Yeah, running coach just made me aware of these numbers which took me by surprise.
I believe you may be right- that could have been a great compromise and a win win for all parties. But, as it stands now, the Supreme Court said no compromise is needed.
I’m still surprised by these numbers because the last poll I saw showed the majority of people in America support SSM. So how did 31 states referendums pass this ban on Civil Union? 
There really couldn’t ever have been a compromise of the subject of gay rights. The issue is that gays are not treated equally in society. Any compromise would, by definition, mean that gays are still not treated equally in society, just not as unequally as they were before the compromise. That’s not a situation that would be acceptable to the vast majority of gay people.
Support for gay marriage enjoyed an unprecedented swing in support over the last ten or so years. A lot of those bans were passed back in the late 90s/early 21st century, when the polls tilted in the other direction.
You’ve also got to keep in mind that, while the population of the US is, overall, in favor of gay marriage, the population is not evenly distributed throughout the states. California’s got nearly forty million people, and is over-all pretty gay friendly. Alabama has around five million, and is… not so friendly. Assume everyone in California is 100% pro-gay rights, and everyone in Alabama in 100% anti (which is obviously not the case in either direction, but it makes the math simpler). You could have six states like Alabama to every one state like California, and you’d have a situation where the majority of Americans support gay marriage, but a majority of states have outlawed it.
Thanks especially on the latter response. Makes sense.
As for your first reply here, I knew shortly after I wrote my words “great compromise” I would see a rebuttal like yours here. I was going to amend it, but my editing privileges had ended. :smack: Again, it makes sense.
No, I don’t think you did address my point in your response to jayjay, nor do I think you addressed jayjay’s either, but I’ll only speak for myself here.
You didn’t address my point. This is what you said:
I don’t PROMOTE legislation to allow for these rights for gays
Your general theme from your first post here seems to be that you don’t actively participate in promoting SSM and any relevant legislation. Now I find this very curious because there are a great many things that I don’t actively promote, either – in fact I hardly ever promote anything, I basically just enjoy minding my own business. But I doubt that anyone has ever joined an Internet discussion board to announce such a fact – that they don’t promote something although if someone wants to do it that’s fine with them. So what are you ***really ***saying? What does “not promote” really mean? What point are you really making?
Look at it from this perspective. Basic human rights are intrinsic – governments don’t grant them, we already have them. Bad governments can deprive us of them, and good governments can help guarantee them, but no government can create them, or, as you put it, “allow” them. To put it in your favored terminology, human rights are God-given. A free and just society doesn’t need to “allow” them.
SSM is a matter of basic human rights, of the rights of all people to be equal and have equal access to social institutions like the lifetime partnership of marriage and the legal and emotional benefits and social acceptance that it implies. The converse to that is for gays to be relegated to the status of second-class citizens in social perceptions and treatment: shamed, ostracized, and demonized. The kind of society where adolescents just coming to terms with their sexuality are afraid to talk about it, feel vilified and alienated by the world, and in some cases are driven to suicide by the confused turmoil of adolescent emotions. I’m sure that this is not the kind of society you want to live in, but it’s what everyone who even ever so gently promulgates the darkness of discrimination is implicitly condoning.
This is an issue of basic human rights. That was the view of the US Supreme Court, using different words but remarkably similar logic to the same decision reached decades earlier by the Supreme Court of Canada.
So what exactly do you mean by saying that you “don’t promote legislation to allow for these rights for gays…”? Because no legislation is needed here at all – the legislation that has existed, along with crackpot state constitutional amendments that I mentioned before, has all been to ban gay relationships and deprive people of their basic human rights and basic human dignity. What is really needed is the absence of such legislation, and the Supreme Court ruling achieved that. All the banning nonsense was overturned. So what legislation are you “not promoting”? In the entire history of the US and every other country that I know of, there has never been any legislation requiring anyone to be gay. This is a human rights issue, plain and simple. An issue of leaving people alone to live their lives even if we don’t happen to agree with them. I’ve stated the dichotomy that exists. Whose side are you on?
Hmmmm, I’ve painstakingly have reread my answers to make sure I have answered all questions put forth. I guess I’ve missed one or two.
I was not out there promoting for SSM. Like you said, I was just sitting on my couch minding my own business.
Up until a month ago, correct me if I’m wrong, the only marriage the Federal Govt gave its blessing to was that between a man and a woman. A few states had voted for and passed legislation allowing for such, but not the Federal Govt. This, in order for SSM to be a nationwide right, something had to be done to allow for this. I believe the will of the people (not me, remember, I was sitting on my couch minding my own business) move the judges to squeak out the 5-4 ruling.
