Hopefully, increasing numbers of Christians will be on the right side of this battle for human rights.
It takes a contortionist of biblical proportions (intellectual integrity be damned) to use scripture to rationalize the denial of marriage equality to LBGTs.
Because I believe in progress, I believe LBGTs will be granted marriage equality, then we can move on to things like hunger, poverty, torture, domestic violence, slavery etc.
It may be as crazy as using the Bible against equality, but open eyes are always welcome in Bible readers, right?
Gee, in addition to the LBGT issue, this post has one foot in religion and one foot in politics. It's the olde double whammy. Maybe the week after the USA goes on the Metric System, this issue will resolve itself.
But until then I have a feeling we'll be slugging along with Two-Liter Bottles and twelve ounce cans.
It's not the minds of all Christians,... and then again, it's not JUST Christians. It's many religions and many minds of those with no religion as well,... that you will have to change.
As for the "SIN" issue. Getting drunk is a sin, and we tried prohibition, but it didn't work. Very few people live their entire lives without getting drunk at least once, and even if they don't, that's okay they just commit some other sin. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. So I think the "SIN" arguement is one that does not follow logic,... Something about logs and motes and eyes comes to mind, it's a non-sequitur.
Will it happen?........ depends largely upon the LBGT community, but I don't think anyone will be opening that door for them, as a society we simply have no manners at times.
Isn't marriage just a vestige of religion's stamp on government? Like a blue law? Perhaps some things, like child custody, are necessary, but after that?
Hopefully, increasing numbers of Christians will be on the right side of this battle for human rights.
It takes a contortionist of biblical proportions (intellectual integrity be damned) to use scripture to rationalize the denial of marriage equality to LBGTs.
Because I believe in progress, I believe LBGTs will be granted marriage equality, then we can move on to things like hunger, poverty, torture, domestic violence, slavery etc.
You do realize that it's "two men" and "two women" - added words being in italics - ie, two persons (sex unspecified). Men worked in the fields; women did the grinding of corn. It's just what they did. Would you make the same "marriage" argument for two males fixing a car together, or two females doing the weekly shop at the store together?
... As for the "SIN" issue. Getting drunk is a sin, and we tried prohibition, but it didn't work. Very few people live their entire lives without getting drunk at least once, and even if they don't, that's okay they just commit some other sin. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. So I think the "SIN" arguement is one that does not follow logic,... Something about logs and motes and eyes comes to mind, it's a non-sequitur.
...
The Bible clearly does not like drunkards. However getting drunk is harder to establish as a sin, and drinking is clearly not a sin.
Overly zealous christians tried to push their agenda that drink was sin, they failed. And it never changed the Bible, so as hard as they desire drinking to be a sin, the Bible still praises drink.
Homosexual sex is clearly pronounced to be a sin. It is never praised, nor allowed in the Bible.
So I do not see how these two things can be compared.
Will it happen?........ depends largely upon the LBGT community, but I don't think anyone will be opening that door for them, as a society we simply have no manners at times.
True enough, people and institutions can be set in their ways but I think it will happen, the LGBT's have been fighting in an intelligent manner for 30+ years to be recognized as human beings.
They've done their job and the ice has cracked in many segments of society to not only accept them as members of society but also in many cases vital contributors to their communities.
The Church (or I should say some segments of the church) have had a hand in fighting for those rights as it always has fought for the oppressed, downtrodden and maligned.... as they did in fighting for civil rights and equal treatment for blacks a generation ago.
Now (2010) that seems like a no brainer and its hard to believe that people were legally treated as second class citizens because of their skin color not that long ago..
Change, for some reason always seems to come with great difficulty and is not without growing pains.I suppose that some will fight against it, as some fought to maintain racial segregation 50 years ago. For the life of me I cant figure out what threatens people so much about two people who love each other wanting to get married --but it surely seems to...
Some major denominations are fully for full rights, others (for instance The Episcopalians and Anglicans) are split, either for or against, and their bodies fracturing over the issue.
O well--
I think that it is inevitable that eventually it will happen and 50 years from now people will look back in astonishment to think that at one time it wasn't allowed.
If things never changed we'd still be somewhere burning 'witches', although it takes way to long, thankfully--they do
For the life of me I cant figure out what threatens people so much about two people who love each other wanting to get married --but it surely seems to...
I can't either. If you ever figure it out, let me know.
I can't either. If you ever figure it out, let me know.
Me three.
If it wasn't so ominous, I'd find a good bit of humor in the conservative/fundamentalist labels of late. "Patriot Act", "Defense of Marriage Act", "Intelligent Design" and such like are absolutely morbidly obese with irony...
Hopefully, increasing numbers of Christians will be on the right side of this battle for human rights.
It takes a contortionist of biblical proportions (intellectual integrity be damned) to use scripture to rationalize the denial of marriage equality to LBGTs.
Because I believe in progress, I believe LBGTs will be granted marriage equality, then we can move on to things like hunger, poverty, torture, domestic violence, slavery etc.
This is probably not the best place to start posting after having been absent for over a year, but I just can't help it.
This is, imo, one of those issues that will never get resolved, partly because proponents on each side refuse to respect each other's opinions. I see flaws in the reasoning of the GLBT side and the Fundamentalists. FWIW (not much admittedly) here's the way I see it.
I have to agree with those who point out that homosexuality cannot be equated to drinking. Homosexuality is clearly and consistently denounced in the Scripture as sinful. I believe "abomination" is the work used in the OT, which makes it not only sinful but disgustingly so. So for the progressives to accuse those who oppose gay marriage as narrow-minded or backward is unfair.
