same sex marriages

[HokeyReligions]

Originally posted by Callisto

Because the politicians serve in our public interests. An elected official cannot make comments like that. You know this.

So why then is the majority politician that makes a remark about a minority group of people (gay, female, etc.) punished and the minority politician who makes a remark about the majority (white, men, etc.) not punished? That is what I'm trying to say. Lets put it in a different context. A female politican makes a sweeping remark about men and remote controls. People laugh. It's funny. Its history and forgotton. A man makes a sweeping remark about women not being able to pass a shoe store without stopping. People laugh. It's funny. There's a lawsuit or a demand for a public apology. It's in the news. Then it dies down. The man has that stigma attached. Depending on the remark he might lose his job, or lose votes if he's a public official. The double standard is there - even in politics.

 

I hate to say it, but it is just like saying, "women are sinners", "asians can't drive", "Mexicans are lazy", and "Caucasions can't dance"....stating "homosexuality is "wrong" or a "sin is an unfair stereotype. Telling this to your children promotes intolerance. Men who are paranoid that a homosexual wants to jump their bones are just as bad as the people who believe that if a black man carries a boombox he must have stolen it.

 

There is a BIG distinction in what you wrote. "drive", "lazy", etc. have no religious connotations. "sinner" does. If an organized religion tells its "flock" that homosexuality is a sin and that God will punish this sin by eternity in hell (whether we believe it or not doesn't matter -- the "flock" believes it) then instructing their children to believe it is fine - we raise our children in the way we believe is best for them. If that religion teaches the homosexuals should be shunned, and not hired for jobs, or given medical treatment, etc. (all civil actions) then its crossing the line between religion and government and that is intollerance.

 

The religions that I am somewhat familiar with that do believe that homosexuality is a sin and that those who practice this sin will spend eternity in hell, also teach that homosexuals are equal to anyone else. The teach that ALL of their recognized sins are punishable the same way unless they are redeemed by their GOD, not their government. They also teach that we are all sinners and that no one has the power to absolve another sinner or make any guarantees about eternity.

 

The question of religion-based acceptance of gay marriage has no answer -- there are too many religions and practices and beliefs. Church laws do not dictate government laws.

 

A civil marriage - one accepted by the government as a legal and binding contract between two people, subject to the same laws, restrictions, penalties, and perks has nothing to do with religion. Those laws can be defined and enforced by a government - not by a God.

 

I don't know why you threw in the comment about "men who are paranoid..." but I don't see it as 'bad' or 'good'. They are not well informed, or act out of fear. We are not talking about individual prejudices here - but about government recognized marriages between homosexual couples.

[Callisto]

Originally posted by HokeyReligions

 

So why then is the majority politician that makes a remark about a minority group of people (gay, female, etc.) punished and the minority politician who makes a remark about the majority (white, men, etc.) not punished?

 

I understand what you are saying, I really do. My dad is a white caucasion male in a position of power at his job. Things are extremly hard for him. Many comments his employees make towards him are socially acceptable, but he would never be allowed to make those comments towards them. Also I am a petite asian girl who is seeing a muscular Mexican man. I could hit him, yet charge him of hitting me and who are they going to believe?

 

I think in this case, though, just because people have a different opionion about same-sex marriages doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. I don't think that if a person thinks that homosexuality is wrong they should keep it to themselves. And BEFORE YOU SAY :Oh but it's okay for the person who thinks that homosexuality is a good thing to speak THEIR opionion? I want to say that I think that if you think that A 60 year old man marrying a 20 women year old is wrong keep it to yourself. If you think your 20 year old neighbors are wrong for moving into together before marriage is wrong keep it to yourself. If you think Anita is not raising her child right, keep it to yourself. Live and let live.

 

If you have a different view of how someone is living their lives, deal with it. It's none of your business if no one is getting hurt.

 

 

There is a BIG distinction in what you wrote. "drive", "lazy", etc. have no religious connotations. "sinner" does.

 

It doesn't matter if the negative words are religious or not. It still sterotyping. I agree that religious stereotypes are probably more dangerous, but anyone can pick up a gun and start shooting people who are living lives they do not agree with, religious or not.

 

The question of religion-based acceptance of gay marriage has no answer -- there are too many religions and practices and beliefs. Church laws do not dictate government laws.

 

No, but they do sometimes dictate a persons state of mind. Consider this- A television evangelist tells his people to give him money and they will be saved, it's okay. I go on TV and say give me money and you will be saved, it's not okay. Warping the mond with the false promises of security (it has nothing to do with gay marriages it just makes me mad

 

I don't know why you threw in the comment about "men who are paranoid..." but I don't see it as 'bad' or 'good'.

 

Note-I didn't say all men or most men. I just said men as a general term as in, "some men" or "the men out there who..." But I meant the same thing for women who think other women are going to jump their bones as well.

[BadMan]

Wow!

I am from Mass. USA, and you all know about the JSC decision.

A lot of people around hear think that the gay marriage won't fly.

The govenor of the state is trying to get civil unions separated from marriage so

gay people can have the rights of married people but not really be "MARRIED".

I think thats the answer. I am against gay marriage becasue I think it makes a joke of

the real thing. I am not a homophobe. I have gay friends, but I think that they should not

get the priveledge of marriage. MArriage is for a man and a woman. I think that philosophy will prevail.

At least I hope it does.

 

I should add that there are tons of people that think the JSC overstepped thier bounds on this decision and

feel that they probably will be eventually eliminated from thier positions. This is what they are saying.

I hope its true but I can't be sure.

[midori]

Originally posted by BadMan

I should add that there are tons of people that think the JSC overstepped thier bounds on this decision and

feel that they probably will be eventually eliminated from thier positions. This is what they are saying.

I hope its true but I can't be sure.

 

Funny, I'm in Massachusetts too but I haven't heard anyone calling for the justices to resign. In fact, their ruling was worded vaguely enough that the legislature can comply in a few different ways. There's wiggle room. Romney's compromise might be the way things will go.

 

Also funny, I guess I'm stuck in th middle on this one. On the one hand I disagree with the premise that allowing gay couples to officially "marry" would in any way demean the marriages of heterosexual couples. I just don't see how that's possible; what a gay couple does has absolutely no bearing on what Mr. and Mrs. John Doe do. On the other hand I don't see why the gay rights movement is so adamant that they be granted the right to use the word "marriage."

 

I still think that the larger threat to the institution of marriage is the very high divorce rate. When Sue and John get married, I rather doubt anyone is going to say, "oh marriage is nothing special. I mean look at those two gay guys over there. Even they're married." But how many of us have been met with the news of an impending marriage and wondered (to ourselves at least) how long it will be before the couple in question divorce? Do wedding rings stop unscrupulous heterosexual men and women from coming on to a married person? We see all kinds of stories on this forum that prove that's not the case. How on earth does a gay couple's marriage in any way affect a heterosexual couple's marriage? I just don't see how. It's other trends in our society that threaten marriage. I think people are making a scapegoat of homosexuals.

 

What does it mean, anyway, in secular terms? In secular terms folks -- please don't start in about the sanctity of marriage, because the legislation being discussed only pertains to the non-religious aspects of marriage. NO ONE is suggesting that ANY church or religious organization will have to perform same sex marriage ceremonies or recognize them in any way. Just so we're clear. With that out of the way, what possible difference does it make if it's called a "marriage" or a "civil union"? So long as homosexual couples are afforded the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, what is the difference?

