[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic * NaSultainne,
if all anyone did was believe it was a sin, there wouldn’t be much of an issue. The problem is when some people want to codify that belief into law, or legalize discrimination based solely on religious opinion.
No, I can’t agree here. Your position would then seem to be that those without religious principles are somehow more, hmm, legitimate, in their public advocacy than those with religious principles. This is every bit as silly as my attempting to limit the political discussion to those who have graduated from college, or those who have attained a certain degree of financial stability, or those possessing the Y chromosome. Each of these categories is going to have personal biases which dictate their position on any given subject. I don’t disqualify the rich man because his position arguably benefits him in the long run. I don’t disqualify him though his views might be diametrically opposed to mine.
It’s a problem if two people are not allowed the same benefits of a civil union as two other people because of religious opinion
No, it’s not. Take any example of tax policy, and do your research. We are not taxed proportionately, we do not receive services from the government proportionately. All things are not equal. Because the government chooses to acknowledge and support the institution of marriage as the obvious, typical and traditional family structure for raising children, which benefits the society as a whole, does not then equate with discrimination against those who choose not to marry, those who choose not to have children, those who live any other lifestyle.
**There are people in this world who still think that interracial marriage is a sin, and who are offended at seeing interracial couples in public. Are they allowed to have this opinion? Yes. Do we care? No. Are we going to prohibit interracial marriage so as not to upset them? Of course not.
Religious beliefs are fine as long as they are not enforced as law. **
Are you sure you’re thinking this through? Is any and every belief fine with you, apart from religious belief? Do they all have intrinsic value? Equal value?
You’re not getting it, NaSultainne. The US Constitution explicitly forbids the legislation of religious doctrine as law. You cannot pass laws which seek to force others to live by the same religious code as you do.
No, not all non-religious views have merit, but our government is forbidden from considering religious doctrine as it pertains to legislation. There are any number of criteria as to what makes a law good or bad, and the endorsement of a specific religious view is one of the bad things.
Why do this particular Christian group and some of my fellow Christians in this thread feel the need to focus on the sin of homosexuality, when there are so many sins people commit. On any given day at Disneyland, I have no doubt that there will be adulterers, gossips, thieves, drunkards, and people who are generally cranky, thus not loving their neighbors as themselves. There are people focused on acquiring wealth at the expense of others (I’m thinking Disney itself falls into this category); there are people more consumed by hatred than love. Why doesn’t this group protest Disney paying providing health benefits to people who have committed adultery, to divorced people, or to the parents of children born out of wedlock.
“For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Why not fly a banner saying “Jesus can save you from the sin of gossip”?
HIs4Ever, I’ve also got a question for you. How come the only place I see you on this board is in threads on homosexuality? Right now in GD, there are few threads on abortion and one on creationism vs. evolution, subjects I know you feel passionate about and disagree with me just a strongly on, but I haven’t seen you in them. This is why it seems to me that you focus on homosexuality above all other sins, but I would be thrilled if you would prove me wrong. The only thing is, I’m going to go all James-ian on you, and insist that it be done by deeds, not words.
Na Sultainne, I cannot accept your POV that these discussions are pointless – quite literally, it is a moral impossibility for me. I believe myself to be under the direct orders of my Lord and God to attempt, however poorly and ineffectively, to bridge the gap between evangelical Christian and gay person, to preserve and foster the dialogue. I know of only one other person in that position, but it is the one I occupy.
And there are a lot of things that need to be said. As Mr Visible pointed out, you’re quite welcome to believe that he and his beloved sin on a daily basis in loving each other, in expressing that love physically, in desiring to marry, in wishing for the same rights as any other couple in America takes for granted if they happen to be of opposite sexes and of the age of consent.
But it should be the most obvious thing in the world that a lot of so-called Christians don’t stop there, but actively pursue a campaign aimed at oppressing gay people. And there is a fair amount of big-money ministry behind these campaigns.
This is a sin against one’s fellow man beside which any sexual peccadilloes committed by the average person, straight or gay, pales to insignificance. And they claim it to be doing God’s will!! :mad:
You said:
Nope. My perspective here is that nobody has a right to demand that others live a life according to his or her tenets of what is right rather than their own, except insofar as there is a consensus standard of what causes real and active harm to another party (assault, harassment, rape, defrauding, etc.) on which society has an affirmative right to protect the other party.
I happen to favor marriage as the proper way in which a couple who loves each other and desires to commit to each other may do so and provide for any children that they might end up with, by whatever means.
The problem here is that the “family friendly” groups wish to restrict marriage to what they personally feel is a proper marriage, and claim that the other marriages are not “really” marriages because they don’t meet their definition or because they cannot beget and bear children without special assistance. At that point, I begin to get irate, because, thanks to an asshole who unfortunately remains a blot on the landscape of rural New York State, I and my wife fall into that category. We’ve positively impacted the lives of a large number of children and adolescents – but noneof them were the product of our bodies. I’ve had the privilege of coming to a warm friendship with Skepto Lesbo of this board, and to know slightly by proxy her four sons, who are wonderful, healthy young men for whom she is an excellent mother, and I was part of a very tough decision she made specifically to honor her marriage to the woman with whom she has committed to share her life. There was a recent article about two gay men in, IIRC, Kentucky, who are raising quadruplets and want more kids.
May I respectfully suggest that the argument here is one of willful purblindness to the realities of American society, of creating a restrictive definition of “family” and then refusing to acknowledge the quite real and valid families which don’t meet that definition?