Another pet peeve of mine is the consistent equating of the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement. As an African American and a staunch believer in the inherent rightness of the civil rights movement, I must point out that this is analogy only holds water if you believe that people are born gay or lesbian. I for one, don't believe that. For one there is the whole Anne Heich fiasco. For those who have forgotten Anne, she was Ellen Degeneres' partner when Ellen came out of the closet. In an interview with Oprah, Ellen affirmed she'd always been lesbian, but Anne said she'd been heterosexual until she met Ellen. A short time later, Anne fled their love nest and ran screaming to a guy. She is now once again heterosexual, although probably not mentally or emotionally stable.
I forget now where we saw it (I think it's on Web MD), but Deb and I read recently that studies have found that women can switch from heterosexual to lesbian lifestyles and back. If a woman is not in a heterosexual relationship and is living with a particularly close female friend, they may become lovers. When one of them meets a man, it can dissolve. I know people who have gone through this.
In short, I don't believe people are not "born" gay. It's a lifestyle choice. On the other hand, people are born African-American, Latino, or Asian. Granting equality for ethnic groups does not automatically mean we should grant equality to gays and lesbians. Insisting that these two principles are the same is not only dishonest, it's offensive to some.
On the other hand...
I cannot automatically denounce homosexuality because the Bible condemns it. Years of reviewing and reconsidering what we were taught in PFAL and what's in the Bible have brought me to the conclusion that the Bible is not infallible truth. It's truth filtered through flawed human minds. Some of the aspects of that filter are the customs of the Judean and first century Greco-Roman cultures. That's why the Twelve didn't carry out Jesus' Great Commission to preach the gospel to every creature until several decades after Pentecost. They were comfortably Judean and didn't want to sully themselves with the Gentiles. Even after they were reminded of what Jesus had ordered (Acts 15:7-11)most of them stayed in Jerusalem and left the evangelizing to Paul and his associates. But I digress.
The point is, I'm not comfortable condemning someone just because the Bible said so. So I respect those Christians who take a more progressive approach to this issue, remembering that we are all sinners saved by grace and that Jesus died for everyone; not just for good, upstanding, straight, righteous folks.
If we are all sinners saved by grace and there is none good, not even one, we have little right to condemn a whole class of people because they have a "sinful" lifestyle; especially since Fundamentalist Christians have the same rates of adultery and divorce as everyone else.
So I reject the GBLT argument that gay rights are the same as civil rights. But I also reject the Fundamentalist's argument that homosexuality is so sinful that we should universally condemn and reject homosexuals and treat them as inherently inferior.
I think the Christian thing to do is to recognize that, even though homosexuality may be wrong and some of us may find it objectionable, we are all flawed and in need of grace and mercy. As such, we are not qualified to deny people the right to live in a private, loving relationship just because we disapprove of their sexual orientation.
So I reject the GBLT argument that gay rights are the same as civil rights. But I also reject the Fundamentalist's argument that homosexuality is so sinful that we should universally condemn and reject homosexuals and treat them as inherently inferior.
I think the Christian thing to do is to recognize that, even though homosexuality may be wrong and some of us may find it objectionable, we are all flawed and in need of grace and mercy. As such, we are not qualified to deny people the right to live in a private, loving relationship just because we disapprove of their sexual orientation.
"As such, we are not qualified to deny people the right to live in a private, loving relationship just because we disapprove of their sexual orientation."
Jerry, time to wake up and smell the Reality, dude!
"I have to agree with those who point out that homosexuality cannot be equated to drinking. Homosexuality is clearly and consistently denounced in the Scripture as sinful. I believe "abomination" is the work used in the OT, which makes it not only sinful but disgustingly so. So for the progressives to accuse those who oppose gay marriage as narrow-minded or backward is unfair."
Well Jerry, ya know something. Just because you believe that the Bible calls homosexuality an 'abomination' doesn't remove such determinations from being rendered as backwards. That might seem 'unfair' to you, but then again, consider how homosexuals feel about having what they do as being rendered as 'an abomination' (which is an admitedly strong term, stronger than 'unfair').
"Another pet peeve of mine is the consistent equating of the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement. As an African American and a staunch believer in the inherent rightness of the civil rights movement, I must point out that this is analogy only holds water if you believe that people are born gay or lesbian. I for one, don't believe that."
Well, exccuuussee me. So just because _you_ don't believe that gays are born that way somehow invalidates, _for the whole homosexual group_, the need for civil rights? And since when did the fact that you're black kick into this? Do some blacks feel that the whole concept of civil rights somehow belongs to them? Exclusively? I've heard some black religious leaders act pretty much the same way, with this "Hey! That's _mine_!" attitude when homosexuals (and atheists even!) start using terms like 'civil rights' and 'equality' as well. ... Hey kid! Time to share the toys!
"For one there is the whole Anne Heich fiasco. For those who have forgotten Anne, she was Ellen Degeneres' partner when Ellen came out of the closet. In an interview with Oprah, Ellen affirmed she'd always been lesbian, but Anne said she'd been heterosexual until she met Ellen. A short time later, Anne fled their love nest and ran screaming to a guy. She is now once again heterosexual, although probably not mentally or emotionally stable."
Wow, gee! *One* example of (what's called) a switch hitter, and all the increasing scientific evidence of homosexuality being naturally born in certain people goes straight out the window? Ummm, what about all the (increasing) evidence where homosexuality is even occuring in the animal world?
