Only one side is trying to exclude the other side from a definition. Asking for inclusion is not oppression. Legislating exclusion is the very definition.
Based on everything else I’ve seen you write, I get the impression that the stuff you deleted was more reasonable, forceful, and sensible than 99% of what makes it onto these boards.
I’ve never been too good with the tenet of “turn the other cheek,” and I’ll be the first to admit it. If I do go to hell, it’ll be for my temper more than for the fact that I like the boys. But I always interpreted that not as “let people do whatever they want and sit back passively,” but “when attacked, don’t respond by attacking in kind.” In other words: if you’re part of a group that’s being attacked and painted with a broad brush that misinterprets everything you believe in and what you’re fighting for, you shouldn’t respond by doing the same thing to them. Turning this into “gays vs. Christians” is not only counter-productive, it’s particularly bad because it insults me twice over.
I’m looking for reasoned, compassionate discourse as well. I do know that “Christianity is about hatred” and “Fuck Christians” ain’t it. It’s just hypocrisy.
Well, it’s kind of obvious you don’t care about what Christianity is all about. Seems to me that there are two ways to go here: On the one hand, I could abandon my religion simply because a lot of people – both Christians and non-Christians – have misconstrued and corrupted the fundamental tenets of what my religion stands for. On the other, all of y’all could take a step back and think about religous tolerance, religious freedom, and why they’re important.
I’m not budging. I don’t belong to a church, I don’t believe in a literal interpretation of the King James’ Bible, and I don’t hate people because they’re different. And yet, I’m still going to call myself a Christian. As much as it pains the people who think that being gay and Christian are funadmentally incompatible. Because I know they’re not.
I don’t act like what most folks think of when they think of homos, either. Does that mean I need to start dating women? Or am I just not allowed to call myself a homosexual anymore?
To be fair, while our leader’s are supposedly at least for civil unions, it was apparent yesterday that some of the everyday folks on our side are also asking for oppression. I’ll grant you that it’s not part of our platform (if it were, I’d be looking for another party), but we still have some work to do at home. Let’s pull our own member’s heads out of their asses and then work on the right. While I despise homophobia from the right, I hate it even more when it’s on the left.
Remind me to go apostrophe hunting next time I change the wording of my posts. 
There is no god, and anyone who says different is either a liar, a fool or insane.
You know what? I’ve offered up respect for other people’s religious beliefs my whole life. I’ve fought for the right of people to believe what they want and practice their religion as they see fit, so long as their religious practice doesn’t harm anyone else or deny another’s rights. And see what that got me.
Fuck respecting people who don’t respect me. Fuck respecting people who believe I’ve declared “war” on their “culture” for daring to try to live in it. Fuck respecting people who believe the world would be a better place without me. The worthless pieces of filth who voted for any of these amendments or who agree with their intent are unworthy of my respect. Fuck them all.
Otto, the people who voted for those amendments did not do so because they believe in God, they did it because they’re assholes or they’re ignorant or they were naiively badgered into doing it by others. To blame Christianity for this is just as off bases as it is to use Christianity as a justification.
A lot of the people- an awful lot of the people- who are leading the charge for GLBT rights are people of faith, and they lead this charge not in spite of their faith but because of it.
The Bible was used to justify slavery while abolition and the underground railroad were driven by Christians convicted by their faith that slavery was evil.
The American civil rights movement was born in Baptist churches and brainstormed in the basements.
Major American churches are risking schisms as we speak by their efforts to not only accept and fight for the rights of gay people but to ordain them as ministers, priests, even bishops.
This is an internal Christian fight as much as a secular one and the bigots are losing…slowly but inexorably.
It’s the damnedest thing about Christianity- that central virtue they have of holding compassion above all else- it works. It always wins, every time. It takes time but it wins.
Christians are some of the greatest allies you have right now. I know it doesn’t seem that way because they don’t get on television or picket funerals, but they’re out there by the millions and they’re going to win.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic
A whole buncha stuff about christianity and the history of civil rights.[/QUOTE]
It was weird to read that post from a guy using ‘The Cynic’ as a title in his handle.
But it made me feel a little better. Even if it was only a little. Thank you.
I agree. The amount of Democrat complicity in this is disturbing and disheartening and it needs to be held up and condemned as much as we condemn the Pubs.
