"Gay Marriage = Religious Freedom"

Comments

1
Well, Loveschild?
2
Maybe if the bigots don't have to read anything, they'll change their minds.

Oh, probably not.
3
Too bad he uses the terms that the Radical Religious Extremists use; It only undermines the fight for Civil Rights.
4
Brilliant! This should be required viewing for anyone interested in combating the fear.
5
Mr. Tisinai's points are valid, and any person who isn't letting fear rule them should be willing to consider them. But, do they have the courage to consider the positions and arguments of others?
6
Mr Tisinai must have seen a different NOM ad.

In the one that Slog posted it states
"some who advocate for same sex marriage have taken the issue far beyond same sex couples..."

It never says that the examples cited are a result of same sex marriage, but that some people advocating for same sex marriage also advocate for other positions such as the four examples that follow.

Mr Tisinai proves the NOM ad correct, as he point by point admits that all the cited incidents occured, but refutes the straw man argument that same sex marriage is not responsible for them.
NOM never said it was.
For a week slogers have been gleefully pointing out to each other that gay marriage laws will not force the incidents cited in the ad.
NOM never said it would.

But the incidents did occur, as Mr Tisinai verifies.
And that is the goal of many people who advocate for gay marriage, as Me Tisinai and slog commenters have repeatedly said.
Which is exactly what the NOM ad claims.
"some who advocate for same sex marriage have taken the issue far beyond same sex couples..."

Do Mr Tisinai and Slog have English comprehension problems?
Or are they misrepresenting what the NOM ad states then gleefully tearing down the non-existant positions?
Why, that would be HYPOCRACY!

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
7
Bravo! :)

It's always easier to defend a right when it's YOUR rights at stake. Much harder when it's about other people. I'm so glad that this video reminds people that it's about ALL our rights. That the whole POINT is that no one should get either preferential treatment OR be discriminated against. What applies to one person should apply to everyone. Anything else is hypocrisy.
8
@6 Why in the hell would they call themselves the "National Organization for Marriage" and then put out an ad that has absolutely nothing to do with marriage? If they called themselves "National Organization That Thinks The Gays Have Gone Too Far", that's one thing. But it's perfectly reasonable to infer that any ad put out by an organization whose stated goal is to oppose gay marriage would be intended to undermine support for gay marriage.
9
Short, simple, factual and eloquent...but completely lost on the closed, conservative minds of fundamentalists.

A word fitly spoken is of little use to those more accustomed to a fit of words. In the catacombs of their minds where once there was only silence you can hear the unending echoes of their AM radio winding its way from the ears through the great, empty chamber that lies between them and out the mouth.
10
What "point-by-point analysis of the avalanche of falsehoods that is the National Organization for Marriage's "Gathering Storm" ad"?

Tisinai admits that all four cases raised in the ad occured.

In fact his piece is more convincing that the NOM ad. I hope it gets lots of play.

What is even one 'falsehood' that he refutes?
11
@6 Do you have watching comprehension skills? HE ISN'T REPLYING TO "NOM"! He is replying to an article in the Christian Examiner, which is...wait for it...talking about the effects of gay marriage. Thanks for your FAIL. Try again.

P.S. David should probably note this too :P
12
@10

Example "A" will, hereafter, be known as "Sarah."

(see previous comment for details.)

13
@10
"What is even one 'falsehood' that he refutes?"
Ummm... how about that none of the incidents mentioned in the Christian Examiner online article have anything to do with gay marriage? Try watching it again with the volume turned up this time.
14
Hmm... is it a sick day for all the usual anti-gay crowd? Only one showed up in the face of facts. They'll beat you up with the bible, but a few well supported facts and they run away with tail between legs. Oh, oops, sorry about the tail crack -- I know you guys didn't evolve.
15
11
Why?
Because it says-
"A point-by-point analysis of the avalanche of falsehoods that is the National Organization for Marriage's "Gathering Storm" ad"?
16
@15: Fine, how about Schmader adds "the basis of" between "is" and "the" in that sentence.

There, now it's correct.

Yes, please attack the syntax not the meaning, that'll convince us.
17
So some religions want to marry gays and now we have to change the definition of marriage to suit them?
Separation of Church and State FAIL
18
He is really cute. And smart, too! A catch.
19
@17 - So many more religions don't want to marry gays and now we have to change our constitutions to suit them?
Separation of Church and State FAIL
20

Where is the concern for the religious freedom of congregations who choose to welcome all believers? Many churches are glad to celebrate the lives and loves of their gay and lesbian members, and to offer equal access to ritual and celebration, only they are constrained by law to using words other than "marriage."

I'm not just talking the Metropolitan Community Church, or the Unitarians, or the Society of Friends (the Quakers), or the United Church of Christ.... the list is growing long. The Anglican community is enduring schism, and nearly every mainstream protestant denomination is struggling with the issue. Which means that it is really not hard for people who are both Christian and gay to find a congregation that will welcome us, as we are. My Lutheran pastor would be happy to "union" my partner and me, but she can not sign a marriage license that we can not get.

Interesting juxtaposition of the Linux "Truth Happens" spot with this. Gay Christians have been ignored, and mocked, and fought; but we will win. With the help Lord who loves us all, we will win.

21
I'm with you Lewis. I both admire and am encouraged by your faith.
22
@20:

"they are constrained by law to using words other than "marriage.""

Really? Do you really think that The Man is gonna send the cops if a couple gay folks get somebody to marry them in a church?

I see your point (and I agree with it!) but you're not doing yourself any rhetorical favors by saying ridiculous things.
23
Um, 17, you're mixing up two separate issues here. There is the battle for legal recognition for gay marriage, and there is the issue of the government dictating to churches who they can and cannot marry. It's quite clearly explained. Did you really not get that?