"In short, I don't believe people are not "born" gay. It's a lifestyle choice. On the other hand, people are born African-American, Latino, or Asian. Granting equality for ethnic groups does not automatically mean we should grant equality to gays and lesbians. Insisting that these two principles are the same is not only dishonest, it's offensive to some."
Oh I just *love* this little jewel. Ok guy, let's continue playing this game of yours. Gays aren't born that way, ergo they _don't_ get to enjoy equality under the law. (Where some people came up with _that_ illogic, I can only attribute to drugs. :-\), whilst black/other non-white people are born their way, so they get to enjoy equality under the law.
With me so far? ... Good.
What about religion? Since you weren't born a Christian (No! You weren't. You were *taught* it!), ... according to the same logic, ...
... you, as a Christian, should not enjoy the same rights as anyone else. Right? ... Right?
Stop and think about it for once, will you please? And I don't give a _damn_ who is 'offended' because gays/lesbians get equality under the law. Stop and think about _that_. Getting mad because someone gets equality under the law? Yeah? Well there were plenty of people who got 'offended' because blacks got equality under the law, and even they used bible verses to back them up.
They wore white sheets too!
And taking the "But I think that the fundies s*ck sometimes" argument do little to give you the 'Fair and Balanced' image.
Equal civil rights apply to ALL. It _has_ to be that way. That's the beauty of the Constitution. And it sure as hell beats any 'godly' government I've ever seen talked about from a lot of Christians.
Oh and here's a question for you for bonus points:
Why _shouldn't_ homosexuals/lesbians have equal civil rights, hmmm? From a point of law, that is? From a point of ethics? The only basis you bring it up is from the religious/'it offends me' standpoint. ... A standpoint which should have _no_ basis in law.
Jerry, time to wake up and smell the Reality, dude!
"I have to agree with those who point out that homosexuality cannot be equated to drinking. Homosexuality is clearly and consistently denounced in the Scripture as sinful. I believe "abomination" is the work used in the OT, which makes it not only sinful but disgustingly so. So for the progressives to accuse those who oppose gay marriage as narrow-minded or backward is unfair."
Well Jerry, ya know something. Just because you believe that the Bible calls homosexuality an 'abomination' doesn't remove such determinations from being rendered as backwards.
That might seem 'unfair' to you, but then again, consider how homosexuals feel about having what they do as being rendered as 'an abomination' (which is an admitedly strong term, stronger than 'unfair').
"Another pet peeve of mine is the consistent equating of the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement. As an African American and a staunch believer in the inherent rightness of the civil rights movement, I must point out that this is analogy only holds water if you believe that people are born gay or lesbian. I for one, don't believe that."
Well, exccuuussee me. So just because _you_ don't believe that gays are born that way somehow invalidates, _for the whole homosexual group_, the need for civil rights?
"For one there is the whole Anne Heich fiasco. For those who have forgotten Anne, she was Ellen Degeneres' partner when Ellen came out of the closet. In an interview with Oprah, Ellen affirmed she'd always been lesbian, but Anne said she'd been heterosexual until she met Ellen. A short time later, Anne fled their love nest and ran screaming to a guy. She is now once again heterosexual, although probably not mentally or emotionally stable."
Wow, gee! *One* example of (what's called) a switch hitter, and all the increasing scientific evidence of homosexuality being naturally born in certain people goes straight out the window? Ummm, what about all the (increasing) evidence where homosexuality is even occuring in the animal world?
Garth, I think you're overeacting. And distorting what I said. Anne Heich is merely the example everyone knows about. I personally know of two other women who've done likewise, and it has been documented that women switching from hetero to bisexual or lesbian lifestyles is not rare. I realize this is an emotionally charged topic, but it doesn't add to the discourse if you mischaracterize what other people think just because you don't like it.
"In short, I don't believe people are not "born" gay. It's a lifestyle choice. On the other hand, people are born African-American, Latino, or Asian. Granting equality for ethnic groups does not automatically mean we should grant equality to gays and lesbians. Insisting that these two principles are the same is not only dishonest, it's offensive to some."
Oh I just *love* this little jewel. Ok guy, let's continue playing this game of yours. Gays aren't born that way, ergo they _don't_ get to enjoy equality under the law. (Where some people came up with _that_ illogic, I can only attribute to drugs. :-\), whilst black/other non-white people are born their way, so they get to enjoy equality under the law.
Again, you're putting words in my mouth and in fact contradicting the conclusion of my post. I did not say gays shouldn't enjoy equal protection under the law. I merely objected to the equating of gay rights with civil rights on the basis that homosexuality is not a genetic component equivalent to race.
There may be a genetic component to a person's tendency toward homosexuality. There are also genetic components that make some people more likely to be obese or bipolar. But that is merely a tendency. Being born Asian or American Indian or African American is not a tendency, it's an obvious genetic trait. There's a difference of degree that is being ignored.
What about religion? Since you weren't born a Christian (No! You weren't. You were *taught* it!), ... according to the same logic, ...
... you, as a Christian, should not enjoy the same rights as anyone else. Right? ... Right?
C'mon you're better than that. Now you're comparing two different things. Freedom of worship is not equivalent to ethnicity but is addressed under a separate Constitutional protection prohibiting the establishment of a state religion etc. etc.
Stop and think about it for once, will you please?
Thanks for the compliment. I have given it a lot of thought. Why do we assume that people who disagree with us must be idiots? That doesn't help your cause either.