 

Will using the term "marriage" make it more legitimate in the eyes of those who disapprove? As Quankanne and Hokey Religions have rightly pointed out, it won't. On the other hand, will using the term "civil union" when discussing it in official documents and news reports, etc., stop those of us who feel comfortable with same sex partnerings from viewing it as a marriage? No.

 

If I had to choose, I think I'd go along with "civil union." Not because I think that society should kow-tow to the religiously inspired objections of some of its citizens, but because I want to see gay couples able to have the same rights as others sooner rather than later. I'd like to pass it tomorrow. If a bit of semantics is all that's in the way of that coming to pass, I say play along with the semantic game. Who cares?

 

But then there is the uncomfortable fact that we will have allowed our secular government to be influenced by a narrow set of religious beliefs. What precedent does that set?

[Callisto]

How can two people wanting to committ and love each other be making a joke out of "the real thing"? I think men and women have already made a joke of "the real thing" (provided "the real thing" exists). Divorces, abuse, adultery, negligence...

[BadMan]

Originally posted by midori

Funny, I'm in Massachusetts too but I haven't heard anyone calling for the justices to resign. In fact, their ruling was worded vaguely enough that the legislature can comply in a few different ways. There's wiggle room. Romney's compromise might be the way things will go.

 

 

I'm probably not expressing it correctly.

Howie Carr said that when it comes time for re-election, they probably won't get re-elected because

of the way they voted. That is my understanding. I may be wrong.

 

I listen to WRKO 68.0 i think it is.

They are always talking about this which I'm gald for because it's helping me understand the whole issue,

though I have much to learn.

[midori]

Originally posted by BadMan

 

I listen to WRKO 68.0 i think it is.

They are always talking about this which I'm gald for because it's helping me understand the whole issue,

though I have much to learn.

 

Cool. Just to be sure you're getting all the information, you might want to supplement with another news source. Some of WBUR's locally produced shows (like The Connection, Here and Now, or On Point) might be good places to go.

 

I see where you are BadMan. I'm just a mile or so up Mass Ave. from you.

[HokeyReligions]

quote:Originally posted by HokeyReligions

Why does the politician who makes a remark that includes the words "that gay guy is going to go straight to hell" have to make a public apology? The gay politician didn't have to apologize for saying "that straight guy is going straight to hell." (there was a similar thread to this on racism & double standards)

 

oh Hokey, I think Barney Frank would have to apologize if he ever uttered such a remark.

 

Now, if one of the Fab Five on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy proclaimed that one of their blundering students was going to burn in hell for owning pleated-front chinos (which is a cardinal sin, by the way), you're right. I'll bet no one would demand they apologize.

 

Generally speaking: If someone speaks their mind about an issue - gay marriage - those for and against do not accept the other parties view. I don't see a right or wrong here. I don't see one side as being ignorant or bigoted either. If we back it up to women's rights - the right to vote for example - I don't see that the men who were against it were ignorant or sexist. They believed that women should not vote for many, many reasons. There were people then, I'm sure - tho I can't cite specifics, that were in some way persecuted for standing with women. Men may have been ridiculed, lost jobs, thrown out of clubs, etc. because of their belief. It didn't change the fact that women won the right to vote, and I don't see that it will change the fact that someday gay marriages will be acknowledged and accepted as any marriage.

 

In the gay's fight for acceptance, openness, etc. they have been bashed and lost jobs, and not allowed in certain circles. That is still going on. But the tables are turning and instead of growing as a people - we are switching sides and the backlash is hitting straight people. Not everyone, not in all jobs (civil or private sector), but its still there. As a society we are just switching which group gets blasted. It may take 100 years or more before this particular subject levels out, and then history and human nature tells us that there will be other divides in society.

quote:Slapping labels on people is an old psych manipulation technique. Calling someone a "fag" has a whole different connotation than saying "gay" or "homosexual". You get a different mental image or feeling about the person. It's about fostering respect vs. scorn.

 

sorry, but what's your point here? That a politician should be able to express his sincere opinion about a gay man's prospects in the afterlife without having to apologize? One has to wonder why said politician imagines that anyone gives a tinker's damn what he thinks about anyone's prospects in the afterlife (including his own). But yes, do let him speak. Let him speak loud and clear. So that people will see the ugliness behind the facade of pious concern and intelligence.

 

My point here was to address a previous post from someone about labels being a psychologial manipulation tool. It's one that works too. A politician talking about religion in a public forum is not I'm talking about. Certainly everyone, including politicians, have the right to believe and worship in their own way, but not to impose their beliefs as a means of governing.

 

 

quote:If someone expreses their honest belief that homosexuality is "wrong" or is a "sin" and will not accept it as part of their life they are labeled a homo-phobe or some other deragatory label and their belief is disrespected and ridiculed and they are labeled "ignorant."

 

That's right. Because in other people's world view, those who believe that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice" that is "wrong" and a "sin" and will cause people who "choose" it to burn in hell are ignorant. It's as simple as that. One side thinks the other are sinners, or condoners of sin, the other side thinks the former is ignorant and bigoted. And since there are many flavors of bigotry, the more common ones get specific names: racist, anti-Semite, misogynist... and yes, homophobe.

How is that ignorant? Because you don't agree with it? What if they are right? I can accept that possibility. Different "sides" slap those labels on - it doesn't matter the label - they are behaving in the same way. If I don't agree with you does that make me ignorant?

 

quote:Aren't we allowed our beliefs, and allowed to express our beliefs without losing our jobs, being shunned in civic activities, etc.?

 

Are you saying, then, that you would welcome into your social circle the head of your local KKK chapter? Eat out with him? Chat with him in the supermarket? Well of course not -- that's why they wear those hoods! They know that expressing their beliefs publicly would lead to being shunned. Because our society has largely reached the point where racism is universally condemned, at least in public. Does anyone feel any sympathy for the poor, thwarted racists who must now gnash their teeth when they see playgrounds full of black, Latino, Asian and white children playing together? I feel pity for their ignorance, but no pity at all for the fact that they must bite their tongues in almost any public setting.

 

Sure, why not? What if he's a really nice guy? Maybe he works to rescue animals like I do? Maybe he coaches little league. Maybe he gives to his community in a lot of ways. As a volunteer, a mentor, etc. Being a member of any organization doesn't mean that the people in it preach their beliefs in every single aspect of their lives, and shouldn't negate or devalue the contributions that they do make. Isn't that what the gay community is saying too?

 

I doubt if the members of the KKK, or any other group or organization, are completely "bad." Yes, if they express their beliefs they will be shunned. Why? Because most people don't agree with them? Their belief is only one part of them. When gay people first came out in the open in organized groups they were shunned too. People threw things at them, they were hurt, etc. Why shouldn't KKK be allowed the same civil rights? When a black man stood up in his neighborhood and loudly protested a white man running for office in a mostly black district he was not shunned. He had supporters. His reasoning -- how would a white man be able to accurately represent their community? He had a point.

But, if a white man stood up and protested a black man running for office in a mostly white neighborhood, for the same reasons, that man would be labeled a racist and with that label his political career would be damaged, if not destroyed. The news media would be all over him. The same holds true for the gay community and the straight community - although I believe those two sections are more blended than racial communities are right now.

