This is TOO much!

[G-spotter]

Methylhound union

[tvashtarkatena]

On second thought, why should gays be allowed to marry? I mean, haven't they suffered enough?

Edited November 8, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[ClimbingPanther]

For those of you who may honestly want to understand the predominant Christian position on homosexuality and why we don't want it sanctioned in America, read a little about Sodom & Gomorrah. Wikipedia has a relatively concise but complete and fair article on it at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah

[good references too]

Worth noting is that homosexuality isn't by any stretch the only thing they were doing wrong. Their litany of sins included gluttony, pride, selfishness, and more.

 

49"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.

50"Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me Therefore I removed them when I saw it.

 

So as you can see from the Christian's Bible itself, homosexuality wasn't the only or even explicitly the main reason God destroyed them, as some may have you believe. However, we believe God does judge and punish nations/cities/whatever when he sees fit.

 

Considering America already sounds a lot like those other things mentioned (even the most liberal of folks could agree we're overfed and selfish and our current leadership doesn't seem geared toward helping the needy in the world), we don't want to see it become any more like Sodom & Gomorrah.

 

However, I for one think Christians miss the boat when we focus so much on one issue. What about the others? Surely being overfed is much more of a problem than homosexuality, especially in the church itself! Shame on us.

 

"Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission."

[JayB]

If you are serious and this isn't a tongue in cheek post, I think that this kind of religious belief that people don't want sanctioned in America.* I am not reflexively hostile to religion, and most of my friends are religious in some fashion or another - but I think the fact that people make a conscious decision to worship a deity that would inflict collective punishment on a society in which people engage in consenual behavior that's not the least bit harmful to anyone else is disconcerting and/or frightening to a lot of people. I think that's a shame in a lot of ways.

 

In the case of abortion, I understand both sides of the argument, and I think that even though people on opposite sides of the issue may they may passionately disagree with or even dispise each other, I think they at least have a clear understanding of the other sides position. When it comes to gays and gay marriage, I have to admit that I've just kind of been baffled by the antipathy to them. I think the opposition to marriage is due in part to people misunderstanding what gay people want - an extension of existing rules rather than overturning them. But this doesn't really explain why some people find them so threatening. When I was reading some of the articles about Haggard and his church and the beliefs associated with it, I think I started to understand their thinking for the first time. It seemed like they felt threatened by the ever-increasing permissiveness and license that they saw in the society around them, and saw gays in general, and gay men in particular, as the ultimate symbols of a kind of licentious moral free-for-all, and felt as though the state granting legal recognition to gay relationships would mean the state actively endorsing all of the cultural changes that they feel threatened by.

 

I don't agree with this view, and I think that in the long run, this kind of thinking is going to lead folks who engage in it to become increasingly alienated from and marginalized within society. I think this is too bad, because I know a lot of people who have been inspired to become kinder, more forgiving, more generous, and more selfless because of the religious beliefs that they've adopted, and I think that it would be a shame if the people who need some kind of supernatural inspiration to make these things happen never found the church because they were so put off by this aspect of the doctrine. Hopefully the Haggard thing will catalyze some hard thinking about these issues and both the church and gays will come out the better for it.

 

*I am not trying to be personally antagonistic here, just expressing what I think is a common viewpoint. I'm sure that you are a good guy, and I'm glad that you took a moment to share your views honestly.

[tvashtarkatena]

For those of you who may honestly want to understand the predominant Christian position on homosexuality and why we don't want it sanctioned in America, read a little about Sodom & Gomorrah.

 

If certain christian sects don't sanction equality for homosexuals, tough toenails. Establish your own fundamentalist religious state somewhere else. This is America. We have a constitionally codified seperation of church and state, and an equal protection clause. If I have to hold my nose to coexist with people of your prejudiced viewpoint, you can certainly return the favor by tolerating homosexuals. No one has suggested that your sect should be forced to admit homosexuals. Practice what you will, believe what you want, and allow other folks, including homosexuals, to do the same.

 

According to your own logic, your cult would also need to outlaw gluttony, selfishness, etc (sins but are certainly not crimes) to avoid your god's wrath. Good luck with achieving and enforcing that in the nation of Esplanades and McMansions.

Edited November 8, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[ericb]

Jay,

 

I think you make a great point about misunderstandings amongst the two sides in the gay marriage debate, but I actually think you've got it backwards. I think Christians know full well what the other side is seeking, although they might not understand why. On the other hand I don't think gay marriage proponents understand all of the reasons that Christians take the stand that they do.....the assumption is that it is purely intolerance, hate, and judgementalism.