And I don't give a _damn_ who is 'offended' because gays/lesbians get equality under the law. Stop and think about _that_. Getting mad because someone gets equality under the law? Yeah? Well there were plenty of people who got 'offended' because blacks got equality under the law, and even they used bible verses to back them up.
As I said above, there's a difference. And I don't give a_damn_whether you understand it or not. There is a difference between being a white male homosexual who may or may not be known to be such. A gay man can live and work in society without being harassed or treated differently simply because not everyone knows he's gay. Black men don't have that luxury unless they're very light complected, which again, is a matter of birth not choice. NO matter what I do, there will be people who see me on the street and flinch instinctively in fear because I'm a 6'4" black guy. I don't have a "closet" option. So you can be indignant about it all you want but being black and being gay aren't the same.
And taking the "But I think that the fundies s*ck sometimes" argument do little to give you the 'Fair and Balanced' image.
Now you're accusing me of being false. Do you have some special gift that allows you to see other people's hearts and motives? I don't think so. It's not an "image" it's the way I view life. I try to consider all points of a problem or controversy and come to an honest judgement.
...Why _shouldn't_ homosexuals/lesbians have equal civil rights, hmmm? From a point of law, that is? From a point of ethics?
I didn't say they shouldn't. You got your panties in such a was about the fact that I don't view gay rights and civil rights on the same footing that you didn't bother to read or acknowledge my conclusion. Go back and read my post. I'll save you the trouble. Here's what I *actually* posted.
"I think the Christian thing to do is to recognize that, even though homosexuality may be wrong and some of us may find it objectionable, we are all flawed and in need of grace and mercy. As such, we are not qualified to deny people the right to live in a private, loving relationship just because we disapprove of their sexual orientation."
So just in case you missed it, I am not in favor of denying gay people the right to marry. On the contrary. I think that right should be extended to them as a matter of privacy.
Sorry chief, but you still miss the mark. Several times. Allow me to show you some examples of such flaws:
You:
I did not say gays shouldn't enjoy equal protection under the law.
Really? Cause earlier you _explicitely_ stated thusly: "Granting equality for ethnic groups does not automatically mean we should grant equality to gays and lesbians."
Errmm, yes it does, Jerry. Equality for one group of adult citizens equals equal rights for other adult citizens. Get used to the idea. Oh, and the particular black ministers I've heard were opposed to equal rights for homosexuals _because_ they were homosexual; because the ministers veiwed homosexuality as an abomination sinful to God. For that specific reason. Here you are espousing a 'less filling' version of the same thing.
I merely objected to the equating of gay rights with civil rights on the basis that homosexuality is not a genetic component equivalent to race.
But yes, civil rights for homosexuals *is* equivelent to civil rights on race. For the same reason I gave above. Ie., "Equality for one group of adult citizens equals equal rights for other adult citizens." (<-- a great sign-in quote for a Facebook page, I might add. :) ) Equating civil rights for gays to/with civil rights for blacks/other ethnic groups IS equal protection under the law. Else you don't have equal protection under the law. ... Ask any civil rights attorney, ... a _good_ one please!
C'mon you're better than that. Now you're comparing two different things. Freedom of worship is not equivalent to ethnicity but is addressed under a separate Constitutional protection prohibiting the establishment of a state religion etc. etc.
Jerry, read what I said again. And read it in the context of my overall post. The point re: Christianity is from the standpoint of being born that way / not born that way. The example communicating, if one is born a Christian, they get to enjoy equal civil rights. If not, no equal rights. ... Based on a flawed premise.
All of which has no bearing on whether one has equal civil rights.
Thanks for the compliment. I have given it a lot of thought.
Tell me something. Is not challenging what one is taught as biblical instruction really thinking for oneself? Think about that one for a minute. See, I can speak from experience here, as there were a lot of biblical concepts/teachings that I made myself closely examine/challenge/step back from/etc., and it wasn't easy when I still had this fear in my head of God being *angry* that I dared do so. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who is still held in that kind of grip, isn't doing too much of thinking anyway. And a lot of religious people base this opposition to homosexuality and to civil rights for homosexuals _precisely_ on this kind of fear of getting God mad at them. (And before I proceed any further, if the shoe fits in this regard, ... tie your shoe laces.)
As I said above, there's a difference. Says you. Science is saying differently. And I don't give a_damn_whether you understand it or not. Okay. Whatever There is a difference between being a white male homosexual who may or may not be known to be such. A gay man can live and work in society without being harassed or treated differently simply because not everyone knows he's gay.
So why, if he's _known_ to be gay, should he be treated differently to begin with? The same question has undoubtedly been asked regarding black people (and no doubt, you probably seen answers to that question to the affirmative that would consign the answerers to the loony ward. ie., "Cuz blacks r inferior". "Cuz they rn't as intelli-junt as us white peeple.", or especially those who twist evolution to portray blacks in that manner. :-\)
Jerry, you're bringing up are straw man / red herring arguments. All which have nothing to do with the importance, the 'rightness' if you will, of civil rights and equality for homosexuals, whether they use the civil rights model that blacks used or not. Hell, you ought to be glad they are using that model, as it is a successful one. :-)
Oh, and no, I didn't miss this:
"I think the Christian thing to do is to recognize that, even though homosexuality may be wrong and some of us may find it objectionable, we are all flawed and in need of grace and mercy. As such, we are not qualified to deny people the right to live in a private, loving relationship just because we disapprove of their sexual orientation."
Then your conclusion upends your initial premise that civil rights and gay rights aren't on the same footing. Yes it does, as civil rights shouldn't only apply to some groups and not to others. Rather, civil rights deal with equality.