This is what I meant when I said I did not PROMOTE SSM.
Previously, I even mentioned the basis for my non support, so I think you got it all now. I’m not sure I can make this any clearer. I’m really not trying to be clandestine here.
PS. The reason I mainly entered this thread is because of the somewhat disturbing title. I wanted to add my perspective while reading yours.
During the turn of this century the matter was very skilfully used as a “wedge issue” by the Political Right to get the Religious Conservative voters mobilized and to the polls. Part of the scaremongering used was that Civil Unions were a “foot-in-the-door” trick of the Liberal Plot to Destroy Family Values (“Family” being codeword for Conservative Christian) Because They Hate America. Thus the extremely reactionary referenda, and while you are here at the polling place all riled up at Liberals, may I interest you in this slate of fine Republican candidates (plus a few opportunistic Dems thrown in)?
While California is relatively gay-friendly, at least my part of it, remember we also passed a proposition against it. It wouldn’t pass now to be sure.
The odd thing about civil unions, if Christians really wanted to “protect” marriage then making civil unions available to all would be the way to do it. Though marriage has lots of benefits, especially nationally, most of the worst abuses would have been eliminated with strong civil union laws. Which are available to opposite sex couples also (and I don’t recall any opposition to them for that purpose.)
No, it’s pretty clear that “preservation of marriage” was just a smokescreen for these people. They never gave any decent explanation of how marriage would be hurt. My marriage seems to have weathered this crisis just fine. 
This is a little off. The ruling in June had nothing to do with the federal government. The federal government was given the ability to recognize SSM two years ago, when the Supreme Court struck down the second provision of DOMA. Prior to that, the federal government was forbidden to recognize SSM in any way. After that, the Obama administration began to give recognition in military benefits, social security and other federal programs to same-sex couples who were married in states that did allow it.
The ruling this past June found that STATE bans on SSM were unconstitutional. It didn’t affect the federal government at all. It merely said that bans on SSM violated the Constitutional rights of LGBT people, so stop banning it.
A tricky part of majority rule in electoral systems, is it means a majority of those who bothered to cast an actual ballot on the date of the voting…
Again, you make a lot of sense here Voyager. And again, there is not much I can say to “debate” you on. Sorry. 
Also, I’m glad your marriage is doing fine. I always like hearing how “love” is winning over hate. I believe happy marriages are now in a minority here in our country. Even my daughter is in the middle of a nasty custody battle with her controlling husband. Maybe with SSM being allowed, the percentage of happy marriages will go up. 
Shalom,
TM
Yes, it does seem to be a useful strategy- scaring people to act. In fact, don’t you think our Feseral government uses this tactic continuously. For example, how often do you think our Federal government has put out information to arouse fear in U.S. in order to attain some objective, like justify spending more money for defense or enter some war, etc?
Okay, I see this thread is winding down so let me get back to the original post and the title of the thread that caught my eye- are anti-gay Christians bigots? I really needed to ponder these words to see if there is any truth to them. Here is what I came up with.
Here is a Webster dictionary definition:
A person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Read on…
Regretfully, some do, I hope not many, but definitely some. Does this make them a bigot? Absolutely.
This saddens me even more than most of you because I know this is not what Christ has taught us. Christ has taught me to respect ALL MEN because all are made in the image of God and that we are to love EVEN our enemy. Thus, if a christian does not agree with the lifestyle and considers a gay person to be their enemy (not sure why) then guess what? Christ wants you to show even more love to that person. Say what? Yep, more love.
“Yikes, Jesus, im not sure about this. Are you sure?”
“Take up your cross, deny yourself, and follow me…”
A Christian has no place according to the teaching of Christ to HATE a people group, especially a group of people that have done no harm to them or to society. If you want to hate, go hate a Nazi or someone with the last name of Pot, Stalin, or Hussein.
In addition, according to the Bible in the book of proverbs chapter 6, it gives a list of 6 things God hates, and guess what is not in that list? Homosexual behavior. So why do some Christians make homosexuality the plague of all sins? Because they are b-I-g-o-t-s! Now, if I’m a true follower of God, I’m thinking I better study and ponder this list carefully because I certainly don’t want God to be THAT angry with me. Oh, guess what? A proud look is one from that list. Ooooooops.
Regretfully, christians, in my opinion, have pushed people away from the churches and the Bible because of this intolerant hatred toward their fellow man. I remember the time when I felt god pulling my heart and I went back to church after having been away for a long time, and I walked in, and I wasn’t there five minutes before I heard this lady behind me say, “The church will let anyone in these days…” (I had very long hair and basically looked like a hippie, having come from the Woodstock generation.)