 

I'm white, and I consider myself to be a fairly objective person, and I might be able to do some good for the people in a black or hispanic or asian community when it comes to civil matters - but can I honestly empathize with a person of another race? No. I don't know what it's like to be another race. I don't know what its like to be gay either. I can intellectually see and understand the hurdles, and I know that emotions like love and commitment, etc. are basic human feelings and needs, but I can't "feel" through the same filter. I can tell someone I understand how they feel because of outside environment, circumstances, etc. but I can't tell someone I know how they feel. A slight distinction - but a major gap. I know what strawberry tastes like to me, but I don't know what it tastes like to you

 

If a religious group believes that homosexuality is "wrong" and the homosexual will go to hell are they wrong? No. That is their belief and there is no proof that they are wrong, or right, and their belief doesn't make them ignorant. There is nothing that can support their belief as an absolute.

 

Why shouldn't a gay man be a troup leader in the boy scouts? Are all gay men child molesters? No. There are facts and figures that support it.

 

quote:If we are to tolerate a gay person stating their feelings/beliefs, and do nothing to them - not fire them, not kick them off the team, etc. then shouldn't we be shown the same tolerance?

 

Is this a facetious question? Do gay people typically go around announcing how much they can't STAND straight people (aka "breeders" if we wanted to use a more insulting term on a par with "fag")?

 

What are these "feelings/beliefs" that gay people express that must be tolerated? Or is it their existence that you feel must be tolerated?

 

There is hatred and prejudice among gays too. Above all else, sexual orientation, race, religion, we are all human. Yes, I have heard people in the gay community talk about and label the straight community as bigots, and unnecessary except for procreation. I've heard people say that they hope they are around when all babies are products of science and that straight people will fade away. They are angry and fearful too. Not all, not even the majority - but the same human failing of fearing the unknown and fearing those who have persecuted them in the past is in everyone.

 

As for tolerance - I speak of that on a civil level, not on a personal level. I don't tolerate or not tolerate anyone - I don't care what people believe or what their lifestyle is (chosen or not). It doesn't matter - it's not my place to tolerate or accept. But I will stand up in protest or in support of actions that have a direct impact on me. That's why I vote. That's why I rescue animals -- seeing an animal hurt or dead does have an impact on me. Gay marriage does not.

 

quote:Nothing about a government "approved" same-sex marriage has anything to do with religion. But a religious community that does not accept or tolerate a same-sex marriage could make it difficult. Tolerate and accept are different things.

 

Somewhere, somehow we've picked up the erroneous idea that legalization means that people must accept same sex marriages. No one has suggested that anyone has to change their minds. If all the religious organizations within 100 square miles agree that they will never perform or acknowledge same-sex unions, fine! But a gay couple can get married in the courthouse. None of the fine, upstanding, big-hearted religious folk who are offended by the notion of a gay marriage have to a) attend the wedding, b) acknowledge that Jim and Joe are married -- i.e. address invitations to them as Mr. and Mr. Joe and Jim Smith (as if they would be invited!), or c) allow Jim or Joe to darken the door of their holy place of worship.

 

I think we are tallking about the same thing. I did not mean to suggest that civil legalization of same-sex marriage meant that it must be accepted by everyone, or that there should be a forced-belief imposed on anyone. That's why I said that if my husband and I were told by a religious organization that our marriage was not accepted by them, and that if we were to join their church we would be considered single because we were married by the JP instead of a minister - it would not invalidate our marriage anyplace but that particular church. If that were the case we would not join that church or organization.

 

quote:BTW: I am agnositc and frankly I don't give a rat's a$$ what the government accepts or doesn't here. It's none of my business. I respect gay's rights to join with whomever they want, and I respect those who believe it is a sin and are tired of having it shoved down their throats whenever they open a paper or turn on the news.

 

So you know what those people who don't like "Will and Grace" or "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" should do? They should turn off their televisions! What a radical notion! Or watch another channel. My goodness!

I don't know anyone who watches a TV show that they don't like or agree with. This is rather silly. I don't know anyone who deliberately puts themself in a situation that they don't want to be in.

 

I'm offended every time I see another BIG FAT GAS GUZZLING S.U.V. advertised. I think the manufacturers, advertisers, retailers and customers ought to be fined 2x's the cost of the vehicle. I think that THEY are going to burn in hell. Or I would if I believed in hell. And guess what -- they're allllll over the television.

 

As soon as I'm solvent again - an SUV is my next purchase! I like to be able to see over the tops of the car ahead of me, and I feel safer in one. I have a minivan now - and it gets the same gas milage as a Ford Explorer, which is what I'm looking at.

 

Actually do you know what's even worse than those commericals is that evil one of the couple shot in black and white in Venice, where he shouts out "I..Love..This..Woman" and she doesn't say anything until he gives her a diamond ring for her right hand (cos she's already got a rock on her left, which he gave her, naturally). And after she puts the ring on she whispers "I love this man." Because, one is left to assume, he gave her a diamond ring.

 

Evil.

I hate that commercial -- it's like screaming "hey kids - you have to buy women expensive gifts to get their love, or if you do something stupid like cause a big scene in public and embarass her you have to apologize with diamonds"

 

 

quote:It would be nice if my friend could let his employer know that he's gay without losing his job -- but the second that it's known he will be terminated and not allowed to teach in HISD again. (He teaches middle school history and is one of the best and most popular teachers there)

 

Yes, wouldn't it be nice? And then maybe his students and the community as a whole could benefit from knowing someone who is openly gay and does a marvelous job contributing to the community. And then maybe gays wouldn't seem so scary.

 

I think fear is what has caused all the controversies in history. Fear of stepping out of the societal comfort zone. Fear that women voters would destroy the world. Fear that freed black people would destroy the world. Fear that gay couples will destroy the world. But eventually we will get past this fear too and move on to another one.

[midori]

Originally posted by HokeyReligions

How is that ignorant? Because you don't agree with it? What if they are right? I can accept that possibility. Different "sides" slap those labels on - it doesn't matter the label - they are behaving in the same way. If I don't agree with you does that make me ignorant?

 

Are you firmly grounded in any beliefs, Hokey? What if someone firmly believes, for whatever reasons, that preventing their child from being taught to read and write is the proper thing to do, and that instead of school it's better for the child to work eight hours a day in the house and yard, and to perform sexual acts that don't risk their physical well-being? Would you be willing to say that such person is wrong? The child isn't coming to any physical harm, mind you. The child is being fed and clothed. And the parents genuinely believe that they are doing the right thing.

 

We're all anchored in something, we all have reference points that inform our perspective on the world. Just as some folks are comfortable interpreting the external world according to guidelines that have been given to them by their religious leaders, others root themselves in science and submit their assumptions to rational examination. Some people are comfortable reaching conclusions about entire groups of people when they may never have even met one member of said group. Others require some first-hand experience before they are able to form an opinion.

 

So, yes, although I am a mildly religious person myself, I do think that people who think that homosexuality is a "sin" are ignorant. I know what my perspective is. I can account for my beliefs and where they come from.

 

midori wrote:

Are you saying, then, that you would welcome into your social circle the head of your local KKK chapter?

