You can’t do that – it’s against my religion

[cbayer]

http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2013/05/you-cant-do-that--its-against-my-religion

Posted: Fri, 31 May 2013 13:48 by Margot Fernandez

As the Same-Sex Marriage Bill reaches the House of Lords, Margot Fernandez writes about the American experience of religion trying to dictate the law.



"You can't get married – it's against my religion!"

That's pretty much a summary of the arguments against marriage equality. Now, suppose I were to knock on your door and ask for your birth-control pills or whatever (assuming that you use some kind of birth control)? Would you hand it over to me without questioning? I don't think so; at least I would not have done so when I was in that situation.

There are indeed a few denominations that are opposed to the use of birth control, but even though they exist, they are not going from house to house taking away little packets of pills. But although that may seem like all is as it should be, it leads us to murky waters.

The people who want to take away birth control have discovered that they can get other people to do their work for them. They can organise politically and try to get candidates elected who will, in fact, make efforts to take away access to birth control through enacting legislation.

more at link

[LostOne4Ever]

1. I like the analogy

I like to point out to people who make that argument that is like saying:

You can't eat a doughnut because I am on a diet.

[edhopper]

2. But what if God

tells them that eating a doughnut is a sin?

[hrmjustin]

3. Then he is a vengeful God!

[Phillip McCleod]

8. that's what the bible says god is like.. over and over and over..

..and over and over, etc..

the bible is emphatic on the subject. god is vengeful.

once again, hrmjustin, while i agree with your ethics they are a far far cry from what is written in the book that christians revere.

the god of the bible *IS* in fact a vengeful god.

..

together with your taste for valhalla.. i'm beginning to doubt your dedication to christian doctrine.

[hrmjustin]

10. When I was taugh Christianity it was all about love.

We were not taught the fire and damnation stuff. These were nuns that taught us.

[cbayer]

6. The question would then be whether they are also instructed to save others

from sin or whether the responsibility to avoid the doughnut only applies to them.

[goldent]

15. "But what if God tells them that eating a doughnut is a sin?"

Well, that would be it. I can deal with 10 commandments, but that 11th would be the straw that broke the camels back. I'd stop going to church and spend my free time posting questions to Christians asking why can you drink wine, but not have a doughnut, not expecting the answer I want to hear.

[cbayer]

5. During times when I have tried to quit smoking, I become angry around

smokers and very judgmental. It's one of the things that drives me back to tobacco.

I wonder if that is part of what drives people. They have established or agreed to rules that they don't like and resent anyone who does not abide by these same rules.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

4. Basically, the argument is

"I oppose this, because I believe that it is morally wrong."

I'm not saying that I agree with the argument, but at least you should state it properly.

[el_bryanto]

7. Doesn't quite get you there I'm afraid

That's an arguement for not doing it yourself, not for not permitting other people to do it.

It's a stronger case to make about abortion, where some pro-life people believe that Abortion really is murder - and if you believed it was Murder you'd have to oppose it as well.

But Gay Marriage? How does allowing gay marriage harm a religious person?

[Phillip McCleod]

9. +1 nailed it. \n

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

13. They see it as condoning sin

Let me restate that I am merely playing Devil's Advocate here. I do not support this argument.

[el_bryanto]

14. I understand that -

But the way you know that this argument is in part Bullshit is to ask what legal sanctions they favor against fornication - if they want to see people who have sex outside of marriage punished - if their answer is "It isn't the same thing" or any other weasel you know they are full of shit.

Bryant

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

16. Oh, I agree completely

Reminds me of the old story about the elderly lady listening to a sermon. The preacher is
condemning all sorts of behaviors as sinful. "If you want to be right with God, you are going to have stop running around with women!" The old lady cries, "Amen!" "You are going to have give up that demon whiskey!" "Amen!" "And you are going to have to give up dipping snuff." The little old lady stands up and says, "Well,
Preacher, now you've done it. You've quit preaching and started meddling."

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Not really; there are a lot of people saying "I have nothing against gay people ...

... but allowing them to call themselves 'married' would attack the institution of marriage". They are not arguing that a gay relationship is morally wrong, or that gay sex is morally wrong; they sometimes say "civil unions are OK, but they mustn't be given marriage".

Examples:

Sir Roger Gale, a Conservative, said he chaired the standing committee dealing with the civil partnerships bill. He said marriage was a union between a man and a woman.

It is not possible to redefine marriage. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman, has been historically, remains so. It is Alice in Wonderland territory, Orwellian almost, for any government of any political persuasion to seek to come along and try to re-write the lexicon. It will not do.

...
Craig Whittaker, a Conservative, said it would be better for the government to create a new category of marriage called state marriage. That could replace civil partnerships, and it would allow gay people to be married without undermining religious marriage.
...
Graham Brady, the chairman of the Conservative backbench 1922 committee, said that he would be voting against the bill. He was in favour of civil partnerships and lowering the age of consent, he said. Those measures were about protecting gay people from inequality. But this bill will not do that, he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/feb/05/gay-marriage-debate-politics-live-blog

Or see the speech by Edward Leigh here, in which he says he was assured that things would stop at civil partnerships, and quotes the Roman Catholic catechism for 'the' definition of marriage.

Or take the Church of England: it opposes the same sex marriage bill, but is now OK with services to bless a civil partnership. There are many who say that it's not a moral question; it's just that they don't want gay people joining them in being able to be married, because they take their definition of marriage from their existing religious one.

[Deep13]

11. One of those few denominations is Roman Catholicism. nt