I am extremely pleased to hear you saying that. But I have one question to ask of you: given your own views as expressed in this thread, how would you deal with one of those boys coming to you and informing you that he believes himself to be gay? How would you react? What would you tell him?
gobear, I so much appreciate the quote from “If This Goes On” – because, as I think you’re aware, I believe that America is precisely in the position of the fictional Heinlein-America of “Logic of Empire” – with a real-life Nehemiah Scudder on the horizon. Far too much of Heinlein’s “Future History” (which he created by extrapolation of existing trends) has fallen into place, not precisely as he fictionalized but with obvious parallels.
And against this form of tyranny I can only risk my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor.
*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic * You’re not getting it, NaSultainne. The US Constitution explicitly forbids the legislation of religious doctrine as law. You cannot pass laws which seek to force others to live by the same religious code as you do.
Diogenes there will never exist the law made by man that will ever succeed in forcing people to live by any code; mine, yours, anyone’s. This does not mean that all laws must equate differing situations in the same manner.
**No, not all non-religious views have merit, but our government is forbidden from considering religious doctrine as it pertains to legislation. There are any number of criteria as to what makes a law good or bad, and the endorsement of a specific religious view is one of the bad things. **
Interesting comment. The three monotheistic religions largely agree on this issue, yet you dismiss it so casually. This very argument will likely result in gay marriage being legalized, followed closely by polygamous marriage. The era of sexual enlightment will have achieved its goal.
Oh, and Polycarp, two things. You refer to those who attempt to maintain a “restricted” right to marriage; may I remind you that while numbers vary, more than 90% of the world is heterosexual, which hardly qualifies marriage, currently defined, as restrictive.
As to your second question, regarding my sons; I will always love my kids. Always. I love them regardless, even on those days when I’m ready to brain 'em. Should one of them come to me and tell me he’s gay, he already knows how devastated I would be. I cannot pretend otherwise; and then I would urge him to continue in his walk with God and pray for guidance, seeking God’s will. This is where you and I differ, I fear. You seem perfectly happy to support, even advocate for others in gay relationships, even when you know, as surely as I’m sitting here, that nowhere in the Bible does it ever approve of sexual relations outside of marriage, both specifically and generally. I most definitely approve of maintaining those ties you might already enjoy, this being the best “evangelism”, wouldn’t you agree? However, do we follow our own ways or God’s? And as you and I have crossed words before, you are rather freer with God’s word than I. I trust God to have the ability to give us His word. If we are free to “update” it when society becomes “enlightened”, who is God then?
I regret discussing this subject, and henceforth will avoid these threads as much as possible. While I cannot support gay relationships as sanctified in God’s word, it pains me to commit the words to this thread. By doing so I am likely cementing the rejection of God by those who read this and find themselves on the outs with regard to mainstream Christianity. It is a lose-lose proposition. If I were to accompany you on your stroll down the broad road that leads to destruction, how would l I forgive myself? How would God forgive me?
This is indeed where we part company. Part of the nature of my relationship with God is this. He has made it quite clear to me that if I close the door to Christianity on someone simply because of one aspect of their personality, while He will forgive me, I will still be in deep trouble. Among other things I will have committed the very sin that I so rail against others committing. I will have failed in the obligation Christ gave me. I will have sinned, and mightily, willfully disobeying the vows I swore to God, thus breaking the top two commandments in one fell swoop.
As for forgiveness, it has finally made it through this Christian’s notoriously thick head that God is far more ready to forgive our sins than we are. Trust me on this one, and recall Christ’s actions. It doesn’t mean we’re to go out and willfully sin because He will forgive us; it means the toughest judge I face at least is not in the Bible, but in my heart.
Na Sultainne, I understand your points – both the one that you see God as portrayed in the Bible as portraying any gay person’s attempt to find secular happiness (beyond any happiness they may find in Him), and that you recognize what it does to say so in the hearts and minds of the gay people.
However, and I’ll ask you not to take this as a personal attack any more than your line about “accompanying [me] down the broad road that leads to destruction” was one aimed at me, I find it very difficult to grasp how people who depend on the Bible for their belief structure manage to skip completely over the entire structure of Jesus’s teachings. If there were one part of the entire Bible that deserved special focus from a “Bible-believing Christian,” IMHO, it would be the words of Christ Himself as reported by the Four Evangelists.
And He:
[ul][li]Repeatedly puts the focus of what God commands in practical love acted out in one’s life[/li][li]Says that that love is not limited to one’s faith community, but must be rendered even unto “the least of these”[/li][li]Firmly rejects a legalistic understanding of how God’s commands are to be lived out[/li][li]Condemns the folks who believe themselves to be living righteously by living according to God’s Law and demanding that others do likewise, as “hypocrites”[/li][li]Is extraordinarly explicit on not judging others and the doom we may expect if we do.[/ul][/li]
God is not asking you to “accompany [me] down the broad road that leads to destruction” – he’s asking you to show love towards your fellow man – not the “love” that says “I know what God’s Law is, and you’re all sinners, so cut it out and start being righteous like me” but the one that recognizes that we’re all sinners saved by God’s Grace, and that there are people who are hurting and need your compassion and gentle healing. Love as you would be loved if you were in their shoes and they in yours.
This, my dear, is carrying out the whole message of the Law and the Prophets. You might think that I’ve gone off the deep end in saying a ridiculous remark like the first sentence of this paragraph. But they’re not in essence my words and I trust the One who did say them.