 

Hokey Religions wrote:

Sure, why not? What if he's a really nice guy? Maybe he works to rescue animals like I do? Maybe he coaches little league. Maybe he gives to his community in a lot of ways. As a volunteer, a mentor, etc. Being a member of any organization doesn't mean that the people in it preach their beliefs in every single aspect of their lives, and shouldn't negate or devalue the contributions that they do make. Isn't that what the gay community is saying too?

 

I doubt if the members of the KKK, or any other group or organization, are completely "bad."

 

I agree with you that members of the KKK might genuinely think that they are good people. And they might have some admirable qualities. But no matter how much I admired a person's environmentalism, kindness to animals, or community spirit, I would not embrace them if I knew that they were an avowed racist. Why? Because I believe that racism is a warped and malignant world view, and that a person who is trapped by it cannot be viewed as a harmless eccentric with some oddball ideas. Racism is damaging to anyone who comes into contact with it.

 

How do you feel about child molesters, Hokey? They're troubled souls who surely have some good in them -- but do you think they should move unfettered in society?

 

Yes, if they express their beliefs they will be shunned. Why? Because most people don't agree with them? Their belief is only one part of them. When gay people first came out in the open in organized groups they were shunned too. People threw things at them, they were hurt, etc. Why shouldn't KKK be allowed the same civil rights?

 

White supremacists are allowed the same civil rights. What they're not allowed to do is vandalize or employ terror tactics against those whose existence they find intolerable. They can march down the street shouting slogans and carrying signs. And people are free to line the streets and jeer or cheer as they see fit.

 

When a black man stood up in his neighborhood and loudly protested a white man running for office in a mostly black district he was not shunned. He had supporters. His reasoning -- how would a white man be able to accurately represent their community? He had a point.

 

He did have a point. Two in fact. The one you made, which is a good one. And also the point that poor urban minorities do not have the capital or the connections needed to enter politics. It's not just that the white candidate wouldn't represent the majority of residents. It's that the black residents have a hard if not impossible time breaching the system to try to represent themselves.

 

But, if a white man stood up and protested a black man running for office in a mostly white neighborhood, for the same reasons, that man would be labeled a racist and with that label his political career would be damaged, if not destroyed.

 

Has that ever happened? Has there ever been a black candidate for a mostly white community? I don't think you can predict what would happen; if a black person ran unopposed in a mostly white community (an extraordinary prospect that seems almost unthinkable, but I'll play along for argument's sake), my guess would be that the white community felt he represented their social, economic, etc. goals.

 

 

If a religious group believes that homosexuality is "wrong" and the homosexual will go to hell are they wrong? No. That is their belief and there is no proof that they are wrong, or right, and their belief doesn't make them ignorant. There is nothing that can support their belief as an absolute.

 

Yes, I think they're wrong. And I think their belief does make them ignorant -- ignorant of science at the very least. Yes, yes, nothing can be proven to an absolute Hokey. But you have to situate yourself morally somewhere: is it OK to try to oppress people for characteristics that they may or may not have control over, but which affect no one but themselves (like race or sexual orientation)? Is it OK to try to oppress people for characteristics which they do have control over, but which affect no one but themselves (like what religion they observe)? The Nazis certainly thought it was.

 

There is hatred and prejudice among gays too.

 

No one said there wasn't. That doesn't make hatred directed specifically and indiscriminately against all gays any less wrong. There are racists in every race -- but the fact that there are some black people who hate white people doesn't make it any less wrong for a white person to spew racist venom at a black person.

 

As for tolerance - I speak of that on a civil level, not on a personal level. I don't tolerate or not tolerate anyone - I don't care what people believe or what their lifestyle is (chosen or not). It doesn't matter - it's not my place to tolerate or accept. But I will stand up in protest or in support of actions that have a direct impact on me. That's why I vote. That's why I rescue animals -- seeing an animal hurt or dead does have an impact on me. Gay marriage does not.

 

I agree with you somewhat, but I will say that I will not tolerate anyone who seeks to oppress or condemn another person, or group of people, for having characteristics or taking actions that affect no one but themselves.

 

Look at smokers: I think they're nuts! All the health risks, and the premature aging, and the expense. And the smell! But when they're smoking outside it doesn't affect me much at all. So I have nothing to say to them.

 

I think we are tallking about the same thing.

 

I also think we agree, Hokey. Except about S.U.V.s (remember, you wouldn't be able to see over the tops of cars if everyone had an S.U.V.!). But the more important exception is that while you seem to be saying "racism or homophobia do not make a person all bad" (which I agree with) I do think that accepting someone on the basis of their good points while ignoring their glaring and toxic flaws is not right. If you think homophobia is wrong, how can you embrace someone who openly preaches it and tries to oppress homosexuals?

 

I don't seek to make anyone conform to my beliefs. There are lots of things that other people do that I don't agree with. If everyone followed the "live and let live" credo that says we can only know how things are for ourselves, I would have no problem with people who think that homosexuals are unnatural. It's only when they try to impose their views on other people that I will speak out against them. I'm sure I have all kinds of unexamined assumptions that are naive, biased and ignorant. I don't think I'm uniquely omniscient or infallible.

 

I think fear is what has caused all the controversies in history. Fear of stepping out of the societal comfort zone. Fear that women voters would destroy the world. Fear that freed black people would destroy the world. Fear that gay couples will destroy the world. But eventually we will get past this fear too and move on to another one.

 

It almost sounds like you're saying "I don't have a dog in this fight so I'm not going to take sides." I don't think that's what you really mean, though correct me if I'm wrong. But if the only people who had fought for women's rights, minorities' rights, and children's rights had been women, minorities and children, respectively, do you think they would have succeeded? When there are forces trying to whip up fear, or use existing fear to prevent progress, I think it's misguided to be passive about resisting them. If you believe that it's inevitable that gays will one day be accepted by society, because there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, then you are in effect saying that you think that those who are against it are wrong. You don't need to imply that they have bad intentions for believing what they believe. I don't think that people who are afraid of homosexuality are bad, either. But I do think they're wrong to be afraid. I think their ignorance comes from a lack of knowledge and/or misinformation provided by flawed sources. And I absolutely think they're wrong for trying to impose the fruits of their fear on other people.

 

When I first went back to grad school, one of the professors who became a mentor to me said, "what's your hypothesis? Everyone has a hypothesis, but lots of people are afraid to admit it or articulate it clearly, lest they are subsequently proved wrong. Such people write muddled papers." I think that's true in life too.

[moimeme]

If someone expreses their honest belief that homosexuality is "wrong" or is a "sin"

 

This is the problem. That implies that homosexuality is a choice. Which flies in the face of science. I've said it before; I'll say it again - might as well say the sun rising is a 'sin' or is 'wrong'. That sort of thinking is wrong-headed.

 

A church or sect (whatever you want to call it) tht interprets same-sex marriage as a negative, sin, whatever, will serve their God based on their interpretation

 

My whole point is that they are not serving a real God. They are serving the image of God as portrayed by HUMANS with agendas. They are serving something that does not exist. Not only that, but some of them will 'serve' these fallacious religions by harrassing and mistreating homosexuals, which is precisely what is so wrong with this preaching. It encourages hatred.