Oh, and I'm getting _my_ panties in a knot? Really? Let's see some of your emotion-based responses, hmmmmm?
1) This is probably not the best place to start posting after having been absent for over a year, but I just can't help it. (Indicates somewhat of a lack of self-control perhaps?)
2) This is, imo, one of those issues that will never get resolved, partly because proponents on each side refuse to respect each other's opinions. (Hmmm, and how much participation in this have _you_ contributed?)
3) Another pet peeve of mine is the consistent equating of the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement. (No emotion here, ehhh?)
4) Insisting that these two principles are the same is not only dishonest, it's offensive to some. (Ohhh, ... like _you_?)
Tell me something, guy. Is all of this nothing more than you getting your panties in a knot? Besides, you've seen my posts. My style remains (largely, and unapologetically) the same. And you have agreed with a lot of my seemingly 'panties in a knot' style posts for a good long time. Hhmmmmm, no complaints from you there. So why be rather selective now?
I just love it when I have people _pretentiously_ (and selectively ;)) 'get offended' at my 'manner of communication', all from the basis of civility, yet they have no problem when I aim this same kind of scathing fire at those whom they oppose. ... Civility then goes out the window, ehh?
Oh, one other thing, if I may 'get my panties in a knot' one more time. ;)
You saith "Do you have some special gift that allows you to see other people's hearts and motives? I don't think so."
Remember that bible verse that saith "For out of the abundance of the heart a man speaketh?"
A lot of times when a person gets all defensive and say "Well, you don't know what's in my heart!", many times they don't realize that people 'judge what's in their heart' because of what what they already said or did.
And heck, there have been a number of occasions where you 'judged my motivations' in this thread, so if you can do it, ... ie., you were just calling it like you thought you saw it.
Recommended Posts
Gen-2
Gee, in addition to the LBGT issue, this post has one foot in religion and one foot in politics. It's the olde double whammy. Maybe the week after the USA goes on the Metric System, this issue will resolve itself.
But until then I have a feeling we'll be slugging along with Two-Liter Bottles and twelve ounce cans.
It's not the minds of all Christians,... and then again, it's not JUST Christians. It's many religions and many minds of those with no religion as well,... that you will have to change.
As for the "SIN" issue. Getting drunk is a sin, and we tried prohibition, but it didn't work. Very few people live their entire lives without getting drunk at least once, and even if they don't, that's okay they just commit some other sin. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. So I think the "SIN" arguement is one that does not follow logic,... Something about logs and motes and eyes comes to mind, it's a non-sequitur.
Will it happen?........ depends largely upon the LBGT community, but I don't think anyone will be opening that door for them, as a society we simply have no manners at times.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Isn't marriage just a vestige of religion's stamp on government? Like a blue law? Perhaps some things, like child custody, are necessary, but after that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Having sampled the wonderful fruits of the institution of marriage, one wonders why anyone would want to join in the carnage anyway?
Maybe I've just slipped off into the "hopelessly cynical" phase of life? Uh un, but get off my lawn anyway...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I clicked your link. What a crock. (imo). You'll have to provide more than that, to prove your point.
Just a quick question for you (if I may)? Are you Goetz, the author of the book? Or are you an aficionado of his?
From the brief description you've provided so far, it's a laughable hypothesis.
The ball is now in your court. Call me "old-fashioned". Es macht nichts..
(edited to add - - - "it's a laughable hypothesis".)
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
You do realize that it's "two men" and "two women" - added words being in italics - ie, two persons (sex unspecified). Men worked in the fields; women did the grinding of corn. It's just what they did. Would you make the same "marriage" argument for two males fixing a car together, or two females doing the weekly shop at the store together?
Sorry, you flunked this one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
The Bible clearly does not like drunkards. However getting drunk is harder to establish as a sin, and drinking is clearly not a sin.
Overly zealous christians tried to push their agenda that drink was sin, they failed. And it never changed the Bible, so as hard as they desire drinking to be a sin, the Bible still praises drink.
Homosexual sex is clearly pronounced to be a sin. It is never praised, nor allowed in the Bible.
So I do not see how these two things can be compared.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
They've done their job and the ice has cracked in many segments of society to not only accept them as members of society but also in many cases vital contributors to their communities.
The Church (or I should say some segments of the church) have had a hand in fighting for those rights as it always has fought for the oppressed, downtrodden and maligned.... as they did in fighting for civil rights and equal treatment for blacks a generation ago.
Now (2010) that seems like a no brainer and its hard to believe that people were legally treated as second class citizens because of their skin color not that long ago..
Change, for some reason always seems to come with great difficulty and is not without growing pains.I suppose that some will fight against it, as some fought to maintain racial segregation 50 years ago. For the life of me I cant figure out what threatens people so much about two people who love each other wanting to get married --but it surely seems to...
Some major denominations are fully for full rights, others (for instance The Episcopalians and Anglicans) are split, either for or against, and their bodies fracturing over the issue.
O well--
I think that it is inevitable that eventually it will happen and 50 years from now people will look back in astonishment to think that at one time it wasn't allowed.
If things never changed we'd still be somewhere burning 'witches', although it takes way to long, thankfully--they do
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pax
So is marrying if you're not a virgin (ladies... OK for men).
So are tattoos.
So is divorce.
So is football (playing with the skin of a pig).
So is long hair for (some) men and short hair for (some) women.
Oh peepull, when are we going to graduate from proof-texting our social agendas?
