• baru@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Ah, so you can exclude gays. And that means:

      Republicans don’t by default have anything against gays.

      Because hey, every time they do everything against gays there’s an excuse! There’s been loads and loads of excuses over the years, but hey, they really don’t have anything against gays!

      Jeez, done critical thinking would be good.

    • ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      And I see modern “Christians” as deplorable but that doesn’t mean I get to strip them of all their rights.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      And they are wrong because this is America, not a Christian theocracy.

      I’m not a Christian. I’m Jewish and an atheist. My wife is also an atheist. We’re married. By your excuse for Republicans, we aren’t.

      • ichbinjasokreativ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        6 months ago

        I don’t see how that makes sense, unless you’re also a woman. And even then, I really like ben shapiro’s approach of ‘it’s not the governments business to decide who gets to marry who’.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Because we did not get married based on any Christian tradition.

          Neither does anyone else.

          Marriage is a civil ceremony and America is a secular nation.

        • can@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Because they see ‘marriage’ as a christian description of matrimony between man and woman

          I guess it depends on if it’s described as christian matrimony between man and woman

      • ichbinjasokreativ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        6 months ago

        I was on their side when the debates around it reached their peak, but I don’t misunderstand homosexuality as unnatural or gays as mentally ill. In my mind it was about semantics, but I’ve since realized how that could be perceived as homophobic.

        • TurboWafflz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Unless you were advocating for a legally equivalent alternative to marriage just with a different name for people who do not fit your incredibly narrow requirements for marriage, how exactly can you claim you weren’t trying to discriminate against people?

        • can@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          6 months ago

          Character growth, good. For the future telling people they don’t get to have legal rights because of your book is discrimination and the problem.

    • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Then they should demand that the state gets the fuck out of any marriage business. Unless they don’t believe in the separation of church and state, that is.