 

 

There is a BIG distinction in what you wrote. "drive", "lazy", etc. have no religious connotations. "sinner" does. If an organized religion tells its "flock" that homosexuality is a sin and that God will punish this sin by eternity in hell (whether we believe it or not doesn't matter -- the "flock" believes it) then instructing their children to believe it is fine - we raise our children in the way we believe is best for them. If that religion teaches the homosexuals should be shunned, and not hired for jobs, or given medical treatment, etc. (all civil actions) then its crossing the line between religion and government and that is intollerance

 

And that is precisely what happens. Never mind that another set of words in the Bible are JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED. Funny how people ignore that one blissfully, isn't it - and that's a direct order. That is the great hypocrisy of these 'religions' and the reason why they do not deserve the faith of their believers.

 

I've also said this before: I firmly believe that many people who come up with all these rationalizations against gay marriage - which usually fail badly in terms of logic when they are carefully picked apart, as Midori has so aptly shown - are simply throwing up whatever they can manage to construct over the truth - that they dislike the idea of gay marriage and need to create reasons to explain their dislike.

 

However, the reasons all collapse upon further examination - and what we are really left with is the truth underneath which boils down to 'I just don't like it'. Which is fine, and people are entitled to their likes and dislikes. However, nobody is entitled to foist their likes and dislikes upon others in order to have their own personal comfort zones.

[GeorgiaSongbird]

As a child of a mixed race marriage...that at one time was against the law in the state I live in, I'll wade in on this one.

 

We can not continue to ignore people and deny them access and rights because we do not agree with their lifestyle choice!!! My parents story shows that as well as any. They went to NY to get married because they couldn't get married in the state we were live. Both my mother and father had issues with their families because they were marrying outside their race and culture. There were people (of all races) who we would run into from time to time that were nasty and hateful because my parents had done something "WRONG" in society's eyes. And if my parents had decided to be bound by the law at that time and not fight for their RIGHT to be together and have a family if they wished, neither I or any of my siblings would be here.

 

I'm all for same-sex marriages. Let them be! Let them live in peace, keep their jobs, raise their families and MARRY each other if they want.

 

What should it matter to anyone else what 2 consenting adults do? People don't have "like" it. People don't have "accept" it. As far as I'm concerned, people don't even have to acknowledge it. What needs to happen is for everyone to mind their own business and let homosexuals LIVE their own lives.

[HokeyReligions]

Originally posted by midori

Are you firmly grounded in any beliefs, Hokey? What if someone firmly believes, for whatever reasons, that preventing their child from being taught to read and write is the proper thing to do, and that instead of school it's better for the child to work eight hours a day in the house and yard, and to perform sexual acts that don't risk their physical well-being? Would you be willing to say that such person is wrong? The child isn't coming to any physical harm, mind you. The child is being fed and clothed. And the parents genuinely believe that they are doing the right thing.

 

I believe in do Unto Others and Live and Let Live. There may well be cultures today that believe that children should not go to school, or be taught to read. It's not my place to say that their culture is not proper. There may be cultures that have children performing sexual acts - it may be an accepted practice of their culture and therefor not leave any emotional scars. In American society it is against what society as a whole, and the various religious practices withing the USA preaches to its children.

We're all anchored in something, we all have reference points that inform our perspective on the world. Just as some folks are comfortable interpreting the external world according to guidelines that have been given to them by their religious leaders, others root themselves in science and submit their assumptions to rational examination. Some people are comfortable reaching conclusions about entire groups of people when they may never have even met one member of said group. Others require some first-hand experience before they are able to form an opinion.

I don't need first-hand experience to form an opinion. I've never smoked a joint - but I have enough doubt about its value and questions about its long-term effects to form an opinion that it is bad for me. Would I let my kid smoke it? No. If my adult kid smoked it I wouldn't be happy about it, but I wouldnt' shun him for it, nor would I feel like I failed him in some way. I gave him the information available, along with my opinion and beliefs on the subject, and he decided he wanted first-hand knowledge. The same if my son came home and said he was gay and wanted to marry another man. I would be schocked and probably think about grandchildren, but I would want his happiness most of all and I would accept it and hope that the person he chose to spend his life with is someone who I would also grow to love -- just as I would hope that if he brought a girl home.

 

So, yes, although I am a mildly religious person myself, I do think that people who think that homosexuality is a "sin" are ignorant. I know what my perspective is. I can account for my beliefs and where they come from.

midori wrote: You are certainly entitled to your opinion -- many people share it. Many don't.

 

I agree with you that members of the KKK might genuinely think that they are good people. And they might have some admirable qualities. But no matter how much I admired a person's environmentalism, kindness to animals, or community spirit, I would not embrace them if I knew that they were an avowed racist. Why? Because I believe that racism is a warped and malignant world view, and that a person who is trapped by it cannot be viewed as a harmless eccentric with some oddball ideas. Racism is damaging to anyone who comes into contact with it.

 

I think racism is only really damaging to the racist himself. Unless he acts upon his belifs to deliberately cause harm to someone else. But I understand what you are saying. If I were to find out that someone I knew and liked was an animal abuser - I would do everything in my power to stop them from abusing further and have nothing to do with them after that.

 

How do you feel about child molesters, Hokey? They're troubled souls who surely have some good in them -- but do you think they should move unfettered in society?

There are groups who do not believe in modern medicine and their whole belief is that their God will heal them, or their children if their God wants it to be, and if not they, or their children will pass on to a better place. One family recently was taken to court over this. Personally I think it is sad that a child would die when modern medicine could save him, but I can still respect the parents belief.

 

There is a faction operating in the USA (you may have heard of them) who practice a ritual on babies because of their belief. They deliberatly mutilate babies. Others are against this because they believe that to cut a baby is mutilation. The babies can't speak for themselves, but its a common practice. Those who practice it do it for religious beliefs, or a belief that it is somehow "better" or "healthier" for the child. Its circumscision.

 

White supremacists are allowed the same civil rights. What they're not allowed to do is vandalize or employ terror tactics against those whose existence they find intolerable. They can march down the street shouting slogans and carrying signs. And people are free to line the streets and jeer or cheer as they see fit.

Except at Disneyland!

 

 

He did have a point. Two in fact. The one you made, which is a good one. And also the point that poor urban minorities do not have the capital or the connections needed to enter politics. It's not just that the white candidate wouldn't represent the majority of residents. It's that the black residents have a hard if not impossible time breaching the system to try to represent themselves.

You have a point here too. Economics plays a Major role in politics. Money talks. A rich man or woman, no matter their race, can't really know what it's like to be poor unless they've been there and lived it and know what challenges poverty gives to people.

 

 

Has that ever happened? Has there ever been a black candidate for a mostly white community? I don't think you can predict what would happen; if a black person ran unopposed in a mostly white community (an extraordinary prospect that seems almost unthinkable, but I'll play along for argument's sake), my guess would be that the white community felt he represented their social, economic, etc. goals.

Yes it has. In Detroit Michigan in the '60's, and in more recent years in Houston. Both have elected black leaders. That prompted what we call "white flight" to the suburbs. Not necessarily all because of preexisting racism, but because the political agenda was focused more on the black population and their needs. In other cities it has worked much better because the politician took into consideration everyone and kept his agenda. In Dearborn Michigan, traditionally white and Islamic, a minority mayor was able to reach out to all of its citizens. It depends on the individual person, and racism works both ways.