Please don't bash with the Bible, it's... it's... unseemly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Read the Book of Ruth sometime. A WIDOW REMARRIES.
I'd be more than astonished if she'd remained a virgin throughout her first marriage.
I'd be doubly astonished if you could find me a verse that said she DID.
Ruth did GREAT. She was a non-virgin who married Boaz.
Cuttings and markings in the flesh "for the dead" and in accordance with
the worship of other gods is hardly the same as some woman getting a
"tramp stamp" above her belt of a butterfly or something.
Sure explains why Mary's husband had the option of divorcing his wife,
and Jesus Christ himself said it was permitted.....
Chapter and verse please. Judging from how your understanding has
flubbed everything so far, I'd like to read that one myself.
Define "long hair for men", "short hair for women",
and who you THINK those rules apply to.
I've seen male devout Jews with some hair I'd personally consider
"long", who were following the rules as best they understood them.
Oh, people, when are we going to stop reading AROUND the Bible,
and stop reading what Right Reverend So-and-So SAID about the Bible,
and actually READ the Bible?
Please don't flail about with such a clumsy "argument",
it's insulting to the intelligence of the locals.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Pax,
you missed this question.
Are you Goetz, the author of the book,
or are you an aficionado of his?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
The word "taken", in Luke 17:34-36 means DEATH. I'm guessing your saying:
One homosexual's death is OK, and the other isn't? God is now respecting individuals??
Verse 32 (about Lot's wife), sets the context. Twinky was right - - you flunked.
And thanks for re-iterating my question WordWolf. You never did answer that one Pax.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
I can't either. If you ever figure it out, let me know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Me three.
If it wasn't so ominous, I'd find a good bit of humor in the conservative/fundamentalist labels of late. "Patriot Act", "Defense of Marriage Act", "Intelligent Design" and such like are absolutely morbidly obese with irony...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
AMEN (and women) :)
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i don't believe in marriage period
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
This is probably not the best place to start posting after having been absent for over a year, but I just can't help it.
This is, imo, one of those issues that will never get resolved, partly because proponents on each side refuse to respect each other's opinions. I see flaws in the reasoning of the GLBT side and the Fundamentalists. FWIW (not much admittedly) here's the way I see it.
I have to agree with those who point out that homosexuality cannot be equated to drinking. Homosexuality is clearly and consistently denounced in the Scripture as sinful. I believe "abomination" is the work used in the OT, which makes it not only sinful but disgustingly so. So for the progressives to accuse those who oppose gay marriage as narrow-minded or backward is unfair.
Another pet peeve of mine is the consistent equating of the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement. As an African American and a staunch believer in the inherent rightness of the civil rights movement, I must point out that this is analogy only holds water if you believe that people are born gay or lesbian. I for one, don't believe that. For one there is the whole Anne Heich fiasco. For those who have forgotten Anne, she was Ellen Degeneres' partner when Ellen came out of the closet. In an interview with Oprah, Ellen affirmed she'd always been lesbian, but Anne said she'd been heterosexual until she met Ellen. A short time later, Anne fled their love nest and ran screaming to a guy. She is now once again heterosexual, although probably not mentally or emotionally stable.
I forget now where we saw it (I think it's on Web MD), but Deb and I read recently that studies have found that women can switch from heterosexual to lesbian lifestyles and back. If a woman is not in a heterosexual relationship and is living with a particularly close female friend, they may become lovers. When one of them meets a man, it can dissolve. I know people who have gone through this.
In short, I don't believe people are not "born" gay. It's a lifestyle choice. On the other hand, people are born African-American, Latino, or Asian. Granting equality for ethnic groups does not automatically mean we should grant equality to gays and lesbians. Insisting that these two principles are the same is not only dishonest, it's offensive to some.
On the other hand...
I cannot automatically denounce homosexuality because the Bible condemns it. Years of reviewing and reconsidering what we were taught in PFAL and what's in the Bible have brought me to the conclusion that the Bible is not infallible truth. It's truth filtered through flawed human minds. Some of the aspects of that filter are the customs of the Judean and first century Greco-Roman cultures. That's why the Twelve didn't carry out Jesus' Great Commission to preach the gospel to every creature until several decades after Pentecost. They were comfortably Judean and didn't want to sully themselves with the Gentiles. Even after they were reminded of what Jesus had ordered (Acts 15:7-11)most of them stayed in Jerusalem and left the evangelizing to Paul and his associates. But I digress.
The point is, I'm not comfortable condemning someone just because the Bible said so. So I respect those Christians who take a more progressive approach to this issue, remembering that we are all sinners saved by grace and that Jesus died for everyone; not just for good, upstanding, straight, righteous folks.
If we are all sinners saved by grace and there is none good, not even one, we have little right to condemn a whole class of people because they have a "sinful" lifestyle; especially since Fundamentalist Christians have the same rates of adultery and divorce as everyone else.
So I reject the GBLT argument that gay rights are the same as civil rights. But I also reject the Fundamentalist's argument that homosexuality is so sinful that we should universally condemn and reject homosexuals and treat them as inherently inferior.
I think the Christian thing to do is to recognize that, even though homosexuality may be wrong and some of us may find it objectionable, we are all flawed and in need of grace and mercy. As such, we are not qualified to deny people the right to live in a private, loving relationship just because we disapprove of their sexual orientation.
Edited by JbarraxLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"As such, we are not qualified to deny people the right to live in a private, loving relationship just because we disapprove of their sexual orientation."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Jerry, time to wake up and smell the Reality, dude!