Do you know what this did to me? I stayed away again for a few more years. I have a hard time dealing with hypocrisy, as I am sure you do too.
Well, I guess the guy who wrote the title and the original post was mostly right, but not completely. Not everyone represents Christ with that kind of intolerant hatred. I believe some are just misguided with good intentions. I know they are probably hard to find because they are not as vocal as the latter group of Christians, but they are out there.
To any gay person here: I truly am sorry for any disrespectful and hateful actions you may have received from unloving Christians (don’t forget, many are Christian in name only). I hope you don’t judge Christ as harshly as you have been judged by His “followers.”
In conclusion, Please do me this one favor- don’t judge the words and life of Jesus Christ on the words and actions of his alleged followers. Judge Christianity on the words and actions of Jesus himself, as written in the Holy Bible. I was immediately attracted to Jesus after reading the Gospel of John because I know of no greater person who demonstrated the love and compassion I needed, and I believe we all desire. His sacrificial death for me and for the world was just what I needed and my example to follow. Love as he loved, and let the Holy Spirit worry about convicting the world of what is right or wrong. I do not believe anyone would call Jesus a bigot, although as we all know, many of his followers are. Try to separate the two.
I hope I didn’t cross the line here and become to preachy. I apologize for that and I can assure you, no one will be coming to you with a plate in their hands looking for a contribution. :D. Thank you for making my first days here memorable. I look forward to getting to interact with you all on many topics and discussions. I am always open and available to discuss anything I may say, especially if it offends you. That is never my intention, but as you know, I too am flawed.
Your friend,
TM
There are many kinds of marriages, biblically…
Marvellous, isn’t it?
I looked up some of the references and I think the first reference to Genesis 2:24 is in error – “wives subordinate to husbands, interfaith marriages prohibited, arranged marriages, bride must prove virginity or be stoned to death”. Those things I believe are scattered all over the Bible, but none are found in that specific section. For instance, the recommendation to stone non-virgin brides actually appears in Deuteronomy 22:20-21:
But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
But the others appear to be basically correct:
Genesis 38:6-10 (widow to marry brother-in-law):
And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.
Numbers 31:1-18 and Deuteronomy 21:11-14 (soldiers get to take & keep virgins of the enemy):
And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (victim must marry her rapist, and they may never divorce, but rapist owes father 50 shekels for property loss):
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
But my hero in all this is Solomon, the lucky devil – 700 wives (all under orders to be subordinate to him) and 300 concubines. Hugh Hefner is like a 75-year-old virgin compared to that ol’ stud! Those were the days!
But, you must admit, nowhere does the Bible condone gay marriage. Because that would be disgusting!
Jesus may not have said it directly*, but that “horrible” Paul did say in Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
That sounds pretty anti-bigotry to me.
*He did treat the Samaritan woman at the well with respect and make the Samaritan the good guy in the parable of the Good Samaritan, clearly playing on the then current bigotry against them for being “half-breeds.” And he has all that stuff about loving your neighbor and treating treating the lowest in society with respect.
I don’t think you were being preachy. I think you’re expressing sincere opinions well. As are, I think, most of the rest of us here.
But I do have a sincere question that I would love for you to answer.
Clearly the Bible is full of antiquated concepts stemming from the times in which it was written, as we just saw in the previous post. It’s also full of allegories, contradictions, and a great many matters subject to interpretation – in part because of the historical fact that it was written by so many different people at so many different times, many of them with different agendas. So I just want to put Biblical literalism aside for a moment and focus on what you said above.
There’s a great deal of speculation about the historical Jesus and who he really was, but Christianity is based on the sort of idealized exemplar of love and compassion that you describe above. And that’s a great thing to base a religion on. But here’s my question. Given the individual and social harm that bigotry wreaks on society, including anti-gay bigotry for all the reasons that I described before, driving people to misery, alienation, and even suicide for reasons that are completely not their fault but the result of bigoted societal attitudes, what would Jesus do? The idealized Jesus of love and compassion you just described. What would he do? How, for example, would Jesus vote in a referendum to ban gay marriage? Would Jesus “not promote legislation” that ensures equality and happiness for all? Would he just stay the hell out of it? Would he vote against it? Would Jesus go around hoping for a constitutional amendment to really and truly stick it to the gays for all time? Does that sound like your guy?
Welcome to SD, TennisMenace! Thanks to your thoughtful contributions to this discussion, and best of all, for your willingness to seriously challenge your own beliefs. That’s the hardest but most fruitful of mental labors.