 

 

 

Yes, I think they're wrong. And I think their belief does make them ignorant -- ignorant of science at the very least. Yes, yes, nothing can be proven to an absolute Hokey. But you have to situate yourself morally somewhere: is it OK to try to oppress people for characteristics that they may or may not have control over, but which affect no one but themselves (like race or sexual orientation)? Is it OK to try to oppress people for characteristics which they do have control over, but which affect no one but themselves (like what religion they observe)? The Nazis certainly thought it was.

 

I never talked about oppression! That is a whole 'nuther topic. I'm talking about beliefs - not actions. Just because I believe that there is no God or heaven does not mean that I think those who do believe in God are ignorant. I don't think that people who believe homosexuality is "wrong" or "bad" because of their belief are ignorant either. I don't agree with them, but I don't think they are ignorant.

 

 

No one said there wasn't. That doesn't make hatred directed specifically and indiscriminately against all gays any less wrong. There are racists in every race -- but the fact that there are some black people who hate white people doesn't make it any less wrong for a white person to spew racist venom at a black person.

 

You are talking about hatred and taking actions based on that hatred. I'm talking about a personal, non-actionalble belief.

 

I agree with you somewhat, but I will say that I will not tolerate anyone who seeks to oppress or condemn another person, or group of people, for having characteristics or taking actions that affect no one but themselves.

No, I won't tolerate those actions either. I will not be a part of them, and if someone tells me their belief with no other action taken except to verbalize their belief, I would say I don't believe the same way, lets talk about something else.

 

 

I also think we agree, Hokey. Except about S.U.V.s (remember, you wouldn't be able to see over the tops of cars if everyone had an S.U.V.!). But the more important exception is that while you seem to be saying "racism or homophobia do not make a person all bad" (which I agree with) I do think that accepting someone on the basis of their good points while ignoring their glaring and toxic flaws is not right. If you think homophobia is wrong, how can you embrace someone who openly preaches it and tries to oppress homosexuals?

Because I love them. Because I can accept that their belief is radically different from mine. The same way I accept my mother's devout religious beliefs and her political stand - which is the exact opposite of mine. Racism, or sexism, or homophobia is only one part of what makes up a person. If I love someone I can accept that they have different beliefs from me, just as they accept that I have different beliefs from them. Just as the parents/families of many homosexuals have accepted their childs homosexuality even though they, themselves, think it is a sin. They don't love them any less for it. Sadly, that's not true of all families, but of many.

 

I don't seek to make anyone conform to my beliefs. There are lots of things that other people do that I don't agree with. If everyone followed the "live and let live" credo that says we can only know how things are for ourselves, I would have no problem with people who think that homosexuals are unnatural. It's only when they try to impose their views on other people that I will speak out against them. I'm sure I have all kinds of unexamined assumptions that are naive, biased and ignorant. I don't think I'm uniquely omniscient or infallible.

I'm not trying to make anyone conform to my beliefs either. I enjoy the debate because they offer to me new ways of looking at things. I've learned a lot and been able to see around corners that were dark before - especialy with you and Moimeme! It would be pretty darn boring if we all believed exactly the same way. I walk away from people who try to preach at me instead of talk to me.

 

 

It almost sounds like you're saying "I don't have a dog in this fight so I'm not going to take sides." I don't think that's what you really mean, though correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Not exactly. I know a little about a lot of thing, a lot about a few things, and nothing about most stuff!

I'll stay completly out of things I know nothing about, unless I want to learn about them and participate. I'll throw in my two cents about things that I know a little about and often learn a lot more. And I'll get on my soap box about things that I know a lot about and/or am passionate about. I'm not passionate about gay marriage, I know a little from friends and family who are gay, or who are very anti-gay and I learn things from both sides to form my own opinion.

 

But if the only people who had fought for women's rights, minorities' rights, and children's rights had been women, minorities and children, respectively, do you think they would have succeeded?

No. Having the support of men, or majorities, etc. in these various "fights for rights" is essential.

 

When there are forces trying to whip up fear, or use existing fear to prevent progress, I think it's misguided to be passive about resisting them.

I think there are too many variables here. To address homosexuality - I'm not going to march in a parade on my own accord -- I'm not that passionate about it. If asked my view I will express it and why my view is what it is. If there is a vote - I'll vote. If there is a topic that I do feel passionate about I will be more assertive.

 

If you believe that it's inevitable that gays will one day be accepted by society, because there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, then you are in effect saying that you think that those who are against it are wrong.

I'm not saying that either. I don't see this as an either/or subject, or one with two distinct sides.

 

 

You don't need to imply that they have bad intentions for believing what they believe. I don't think that people who are afraid of homosexuality are bad, either. But I do think they're wrong to be afraid. I think their ignorance comes from a lack of knowledge and/or misinformation provided by flawed sources. And I absolutely think they're wrong for trying to impose the fruits of their fear on other people.

I think its part of human nature to "impost the fruits of their fears" on other people (I like how you phrased that). I think that organized religions come from misinformation from flawed sources too. But I don't think those folks are wrong for wanting to convert others to their way of thinking.

 

When I first went back to grad school, one of the professors who became a mentor to me said, "what's your hypothesis? Everyone has a hypothesis, but lots of people are afraid to admit it or articulate it clearly, lest they are subsequently proved wrong. Such people write muddled papers." I think that's true in life too.

 

That's good, I like that. It goes right back to "fear."

[Guest]

I didn't think I'd ever get thru this thread!

same sex marriages Post: 1 | Quote:

 

since this is a hot topic, i thought i would see what the important people have to say about it.

 

i am all for it. especially the benefits awarded to being married. alot of conservatives hav esaid that it changes the traditional definition of marriage, that it is only between a man and a woman.

Well HELLO! what constitutes normal these days anyways. as we americans become more tolerant and open minded about things, i think old ideas ansd assumptions should be thrown out...but easier said than done.

doesn't this violate civil rights? Why not just revert back to slavery, and condem all who are not wealthy white christian males?

 

I think it is a sin against God. Those that say it is not a choice are wrong. People choose to have a sexual relationship. We aren't drawn together like magnets and couple uncontrollably. If someone is "born gay" then there is a medical reason for it and a spiritual reason. The sins of the fathers are visited on the sons - we inherit everything about outselves, but we make choices on how to behave and live our lives. We worship based on FAITH.

 

Saying that God did not say homosexuality is a sin is wrong. It's in my Bible. But my God does not preach intollerance. He tells us that salvation is up to HIM so we don't shun people who commit homosexual acts any more then we shun any other sinful act.

 

As for the civil laws, I agree with whoever said that they don't have anything to do with religion. They don't. Civil laws don't govern God so it doesn't matter if all of society jumps for joy when gay marriages are commonplace. God doesn't admit people to Heaven based on our silly, petty laws and rules. He told us what we need to do, and how we need to live our lives in order to enter into Heaven.

 

Too many people are so liberal minded these days that they twist the Bible to suit today's society so that they don't have to feel guilty. The Bible is hard to live by. God is strict and our soft, gimme gimme gimme, society doesn't want to hear it. We are God's children and like a lot of kids - we play little semantic games with our parents so that we can somehow justify bad behavior and not be punished. God doesn't use lawyers to argue cases - we have to stand on our own belief's, moral's, and decisions. Just because someone refuses to see the truth, and then calls the other person ignorant, does not make it so.