 

There is a lot of material on the subject floating around evangelical circles, and while the subject of Biblical truth and morality is certainly major element, there are many other reasons.

 

They believe that the optimal environment for raising a child is one in which there is both mother and father...that the emotional makeup of male and female is unique, and that this diversity (adventure vs. nuturing for example) is in the best interest of the child. Probably a reason why most of the Churches I've attended are far more focused on preventing divorce than they are same-sex marriage.

 

Material points to correlations between societal economics/stability and that society's attititude toward the sexual ethic of marriage.

 

Now I'm not saying that all of the information I've seen out there is correct, or that the average Christian goes to the bibliography, pulls the studies that are cited, and questions the selection bias therein. Their time is limited, just like everyone else. Many of us, myself included, are misled by misinformation because we don't take the time to be fully educated on the issue. My point is that, in my opinion, and based on my personal experience as a Christian, there are many Christians that are opposed to gay marriage because they truly believe that traditional marriage is in the emotional interest of our nation's children. Christians, as you Jay put it, that are "kinder, more forgiving, more generous, and more selfless"....Christians that are more defined by the characteristics above than by judgementalism, dogmatism, etc. I think if there was more understanding, the left would realize that people may oppose gay marriage for reasons other than their "hatred" of homosexuals.

 

To the extent that gay marriage has gone to the voters, the hard numbers have spoken that the majority of Americans are opposed to same-sex marriage....I think the recent elections yet reconfirm this. Unless over 50% of our citizens are gay-haters, this should lead one to believe that there are other plausible explanations behind an anti same-sex marriage stance. All I can say is that, based on my experience, this is true within the church as well.

Edited November 8, 2006 by ericb

[tvashtarkatena]

They believe that the optimal environment for raising a child is one in which there is both mother and father...that the emotional makeup of male and female is unique, and that this diversity (adventure vs. nuturing for example) is in the best interest of the child. Probably a reason why most of the Churches I've attended are far more focused on preventing divorce than they are same-sex marriage.

 

Society should definitely work towards creating healthy home environments for children. Rather than focus on preventing divorce (which can lead to the prolonging of an unhealthy home environment), organizations that care about this issue should focus on helping folks to create healthy partnerships, regardless of sexuality, in the first place.

 

An ideal home has patience, love, and understanding. It is free from violence. That is far more important to a child's welfare than what sex the parents are or whether one parent is missing.

[minx]

the religious people who are against gay marriage/abortion/etc use the bible as the foundation for these opinions. i don't have a problem with this

 

these same people feel compelled to push for laws based on these non-secular beliefs. i have a problem with this.

 

the underlying argument is that they are compelled by god/bible/jesus to prostelytize or convert non-believers. they believe that they are obligated to try and make not only this society but every society conform to the rules/beliefs set forth in the bible.

 

fine--move to a society that wasn't founded on the separation of church and state.

 

it frustrates me that issues being decided in the secular arena are decided based on the religions of people.

 

i've given up. there is no room for discussion with the relgious folks about these issues. i don't believe. i'm not going to believe. they can't consider the fact that the bible/jesus/pope/priest/pastor might be wrong. if they hold a belief outside of their religion they're sinners. that's a pretty big burden to bear if you are religious. it's a pretty big wall to talk to if you're not.

 

there is no room for negotiation on these issues. i wish we could keep church and state separate but apparently that makes some folks bad christians.

[ericb]

An ideal home has patience, love, and understanding. It is free from violence. That is far more important to a child's welfare than what sex the parents are or whether one parent is missing.

 

In your opinion, correct? My point is that it's not necessariliy about hate and intolerance.

[cj001f]

My point is that it's not necessariliy about hate and intolerance.

Wanna buy a bridge?

[tvashtarkatena]

 

In your opinion, correct? My point is that it's not necessariliy about hate and intolerance.

 

All posts are in the author's opinion, by definition.

 

Personally, I don't care about what goes on inside a religious sect. I'm not at all interested in the biblical basis for this belief or that. And whether or not hate and intolerance are rife within the organization, it doesn't really matter to me...as long as it's kept out of public policy. That is where I draw the line. Similarly, individuals are free to be as prejudiced as they want...as long as they don't practice such behavior in the public domain.

 

If a religious sect enforces a 'no gay' policy, it is within their rights to do so. Perhaps they'll be the last ones standing when Jesus rides triumphant down from heaven brandishing his shimmering sword to smite the wicked.