Fuck. This isn’t me. This isn’t how I really feel about Christianity, or any other religion. SolGrundy, I apologize. Any other day of the year except November 3rd, I’d never have said any of that. Well, unless that year was circa 1995, when I was in my full-fledged Snotty Young Athiest mode. Thought I’d grown out of that. Guess I’m not quite done yet. Sorry again, Sol, and any other Christian I’ve offended.
Except, y’know, the ones who voted yes on any of these ammendments. They still suck.
Hugs, Miller.
We’re hanging in there, trying to do our part. It’s not as flashy as the Rev. Billy Bob’s Gospel Hour, and it doesn’t make a lot of press unless it’s something like Gene Robinson…
but dammit, we’re trying!
That just helps confirm my unsettling suspicion that we’re somehow channeling each other, Miller. I was about to post a semi-recant myself. I still believe that intolerance is no way to counter-act intolerance. But I do concede that we all need some more time just to be pissed off before we start arguing among each other.
I still don’t know of a church where I’d be welcomed (although I’ve heard they’re out there, and to be honest I kind of prefer just to have my own disorganized religion at this point). And it doesn’t change the fact that an awful lot of people are still out there corrupting the name of religion and Christianity in particular, many of whom would accuse me of doing that very thing.
And yeah, fuck the people who voted yes on the amendments, and double-fuck the people who proposed the damn things in the first place. Just don’t call them Christians.
Christianity as a faith needs to be separated from Christians as individuals. (Christianity itself as a faith is not monolithic and invariant either, of course.)
Again Christians, like me, who believe that homosexuality (the act) is a sin need to be separated from those who believe that homosexuals should not have civic rights - to marry, divorce, etc. I believe in the need to separate the church from the state and thus support state-based gay marriage (while supporting the right of individual churches to decide for themselves whether to allow gay people to marry in church wedding ceremonies).
As to whether Christians (limiting consideration to this group) are bigots, or homophobes, if they oppose gay marriage at the state level, this depends on how much weight you give to human considerations, such as ignorance, respect for authority, fear, and the like. It also depends on the capacity for self-reflection and sympathetic understanding.
As to whether Christians like me, who believe homosexual acts are sinful, are bigots, or homophobes, is a different, and altogether more challenging, question. A question which can only bring benefit to those who honestly try to resolve it.
Nonsense. Are you honestly asserting that there are fewer pages in the Federal Register than there were 25 years ago? Deregulation means the repeal of laws that favor one competitor over another, not the addition of more of them. Just because they’ve built a chicken and call it a duck doesn’t mean a thing.
Our relationship is special. We do respect one another while being completely blunt. I like that we don’t tiptoe, because we really do have major differences of opinion. When an entity has godlike powers, it is appropriate to recognize it as such and foolhardy to ignore it. There are quite industrious Chinese who are satisfied with their system and extole its virtues, while those who stand in front of tanks are considered quacks. Spectrum might find me to be extremely negative, but that’s because he likes authoritarianism. I am not attempting to appeal to him. Any man who thinks freedom is a dirty word and noncoercion is extremely negative has already gone to sleep. I am reaching out to people who are still awake.
Not to piss on your parade, because I liked the rest of your post, but Gone With the Wind was just a movie. I’ve been North and I’ve been South, and I’ve seen racism both places. I’ll pit Birmingham, Charlotte, and Atlanta against Boston, Philadelphia, and New York any day.
Thanks. That would be my mother. And andygirl. And Polycarp.
:mad:
Gee, I don’t find it that challenging.
Later you may.
It would also be gays who are Christian.
Lest Sol Grundy think I’m just making up Christian anti-gay sentiment:
I know that there are good, loving Christians doing their best to be a light unto the world, but in the light of the turnout on Tuesday, it’s insanity to pretend that tolerant Christians are in the ascendant.
They go to church on Sundays, get baptized, attend Wednesday Bible study, they’re Christians. [They’re also true Scotsmen 
]
I can totally get with Roger Thornhill’s POV. He call me a sinner all he likes, and that’s fine because he recognizes that civil rights and religion occupy two different spheres.
That last link, the one for New York, was written by a woman who believes that internment based on race is a good thing:
“In a time of war, Michelle Malkin insists, the survival of the nation must come first. In this provocative new book, she explains why civil liberties are not sacrosanct. In Defense of Internment offers a ringing justification for the most reviled wartime policies in American history: the evacuation, relocation, and internment of people of Japanese descent during World War II. It also defends racial, ethnic, religious, and nationality profiling as effective defensive measures in today’s War on Terror.”