 

Calling someone ignorant is a childish way of fighting. It's a word used to escape facing the truth. When we were little we used to end an argument or debate with "just because" or "because I said so" and now you tell people who don't believe like you do, people who have a religious faith that they are ignorant. As if that were to make it all OK.

 

It's not ok to sleep around like a whore, or to have sexual relations with someone of the same sex. Its not ok to lie, cheat, steal. God said that it is a sin. We can be forgiven for our sins, but forgiveness doesn't mean that you can go on committing the same sins.

[midori]

Originally posted by Guest

Calling someone ignorant is a childish way of fighting. It's a word used to escape facing the truth.

 

No more childish than to say that something you don't understand is a sin. No more childish than to embrace a theologically reductionist and inconsistent version of a religion. I had a Christian upbringing, and I have been well educated in how Christian doctrine evolved, from the early first and second century clandestine meetings of followers of Christ through the Middle Ages, on to Protestantism, and finally into the modern era.

 

Guess what: the whole thing about Jesus was that the old Hebrew laws could be upturned, so long as people "honored the Lord their God with all their heart, all their soul and all their mind" and "loved their neighbors as themselves." That means that the Old Testament prohibitions against eating pork & shellfish, about women being unclean after childbirth, about not breaking bread with gentiles, etc. could be ignored. Does your church have any pictures of Christ or any saints in it -- in the windows, in children's bibles, etc? That would be a no-no according to Old Testament law. Faithful Christians do all kinds of things that are proscribed in the Old Testament. Because it's OK for them to do so. Eating pork isn't going to make you a candidate for purgatory.

 

Did Jesus Christ ever say anything about homosexuals? I'm talking about the Man Himself, not some of his followers like Paul -- a fine man in some ways, I'm sure, but very much a flawed human. Incidentally as a woman I don't agree with several things Paul had to say, so I'm not just selecting homosexuals to be exempt from his ideas.

 

When we were little we used to end an argument or debate with "just because" or "because I said so" and now you tell people who don't believe like you do, people who have a religious faith that they are ignorant. As if that were to make it all OK.

 

I think the views you have aired about homosexuality are ignorant. Not because I don't understand religion or faith or the Bible, but because I think the version you subscribe to is warped and uninformed. I'm sorry, but that is how I see it.

 

It's not ok to sleep around like a whore, or to have sexual relations with someone of the same sex. Its not ok to lie, cheat, steal. God said that it is a sin. We can be forgiven for our sins, but forgiveness doesn't mean that you can go on committing the same sins.

 

I think it's perfectly acceptable for you to have these beliefs, and to voice them. The only time I will raise my voice in objection is when/if you try to foist your beliefs about other people's behavior - that has nothing to do with you -- onto other people, and insist that they conform to your worldview. Then my conscience requires me to speak out against what I am very much convinced is ignorance.

[Guest]

The Church exists to save people, not to bless the means of their damnation. No marriage can be sanctioned by the Church if the very basis of the marriage involves acts that put the couple outside of eternal salvation. No matter what our society may legislate, the law of God is clear - that a marriage is not a godly marriage if it is a same sex union.

 

Just because an emotion is deep or powerful does not justify acting upon it. Like drugs, like adultery, like the abuse of alcohol or the love of money, or the power rush of human ego trips, there are emotions which are powerful and addictive and ultimately terribly destructive. Same sex marriages must satisfy criteria other than emotion. A marriage is more than a sexual pleasure center. A marriage is a social unit that is interwoven with dozens of other lives.

Same sex marriages do not last. Less than 5% of gays have ever had a relationship that lasted 3 years or more. Sex is not enough. Passion cannot sustain an inherently unstable social unit.

His Word stands over society and when it is deliberately flaunted in the name of progress and enlightenment, then it is not light but deep darkness that results. We cannot bend the principles of God's Word to suit vocal minority groups. While some nations may enact laws permitting these evils, the true church of God must stand resolutely firm and never allow the sanctioning of same sex marriages by Christian clergy. No church that takes the Bible seriously can sanction a union between homosexuals or lesbians.

 

 

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-cross/cross-gaychange.html

 

Because such behavior is essentially animalistic, rather than human, sodomites are actually called "dogs" in the Bible. Note the strong prohibition in the Old Testament theocracy established under Moses.

"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are an abomination unto the Lord thy God."

-Deuteronomy 23:17,18 (KJV)

 

 

What Jesus taught

"And He answered and said to them, 'Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,'"

-Matthew 19:4 (NKJV)

"But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.'"

-Mark 10:6 (NKJV)

When Jesus was asked questions about marriage he went straight back to the defining passages in Genesis that say that marriage is between male and female and is meant to be life long. He saw the creation accounts in Genesis as authoritative in His day. And what is authoritative for Jesus is authoritative for Christians also. While Jesus did not specifically teach on homosexuality, His establishment of the Genesis passages as the fundamental passages on marriage (even more fundamental than the Law) leaves no doubt as to the outcome.

 

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f018.html

[midori]

Originally posted by Guest

 

Same sex marriages do not last. Less than 5% of gays have ever had a relationship that lasted 3 years or more.

 

citation, please -- and a link to a fundamentalist website will not convince me. Show me the empirical data upon which this statement is based.

 

We cannot bend the principles of God's Word to suit vocal minority groups. While some nations may enact laws permitting these evils, the true church of God must stand resolutely firm and never allow the sanctioning of same sex marriages by Christian clergy. No church that takes the Bible seriously can sanction a union between homosexuals or lesbians.

 

couldn't disagree more. I think the type of faith you are describing is spiritually empty and bankrupt.

 

Because such behavior is essentially animalistic, rather than human, sodomites are actually called "dogs" in the Bible. Note the strong prohibition in the Old Testament theocracy established under Moses.

 

Doesn't matter to me -- I'm not Jewish.

 

"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are an abomination unto the Lord thy God."

-Deuteronomy 23:17,18 (KJV)

 

Again, irrelevant to Christians! Interesting, but irrelevant.

 

 

What Jesus taught

"And He answered and said to them, 'Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,'"

-Matthew 19:4 (NKJV)

"But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.'"

-Mark 10:6 (NKJV)

 

Which doesn't say a thing about homosexuals. It means that both men and women are God's creations. One is not above the other.

 

When Jesus was asked questions about marriage he went straight back to the defining passages in Genesis that say that marriage is between male and female and is meant to be life long. He saw the creation accounts in Genesis as authoritative in His day.

 

Now think about this for a minute: did Jesus comment on rocketships? Or the flight of man by any means? Of course not. Because it wasn't something that existed in his day. He didn't say "thou shalt not pass information pertaining to a corporation's fiscal forecast illegally to thy friends for profit" either. Because it wasn't relevant in his day. Homosexuality certainly did exist in his day, but gay marriages did not -- there wasn't a need. There weren't complicated tax laws and next-of-kin/power-of-attorney issues. There wasn't widespread adoption. There weren't a lot of the conditions that exist in today's world that make marriage appealing and in some cases necessary for homosexual couples. So Jesus would have had no reason to comment about gay marriage -- no one would have asked the question!

 

Jesus' remarks were NOT about gay marriages, since it wasn't an issue in his day. But what WAS an issue, and what he was commenting on, was polygamy. He was against it. And so Christians have never practiced it.