I respect your positions and your opinions. I’m ambivalent about your position that (if I understand your posts correctly) that you’d vote against allowing gay marriage, if it came to a vote in your polity (which now won’t be happening, thanks to the SCOTUS). On one hand, I have to admit that it’s your right to vote your beliefs, but on the other hand, I feel that in doing so, you might not be holding a tenable ethical line (and that’s a harder argument than the first hand, I admit.)
What about lending and borrowing? Are those sins? If not, why not? I’ll come back to this later.
The vast majority of gay people insist that they discovered their gayness; they didn’t choose it. So, whether it was God or not, it was not the people themselves who are responsible for being gay. (“Being gay” as opposed to gay behavior, which is a completely different thing.)
Christians use Original Sin to absolve God of all responsibility for evil, so I guess we’ll just disagree on that point, though.
I don’t have any data; all I can rely on is Facebook posts and political campaigning for those against SSM, which was clearly based on purportedly Christian values by self-labeled Christians. Of course, if it’s on Facebook, it has to be true.
Give your definition of “bigot” above, which is a reasonable one, I will admit that it’s too strong a word to be used in a sweeping generalization. (Anyone who makes a sweeping generalization is an idiot, anyway.)
Even then you had the grace to admit that it applies to many.
For the purposes of argument, though, let’s back off and use the term “prejudice” instead, which literally means judgment prior to knowledge, and is often more loosely used to indicate things like racial bias.
It seems to me that most Christians aren’t against homosexuality because of the paltry few words about it in their Bibles, especially the NT. Christ never mentions it. There are only a handful of verses in all of the NT that discuss it, and a couple places in the OT that specifically mention it. Otherwise, it’s just listed as “sodomy” along with a host of other nasty business stuff.
Meanwhile, Christ does specifically warn against lending or borrowing. Christ also implores us to give up our material wealth, give it to the poor, and rely on God to provide.
I suspect that the real reason Christians are against homosexuality but not against lending is for the reasons like the following. I’ll put these in the first person, because it’s true posed that way. (I’m prejudiced against homosexuality. I admit it’s an unethical prejudice, so I fight it.)
Bottom line: this is an emotional bias, which I suspect is both cultural and innate (a form of xenophobia). Christians, when reading their Bibles, see the bits that correspond with their biases, and latch on. Many preachers in their pulpits reinforce this (though I don’t remember it ever coming up in my middle-class Presbyterian church.) TV ministers and public figures definitely reinforce it.
Anti-gay sentiment is not really based on the Bible; it’s an emotional bias that the Bible slightly reinforces it. Yet the Bible is given as the root cause. I’ll believe that when they argue against borrowing and lending.
I’m interested in your thoughts on this. I’ve already learned a lot from this thread, and corrected some of the assertions in my OP.
To be fair, Mosaic Law explicitly calls for the death penalty for homosexual acts. I’m willing to be educated, but I don’t believe it calls for the death penalty for lending or borrowing, or eating shellfish. So to say it only “slightly reinforces” bias against homosex is IMO grossly understating the case.
And if I’m not mistaken, the death penalty for adultery isn’t really for adultery, it’s for cuckolding. No problem if a man cheats with an unmarried and unbetrothed woman.
Lear Jeff,
I know the Bible, in the First Testament, discourages one guaranteeing someone else’s debt (surety), but I’m not aware about lending and borrowing being a sin. I also am aware of this following from Got Questions.org:
Moses addressed this issue in the Old Testament. Essentially, the Israelites were not permitted to charge interest when they loaned money to an impoverished brother. They could, however, charge interest on loans made to other, more affluent Jews and to foreigners. This rule was part of the Mosaic Law: “If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest” (Exodus 22:25; see also Psalm 15:5). This prohibition against charging interest actually included “food or anything else that may earn interest” (Deuteronomy 23:19). The purpose of the law was two-fold: an interest-bearing loan would only exacerbate the plight of the poor, and God promised a blessing on the gracious lender that would far surpass any interest he would make. Additionally, at the end of every seven years, creditors were to cancel all the debts they were owed by fellow Israelites (Deuteronomy 15:1).
In the New Testament, Jesus tells us not to “turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you” (Matthew 5:42). He applied this principle even to our enemies in their time of need: “But love your enemies and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great” (Luke 6:35, emphasis added). Indeed, there are numerous passages throughout the Bible exhorting us to have a generous and giving heart, especially to the less fortunate. Moses taught his people, “If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs” (Deuteronomy 15:7-8).
Read more: What does the Bible say about lending money? | GotQuestions.org
Anyhow, I’m not aware of lending being a sin. Can you be specific? Thanks.
Oh, and thanks for the kind words addressed to me.
TM