Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Gay Marriage and the Crypto-Christian

I'll have more to say a bit later, but for now...

Y'ever run into that particular sort of self-proclaimed Christian who is totally against gay marriage you guys, but they just happen to think it should nevertheless be legal?

In fact, they are ADAMANT it should be legal, willing to argue acrimoniously for days upon days about why it is of the utmost importance to legalize it and reject the legitimacy of any and all arguments against that?

Now and then they'll drop, as an aside, 'Well I'm against it for religious reasons, I am *totally* against it being in the church', but they seem suspiciously unwilling to talk about that in much detail. In fact, it almost seems as if their mention of their opposition to gay marriage in any way largely shows up purely so they can purchase a bit of credibility among their 'fellow Christians'.

Add in a history of out and out deceiving people about their opposition to even legal gay marriage - arguing that it should be dropped for now, and revisited in a hundred years because 'Souls are at stake! We're turning people off with this fight!', before it coming out that actually they support gay marriage being legal, full stop - and really, what you have is someone who you'd be delusional not to regard as a middle-of-the-road, all-too-common bullshitter.

I say this because I think some Christians don't know what to do when they encounter a dishonest person like this, save for try to catch them in a lie. See if they slip up. And you know what? You'll manage to catch them contradicting themselves, lying, or otherwise. But they'll always offer up an excuse, however poor of one it is. They'll oscillate between unbelievably hurt that you'd ever question their sincerity, and tremendously hostile - whatever seems like it may pick up sympathy at the time.

My advice? Don't be afraid to simply say 'Well, you're full of shit and don't deserve conversation', ignore them, and move on. Cite their lies or their inanity of their stance - which will be obvious to anyone who's actually interested in sincere discussion - and then move on to better conversations, of which there are an endless amount available online, since the internet is the place where nobody stops talking.

Just a bit of friendly advice from a person experienced with these kinds of people.


9 comments:

Syllabus said...

Y'ever run into that particular sort of self-proclaimed Christian who is totally against gay marriage you guys, but they just happen to think it should nevertheless be legal?

I support two adults being able to make a contract concerning, for the most part, whatever the hell they want, and getting it signed off on by whichever Mail-Order Church of the Great Green Arkleseizure or whatever wishes to sanction it - this is (or was, at any rate) a free country. I don't support gay civil marriage because there is no such thing. The government can no more create marriage than it can declare that there are finitely many prime numbers, and the chimera of civil marriage should be dismissed as the phantasm that it is.

As for gay marriage in the Church, that anyone should entertain such a notion seriously, in light of Scripture or tradition, is a ludicrous proposition. That what has until now been my tribe (TECUSA) is disposed now to do so is making me seriously reconsider my membership. A vote of bishops can no more alter the meaning of Scripture or declare its plain meaning false than can 5 lawyers in funny robes or 5 Baptist laymen sitting around a table (though I'd trust the Baptists over the bishops, if we're being frank), and if they think that they can conjure up some rationale to contravene two millennia of unbroken Church teaching by sheer hand-waving and invocation of "love", shorn of any Scriptural or traditional understanding of the term, they are no more fit for the episcopate than they are for the position of Supreme Court justice. Nor are they worthy to tie the shoelaces of the honest Baptist who, though wrong on paedobaptism, recognizes that Scripture, though sometimes obscure, is plain on this point and would sooner cut off his hand than arrogate to himself the authority to change it.

Sorry for the rant; I've had a tiring weekend as regards this issue.

Vand83 said...

Well, ole Chad is still hard at it.

Crude said...

Syllabus,

Sure, contracts are contracts, and if someone wants to make a contract between two women, or six women and a poodle, I won't stand in their way. The sort of person I'm talking about is loathe to make even that distinction. Because, after all, their opposition to 'gay marriage' in any meaningful sense is an act.

I agree otherwise, but I have to ask - what's TECUSA? I can't even google up a result for that.

Crude said...

Well, ole Chad is still hard at it.

No doubt. I didn't bother checking back, because I don't care to stick around for a comment thread that will go to 300+ replies easily, largely with the regular crew noticing 'Gee, Chad, you're full of shit and can't argue to save your life.' and Chad lashing out at how horrible it is that everyone regards him as full of shit and disingenuous, for the high crime of, uh, being completely effing dishonest in the past, and quite obviously caring about precious little other than gay marriage.

GoldRush Apple said...

How do you refute the "shoving your religion down our throats" card? I always find myself in a rock & a hard place when refuting it.

Syllabus said...

Crude,

The sort of person I'm talking about is loathe to make even that distinction.

That category, incidentally, includes Justice Kennedy. That opinion is ~50 pages of utter derp, with maybe 5 pages or so of actual legal analysis (with the caveat that IANAL), and waxes grandiloquent concerning the "true nature of marriage" without ever actually defining the damn term.

I have to ask - what's TECUSA? I can't even google up a result for that.

It's an idiosyncratic acronym for The Episcopal Church in the USA. The bishops just voted to abolish any mention to the sex of the spouses in the marital rite. As of now, whether or not a given parish wants to enact that is, AFAIK, up to that parish. It could very much become the case that canon law will be amended to preclude that option. Thus, my seething.

Crude said...

Syllabus,

That ruling is going to be viewed with embarrassment, hopefully within Kennedy's lifetime. It is, truly, a shitstain of intellectual and judicial 'reasoning'.

And, that sounds hilariously, the TECUSA vote. What a rodenty bunch.

Gold,

How do you refute the "shoving your religion down our throats" card? I always find myself in a rock & a hard place when refuting it.

Why's it difficult? They're demonstrably shoving their religion down everyone's throats, and the idea that 'marriage is between a man and a woman' is a purely religious conclusion is a joke. I can try to help, though, if you give me more specifics. Not that I'm a debate wizard, but I tend to at least be able to call out bullshit when I see it.

Syllabus said...

Well, that didn't take long.

jamesparliament.com said...

Vote Hilary, keep the momentum going!

@Gold

I agree with Crude, and I'll give you a vocabulary word: Worldview.

Go one level more fundamental - explain that your religion represents your worldview, and ask them what their worldview is. Now, why does their worldview have a privileged status in the law, but yours does not?

You'll have to think on your feet from there, but keep the frame of the debate right there.