The Cellar - Who does homosexuality hurt?

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Philosophy (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=25)

- - Who does homosexuality hurt? (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=18879)

We've asked my brother and his wife to be Godparents to our baby. None of us go to church, but the baby will be baptised anyway.

It's about the tradition for me. It's about Dazza's mother for him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 513642)

Nice post. I hope I can remain that supportive.

I'm pretty sure you'll be able to manage it. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pie (Post 513650)

No, it wouldn't. I go to church with my in-laws, and they know I am an atheist. I go in respect of their beliefs, in family solidarity, and to be polite. Frankly, I'd feel like a worm if I didn't go! Give it a try -- you may end up feeling virtuous to have made your parents feel good.

Of course, YMMV.

I agree that it doesn't make you a hypocrite. My grandpa was a Methodist pastor, my aunt is a Methodist pastor, so I do have a pretty heavy religious influence in my family and I don't want to spend the once a year get together to revolve on my refusal to go to church for an hour and a half.

Its about respect for my family and not wanting to cause pointless drama. Not anything about religion itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 513688)

What role are you upholding as the Godfather? It seems very odd to me that you would be chosen to have that responsibility based upon your beliefs, or lack thereof.

The only serious point is to act as a back-up parent in case of the deaths of both of the natural parents. Of course there are also b-day and x-mas pressies and such like, but she'd get that anyway being my niece. They certainly wouldn't be expecting me to give her any religious instruction! There is also something about puppets and violin cases but that comes later, I'm told.

Now They Want to Overturn the Ones That Were Legal

This is complete bullshit. And note that famous witch hunter Ken Starr is the mouthpiece.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081220/...age_lawsuits_1

Quote:

SAN FRANCISCO – The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions.

The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief arguing that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions. The document reveals for the first time that opponents of same-sex marriage will fight in court to undo those unions that already exist.

"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Kenneth Starr, dean of Pepperdine University's law school and the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.

The campaign submitted the document in response to three lawsuits seeking to invalidate Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment adopted last month that overruled the court's decision in May that had legalized gay marriage in the nation's most populous state.

Both Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose office is scheduled to submit its own brief to the court Friday, and gay rights groups maintain that the gay marriage ban may not be applied retroactively.

The Supreme Court could hear arguments in the litigation as soon as March. The measure's backers announced Friday that Starr, a former federal judge and U.S. solicitor general, had signed on as their lead counsel and would argue the cases.

Proposition 8's supporters assert that the Supreme Court lacks the authority or historical precedent to throw out the amendment.

"For this court to rule otherwise would be to tear asunder a lavish body of jurisprudence," the court papers state. "That body of decisional law commands judges — as servants of the people — to bow to the will of those whom they serve — even if the substantive result of what people have wrought in constitution-amending is deemed unenlightened."

Why do they want to hurt the homosexuals? What benefits can the anti-gays really get from this? Are they just that big of bigots, that despite a lack of tangible benefits, they have to keep hurting others?