Edited November 8, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[ClimbingPanther]

minx, I sympathize a lot actually with your sentiment. I am pretty conflicted on how I where I ought to stand on issues like this. I have not forgotten that I am incredibly fortunate to even be alive while holding my beliefs, let alone be a perfectly equal member in society regardless of them. Many in history have not had this privilege. Laws will never conform to people's beliefs because you can't get that many people to agree on one thing, so there must be some latitude. The problem, as always, is where do you draw the line? But this isn't even the root of the matter.

 

WHY do you draw the line? That's the heart of the issue. Why do we draw lines as to what's acceptable in society? There's tons of reasons, and different reasons go with different laws. As to homosexuality, ericb's post probably constitutes at least part of the reason for the majority of those who voted to ban same-sex marriage.

Regardless of all that, I think in general Christians ought to be wary of legislating Christianity, and not just because legislating religion can and will backfire. The real problem with it is that "righteous" laws will not "save" America. That is not how Jesus taught to change the world.

[ericb]

fine--move to a society that wasn't founded on the separation of church and state.

 

"legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

 

The "separation of church and state" you refer to is Jefferson's position that there should not be neither state sanctioned religion nor restrictions on its practice. At issue here is whether our Judeo/Christian influenced collective morality should impact our country's law-making.

Edited November 8, 2006 by ericb

[Dechristo]

My point is that it's not necessariliy about hate and intolerance.

Wanna buy a bridge?

 

Brother, let us build a bridge together.

 

The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind.

[JayB]

There are plenty of people who claim that their support for things like increasing the minimum wage are rooted in their religious convictions I can pretty much guarantee you that these folks have not come to these conclusions after a dispassionate analysis of the best scholarship and facts, because one never hears them frame the argument in economic terms. They are quite explicit about the fact that they voting in a particular way because of a moral sensibility that for derives from their religious faith. Are they wrong to do so? They are trying to use the state as a means to translate a particular moral perspective into law. Ditto for the stillborn "Latte Tax." I can't recall anyone on the Left criticizing someone who claims a religious inspiration for supporting causes that happen to jive with their agenda.

 

Moral or religious? Sometimes its hard to tell, and I don't think there's anyone who would argue that someone's basic convictions about right or wrong should play no role in shaping their political views or the policies that they support. Separation of church and state is one thing, separation of church and politics is another.

[tvashtarkatena]

WHY do you draw the line? That's the heart of the issue. Why do we draw lines as to what's acceptable in society? There's tons of reasons, and different reasons go with different laws. As to homosexuality, ericb's post probably constitutes at least part of the reason for the majority of those who voted to ban same-sex marriage.

Regardless of all that, I think in general Christians ought to be wary of legislating Christianity, and not just because legislating religion can and will backfire. The real problem with it is that "righteous" laws will not "save" America. That is not how Jesus taught to change the world.

 

I (try to) draw the line where (I believe) the constitution draws the line. Equal protection, separation of church and state. That, I believe, provides the maximum liberty for all involved with the least amount of government intrusion. Religions can practice what they will, homosexuals (or whatever other group happens to be the 'target of the day') can pursue happiness and enjoy the same rights as everyone else, and I can continue to spew bullshit on Spray.

 

When I was a Catholic, I was apparently taught to view Christ's teachings in a way very similar to what you've described as your own, and, although I'm no longer a member of the fold, I still believe that, as far as the progress of a free society is concerned, that is a very positive and healthy viewpoint.

 

Unfortunately, many of your religious bretheran have chosen to believe everything from God Hates Gays to God Will Make Me Rich. Fortunately, it's pretty easy to separate the those who subscribe in a loving god from those who use god for self-serving purposes.

Edited November 8, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[Off_White]

Substitute the word "*" for "homosexual" and you'll find we as a nation have heard and refuted most of these arguments in the past.

 

In my opinion, we should remove the phrase "marriage" from all law, and make all the legal and contractual piece of things attached to the "civil union" concept. The churches (of all types) can have the term "marriage" as a non-legally-binding ceremony honoring whatever they choose to enshrine. I certainly don't think any church should have to marry any two individuals they choose to reject, whether it's two people of the same sex, or one of the pair who isn't jewish/catholic/muslim/lutheran/whatever. Separation of church/state spirtual/legal is the best protection for everyone, whatever their belief.

[ericb]

Fortunately, it's pretty easy to separate the those who subscribe in a loving god from those who use god for self-serving purposes.

