I'm not the one who's trying to attack religion because I want to pander to the whims of Devil-worshipping hedonists. I don't need moral superiority, I just need them to be wrong, and they are.' Look how easy it is to just claim you're right instead of actually arguing. Just saying NO UR WRONG END OF STORY will never win the debate, whether you're right or not. People don't stop holding unreasonable viewpoints because you tell them they're wrong and act condescendingly righteous about it and don't even try to argue. You will no more convince anyone with your non-argument than they will convince anyone with the analogy I presented above.

[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzar;40106339]God you guys are so left it's sad. You bandwagon so hard you can't consider other viewpoints. Think for yourselves sometimes. I understand his point here even if I don't like him. Christians define marriage in a way we don't. For them it's defined as between a man and a woman. It's a religious thing. Not a political thing. They don't want the word 'marriage' attached to something counter to their beliefs. Completely understandable. The problem is marriage is simultaneously a social process/event that has gotten meaning apart from the christians'. We WANT this pop culture version of marriage while they DON'T want their religion to be changed. They truly think they are the victims. It's analogous to asking for an atheist christmas or gay passover. They don't, and shouldn't, happen in the views of the religious party. Now does this mean I don't support gay marriage? Hell no, but take 2 seconds to consider other people's opinions. No doubt people will misinterpret this and rate me dumb, but that will really just reinforce the point for thr people who get what I'm saying.[/QUOTE] if my point was that blacks and whites shouldn't interracial marriage because of my beliefs, would you consider my viewpoint? exactly, we already listened to the opposite's side opinion and deemed it completely shit

[QUOTE=catbarf;40108981] Look how easy it is to just claim you're right instead of actually arguing. Just saying NO UR WRONG END OF STORY will never win the debate, whether you're right or not.[/QUOTE] The debates already won.