"I have to agree with those who point out that homosexuality cannot be equated to drinking. Homosexuality is clearly and consistently denounced in the Scripture as sinful. I believe "abomination" is the work used in the OT, which makes it not only sinful but disgustingly so. So for the progressives to accuse those who oppose gay marriage as narrow-minded or backward is unfair."
Well Jerry, ya know something. Just because you believe that the Bible calls homosexuality an 'abomination' doesn't remove such determinations from being rendered as backwards. That might seem 'unfair' to you, but then again, consider how homosexuals feel about having what they do as being rendered as 'an abomination' (which is an admitedly strong term, stronger than 'unfair').
"Another pet peeve of mine is the consistent equating of the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement. As an African American and a staunch believer in the inherent rightness of the civil rights movement, I must point out that this is analogy only holds water if you believe that people are born gay or lesbian. I for one, don't believe that."
Well, exccuuussee me. So just because _you_ don't believe that gays are born that way somehow invalidates, _for the whole homosexual group_, the need for civil rights? And since when did the fact that you're black kick into this? Do some blacks feel that the whole concept of civil rights somehow belongs to them? Exclusively? I've heard some black religious leaders act pretty much the same way, with this "Hey! That's _mine_!" attitude when homosexuals (and atheists even!) start using terms like 'civil rights' and 'equality' as well. ... Hey kid! Time to share the toys!
"For one there is the whole Anne Heich fiasco. For those who have forgotten Anne, she was Ellen Degeneres' partner when Ellen came out of the closet. In an interview with Oprah, Ellen affirmed she'd always been lesbian, but Anne said she'd been heterosexual until she met Ellen. A short time later, Anne fled their love nest and ran screaming to a guy. She is now once again heterosexual, although probably not mentally or emotionally stable."
Wow, gee! *One* example of (what's called) a switch hitter, and all the increasing scientific evidence of homosexuality being naturally born in certain people goes straight out the window? Ummm, what about all the (increasing) evidence where homosexuality is even occuring in the animal world?
"In short, I don't believe people are not "born" gay. It's a lifestyle choice. On the other hand, people are born African-American, Latino, or Asian. Granting equality for ethnic groups does not automatically mean we should grant equality to gays and lesbians. Insisting that these two principles are the same is not only dishonest, it's offensive to some."
Oh I just *love* this little jewel. Ok guy, let's continue playing this game of yours. Gays aren't born that way, ergo they _don't_ get to enjoy equality under the law. (Where some people came up with _that_ illogic, I can only attribute to drugs. :-\), whilst black/other non-white people are born their way, so they get to enjoy equality under the law.
With me so far? ... Good.
What about religion? Since you weren't born a Christian (No! You weren't. You were *taught* it!), ... according to the same logic, ...
... you, as a Christian, should not enjoy the same rights as anyone else. Right? ... Right?
Stop and think about it for once, will you please? And I don't give a _damn_ who is 'offended' because gays/lesbians get equality under the law. Stop and think about _that_. Getting mad because someone gets equality under the law? Yeah? Well there were plenty of people who got 'offended' because blacks got equality under the law, and even they used bible verses to back them up.
They wore white sheets too!
And taking the "But I think that the fundies s*ck sometimes" argument do little to give you the 'Fair and Balanced' image.
Equal civil rights apply to ALL. It _has_ to be that way. That's the beauty of the Constitution. And it sure as hell beats any 'godly' government I've ever seen talked about from a lot of Christians.
Oh and here's a question for you for bonus points:
Why _shouldn't_ homosexuals/lesbians have equal civil rights, hmmm? From a point of law, that is? From a point of ethics? The only basis you bring it up is from the religious/'it offends me' standpoint. ... A standpoint which should have _no_ basis in law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
So people are classified by who they have sex with and as such are entitled to certain civil rights?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Garth, I think you're overeacting. And distorting what I said. Anne Heich is merely the example everyone knows about. I personally know of two other women who've done likewise, and it has been documented that women switching from hetero to bisexual or lesbian lifestyles is not rare. I realize this is an emotionally charged topic, but it doesn't add to the discourse if you mischaracterize what other people think just because you don't like it.
Again, you're putting words in my mouth and in fact contradicting the conclusion of my post. I did not say gays shouldn't enjoy equal protection under the law. I merely objected to the equating of gay rights with civil rights on the basis that homosexuality is not a genetic component equivalent to race.
There may be a genetic component to a person's tendency toward homosexuality. There are also genetic components that make some people more likely to be obese or bipolar. But that is merely a tendency. Being born Asian or American Indian or African American is not a tendency, it's an obvious genetic trait. There's a difference of degree that is being ignored.
C'mon you're better than that. Now you're comparing two different things. Freedom of worship is not equivalent to ethnicity but is addressed under a separate Constitutional protection prohibiting the establishment of a state religion etc. etc.
Thanks for the compliment. I have given it a lot of thought. Why do we assume that people who disagree with us must be idiots? That doesn't help your cause either.
As I said above, there's a difference. And I don't give a_damn_whether you understand it or not. There is a difference between being a white male homosexual who may or may not be known to be such. A gay man can live and work in society without being harassed or treated differently simply because not everyone knows he's gay. Black men don't have that luxury unless they're very light complected, which again, is a matter of birth not choice. NO matter what I do, there will be people who see me on the street and flinch instinctively in fear because I'm a 6'4" black guy. I don't have a "closet" option. So you can be indignant about it all you want but being black and being gay aren't the same.