 

Ironic statement....your signature line "If Heaven is full of Christians, who needs a Hell?" doesn't seem to make a distinction

Edited November 8, 2006 by ericb

[tvashtarkatena]

fine--move to a society that wasn't founded on the separation of church and state.

 

"legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

 

The "separation of church and state" you refer to is Jefferson's position that there should not be neither state sanctioned religion nor restrictions on its practice. At issue here is whether our Judeo/Christian influenced collective morality should impact our country's law-making.

 

The constitution also guarantees equal protection under the law. I interpret this to mean that the right of secular marriage should be extended to all people, including gays. That is probably a more specific point of argument than where the morality embodied in our laws (including this one) comes from. The sources of that morality are historical, complex, and, if you go far enough back in time, probably unknowable.

Edited November 8, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

 

Ironic statement....your signature line "If Heaven is full of Christians, who needs a Hell?" doesn't seem to make a distinction

 

Don't confuse serious debate with irreverent humor, even if the latter is not to your particular taste. My signature does not preclude me from engaging in the former.

[minx]

fine--move to a society that wasn't founded on the separation of church and state.

 

"legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

 

At issue here is whether our Judeo/Christian influenced collective morality should impact our country's law-making.

 

No it shouldn't

[minx]

Substitute the word "*" for "homosexual" and you'll find we as a nation have heard and refuted most of these arguments in the past.

 

In my opinion, we should remove the phrase "marriage" from all law, and make all the legal and contractual piece of things attached to the "civil union" concept. The churches (of all types) can have the term "marriage" as a non-legally-binding ceremony honoring whatever they choose to enshrine. I certainly don't think any church should have to marry any two individuals they choose to reject, whether it's two people of the same sex, or one of the pair who isn't jewish/catholic/muslim/lutheran/whatever. Separation of church/state spirtual/legal is the best protection for everyone, whatever their belief.

 

a particularly salient point for me. i would've had no problem in joining in a "civil union" rather than a "marriage". I don't care what you call it. the practical end point is the same.

 

if gay folks want to get married in a religious ceremony then they should joing a church that's not got a problem with it. i don't believe religions should be forced to accept it if they don't believe it. however, what the heck is the problem with the civil union?????? provide a gay couple with the same financial and legal protections as a heterosexual couple is a problem how????

 

hell, homosexuals should start their own religion and then demand to be able to marry. then what? we've really muddied the waters then.

[JayB]

 

In my opinion, we should remove the phrase "marriage" from all law, and make all the legal and contractual piece of things attached to the "civil union" concept. The churches (of all types) can have the term "marriage" as a non-legally-binding ceremony honoring whatever they choose to enshrine. I certainly don't think any church should have to marry any two individuals they choose to reject, whether it's two people of the same sex, or one of the pair who isn't jewish/catholic/muslim/lutheran/whatever. Separation of church/state spirtual/legal is the best protection for everyone, whatever their belief.

 

Word. That is just a fantastic idea. If I didn't hate entire idea behind initiatives/referendums so much I'd suggest that you start gathering signatures. Failing that, those of us who think that this is a good idea should share it with our representatives via a letter or two.

[minx]

fine--move to a society that wasn't founded on the separation of church and state.

 

"legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

 

The "separation of church and state" you refer to is Jefferson's position that there should not be neither state sanctioned religion nor restrictions on its practice. At issue here is whether our Judeo/Christian influenced collective morality should impact our country's law-making.

 

The constitution also guarantees equal protection under the law. I interpret this to mean that the right of secular marriage should be extended to all people, including gays. That is probably a more specific point of argument than where the morality embodied in our laws (including this one) comes from. The sources of that morality are historical, complex, and, if you go far enough back in time, probably unknowable.

 

tvarsh--nice response to this.

 

the issue regarding judea/christian values should influence are lawmaking really disturbs me. there is a not insignificant number of people in this society who are religious but not christian.

 

what the hell makes christians so certain their way is the only way and that there morals should dictate the lives of others?

[JayB]

fine--move to a society that wasn't founded on the separation of church and state.

 

"legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

 

At issue here is whether our Judeo/Christian influenced collective morality should impact our country's law-making.

 

No it shouldn't

 

Like I said before, separation of church and state is one thing, separation of church and politics is another.

 

I'd find this kind of statement more credible if I heard people on the Left getting all riled up about Bishop Shelby Spong advocating unionization for nannies or whatever.