 

And what is authoritative for Jesus is authoritative for Christians also. While Jesus did not specifically teach on homosexuality, His establishment of the Genesis passages as the fundamental passages on marriage (even more fundamental than the Law) leaves no doubt as to the outcome.

 

um, yeah. Except that you've got the outcome wrong. This had absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage.

[moimeme]

There isn't much point in discussing with people who claim to know the mind of Jesus:

 

He saw the creation accounts in Genesis as authoritative in His day. And what is authoritative for Jesus is authoritative for Christians also. While Jesus did not specifically teach on homosexuality, His establishment of the Genesis passages as the fundamental passages on marriage (even more fundamental than the Law) leaves no doubt as to the outcome.

 

By the way, Guest, Jesus said nobody should marry.

 

Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36

 

Luke 20: 33-35

 

http://bible.gospelcom.net/

 

 

For other discussions on the abuse of the Bible by those who would blaspheme it to promote prejudice, see:

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showthread.php?postid=107509

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showthread.php?postid=97990

[Guest]

Now think about this for a minute: did Jesus comment on rocketships? Or the flight of man by any means? Of course not. Because it wasn't something that existed in his day. He didn't say "thou shalt not pass information pertaining to a corporation's fiscal forecast illegally to thy friends for profit" either. Because it wasn't relevant in his day. Homosexuality certainly did exist in his day, but gay marriages did not -- there wasn't a need. There weren't complicated tax laws and next-of-kin/power-of-attorney issues. There wasn't widespread adoption. There weren't a lot of the conditions that exist in today's world that make marriage appealing and in some cases necessary for homosexual couples. So Jesus would have had no reason to comment about gay marriage -- no one would have asked the question!

 

Jesus' remarks were NOT about gay marriages, since it wasn't an issue in his day. But what WAS an issue, and what he was commenting on, was polygamy. He was against it. And so Christians have never practiced it.

 

you thinking is sadly warped. How can you compare a human act, trait, failing to some materialist creation of society? Do you think that YOU are God?

 

Of course Jesus' remarks were about homosexuals. It WAS an issue in his day and it was addressed in the Bible. The Bible doesn't address "things" it talks about people and our souls.

[midori]

great info moimeme

[midori]

Originally posted by Guest

Of course Jesus' remarks were about homosexuals. It WAS an issue in his day and it was addressed in the Bible. The Bible doesn't address "things" it talks about people and our souls.

 

"of course" -- is that because that's what you want it to mean? Who's putting words into the mouth of God?

 

The Bible does address "things" -- issues if you like. My goodness was my language too simple for you? I do beg your pardon. The Bible concerns itself with the philosophical and moral complexities presented in the course of daily human life pertaining to social interactions and metaphysical questions.

 

Further discourse on this matter is clearly futile. Good luck in your life. Just make sure yours is the only life you're seeking to lead, and you and I shall have no problems.

[Guest]

Originally posted by midori

"of course" -- is that because that's what you want it to mean? Who's putting words into the mouth of God?

 

The Bible does address "things" -- issues if you like. My goodness was my language too simple for you? I do beg your pardon. The Bible concerns itself with the philosophical and moral complexities presented in the course of daily human life pertaining to social interactions and metaphysical questions.

 

Further discourse on this matter is clearly futile. Good luck in your life. Just make sure yours is the only life you're seeking to lead, and you and I shall have no problems.

 

You really do have a problem with someone not thinking like you. Why did you feel it necessary to talk down to me? Because you think I'm ignorant? That is only your opinion. I don't even know what your definition of 'ignorant' is. Did you talk down to me to make yourself feel better or more superior?

 

Rocket ships didn't exist in Jesus' time. But all the human emotions and failing and morals and "issues" that face us as a race now, faced us as a race then. I'm talking human race before anyone thinks otherwise.

 

So to try and use the materialistic entrapments of today as a logical tool in defense of your opinon on something that happened a couple thousand years ago is invalid.

 

Its your life, and your soul that will suffer. It appears you only look at the Bible as literature and not as God's word. You cannot disprove me any more than I can disprove you. Why can't you admit that?

[moimeme]

'Guest'

 

Did you read everything I posted? I grow very weary of Bible-abusers who slide away from the points I make when I point out their inaccuracy/illogic in blaspheming the Bible to support their anti-gay opinions. Clearly you can't rebut me so you're picking on Midori.

 

I want to hear from you EXACTLY how you live by EVERY word in Leviticus and if you do not, how you excuse that when you claim to believe your Bible so devoutly.

 

I'll bet you have never even read Leviticus other than the one passage which you believe to be anti-gay. In fact, I bet you haven't read the whole Bible at all, else you'd know that when God destroyed towns and villages, it was because the people there worshipped false idols or - get this - as in Sodom and Gomorrah - were inhospitable to strangers!!!! You pseudo pious people bleat only the BS you've been fed by your hypocritical leaders without investigating the truth for yourselves.

 

I challenge you to read the entire Bible and then try to debate my points.

[guest]

Originally posted by moimeme

'Guest'

 

Did you read everything I posted? I grow very weary of Bible-abusers who slide away from the points I make when I point out their inaccuracy/illogic in blaspheming the Bible to support their anti-gay opinions. Clearly you can't rebut me so you're picking on Midori.

 

I want to hear from you EXACTLY how you live by EVERY word in Leviticus and if you do not, how you excuse that when you claim to believe your Bible so devoutly.

 

I'll bet you have never even read Leviticus other than the one passage which you believe to be anti-gay. In fact, I bet you haven't read the whole Bible at all, else you'd know that when God destroyed towns and villages, it was because the people there worshipped false idols or - get this - as in Sodom and Gomorrah - were inhospitable to strangers!!!! You pseudo pious people bleat only the BS you've been fed by your hypocritical leaders without investigating the truth for yourselves.

 

I challenge you to read the entire Bible and then try to debate my points.

I have read the Bible and your "points" are so weak they don't merit a discussion. You can rant against me all you want - I am not one person, I am many and my Church is enormous. We do welcome strangers - even those who do not want to listen to the words of our God are welcomed and not bashed or disrespected, or even necessarily pitied.

 

Homosexual acts are deviant human behavior.

[moimeme]

Right. Didn't think you could rebut. Or would. What a lame reply!

 

That large numbers of people hold a belief does not validate that belief. Remember Germany in 1939.

 

Now. How ARE you living by every word in Leviticus again? Exactly. You don't walk your talk. Until you do, don't come all spouting holier-than-thou garbage.

 

Homosexual acts are deviant human behavior.

 

You could post several thousand posts saying that - which also would not make it so. See, just because you want to believe something does not make it a valid belief or worthy of belief. It just means you are trying mightily to convince yourself you are right when you are not.

[cdn]

Originally posted by midori

 

What does it mean, anyway, in secular terms?

 

In secular terms, the impact is largely economic. Health benefits and COBRA are the two that come to mind immediately, although they are not the only ones. Obviously there will be a significant economic impact of extending health coverage to married gay couples. This cost will be shared across all members of society.

 

The notion of addressing this issue in secualr terms is tricky. Marriage was originally (and for many years remained) a sacrament of the church only. There was no such thing as secular marriage any more than there is secular baptism. The state got involved in the business of marriage because of economics and now everyone wants a piece of the money pie. The state does not recognize church marriages and the church does not recognize the state marriages.