Now you're accusing me of being false. Do you have some special gift that allows you to see other people's hearts and motives? I don't think so. It's not an "image" it's the way I view life. I try to consider all points of a problem or controversy and come to an honest judgement.
I didn't say they shouldn't. You got your panties in such a was about the fact that I don't view gay rights and civil rights on the same footing that you didn't bother to read or acknowledge my conclusion. Go back and read my post. I'll save you the trouble. Here's what I *actually* posted.
"I think the Christian thing to do is to recognize that, even though homosexuality may be wrong and some of us may find it objectionable, we are all flawed and in need of grace and mercy. As such, we are not qualified to deny people the right to live in a private, loving relationship just because we disapprove of their sexual orientation."
So just in case you missed it, I am not in favor of denying gay people the right to marry. On the contrary. I think that right should be extended to them as a matter of privacy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Jerry,
Sorry chief, but you still miss the mark. Several times. Allow me to show you some examples of such flaws:
You:
Really? Cause earlier you _explicitely_ stated thusly: "Granting equality for ethnic groups does not automatically mean we should grant equality to gays and lesbians."
Errmm, yes it does, Jerry. Equality for one group of adult citizens equals equal rights for other adult citizens. Get used to the idea. Oh, and the particular black ministers I've heard were opposed to equal rights for homosexuals _because_ they were homosexual; because the ministers veiwed homosexuality as an abomination sinful to God. For that specific reason. Here you are espousing a 'less filling' version of the same thing.
But yes, civil rights for homosexuals *is* equivelent to civil rights on race. For the same reason I gave above. Ie., "Equality for one group of adult citizens equals equal rights for other adult citizens." (<-- a great sign-in quote for a Facebook page, I might add. :) ) Equating civil rights for gays to/with civil rights for blacks/other ethnic groups IS equal protection under the law. Else you don't have equal protection under the law. ... Ask any civil rights attorney, ... a _good_ one please!
Jerry, read what I said again. And read it in the context of my overall post. The point re: Christianity is from the standpoint of being born that way / not born that way. The example communicating, if one is born a Christian, they get to enjoy equal civil rights. If not, no equal rights. ... Based on a flawed premise.
All of which has no bearing on whether one has equal civil rights.
Tell me something. Is not challenging what one is taught as biblical instruction really thinking for oneself? Think about that one for a minute. See, I can speak from experience here, as there were a lot of biblical concepts/teachings that I made myself closely examine/challenge/step back from/etc., and it wasn't easy when I still had this fear in my head of God being *angry* that I dared do so. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who is still held in that kind of grip, isn't doing too much of thinking anyway. And a lot of religious people base this opposition to homosexuality and to civil rights for homosexuals _precisely_ on this kind of fear of getting God mad at them. (And before I proceed any further, if the shoe fits in this regard, ... tie your shoe laces.)
So why, if he's _known_ to be gay, should he be treated differently to begin with? The same question has undoubtedly been asked regarding black people (and no doubt, you probably seen answers to that question to the affirmative that would consign the answerers to the loony ward. ie., "Cuz blacks r inferior". "Cuz they rn't as intelli-junt as us white peeple.", or especially those who twist evolution to portray blacks in that manner. :-\)
Jerry, you're bringing up are straw man / red herring arguments. All which have nothing to do with the importance, the 'rightness' if you will, of civil rights and equality for homosexuals, whether they use the civil rights model that blacks used or not. Hell, you ought to be glad they are using that model, as it is a successful one. :-)
Oh, and no, I didn't miss this:
Then your conclusion upends your initial premise that civil rights and gay rights aren't on the same footing. Yes it does, as civil rights shouldn't only apply to some groups and not to others. Rather, civil rights deal with equality.
Period.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Oh, and I'm getting _my_ panties in a knot? Really? Let's see some of your emotion-based responses, hmmmmm?
1) This is probably not the best place to start posting after having been absent for over a year, but I just can't help it. (Indicates somewhat of a lack of self-control perhaps?)
2) This is, imo, one of those issues that will never get resolved, partly because proponents on each side refuse to respect each other's opinions. (Hmmm, and how much participation in this have _you_ contributed?)
3) Another pet peeve of mine is the consistent equating of the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement. (No emotion here, ehhh?)
4) Insisting that these two principles are the same is not only dishonest, it's offensive to some. (Ohhh, ... like _you_?)
Tell me something, guy. Is all of this nothing more than you getting your panties in a knot? Besides, you've seen my posts. My style remains (largely, and unapologetically) the same. And you have agreed with a lot of my seemingly 'panties in a knot' style posts for a good long time. Hhmmmmm, no complaints from you there. So why be rather selective now?
I just love it when I have people _pretentiously_ (and selectively ;)) 'get offended' at my 'manner of communication', all from the basis of civility, yet they have no problem when I aim this same kind of scathing fire at those whom they oppose. ... Civility then goes out the window, ehh?
Yah! <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Oh, one other thing, if I may 'get my panties in a knot' one more time. ;)
You saith "Do you have some special gift that allows you to see other people's hearts and motives? I don't think so."
Remember that bible verse that saith "For out of the abundance of the heart a man speaketh?"
A lot of times when a person gets all defensive and say "Well, you don't know what's in my heart!", many times they don't realize that people 'judge what's in their heart' because of what what they already said or did.
And heck, there have been a number of occasions where you 'judged my motivations' in this thread, so if you can do it, ... ie., you were just calling it like you thought you saw it.
... guess what. So can I.
Caio!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.