The Quandary Christians Put Gays In

[NYcarbineer]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough. Live together. Love together. Benefit together. But leave marriage intact. Perhaps your friends don't push the political agenda...but the political left does...and it has little to do with concern for gays.

It's irrational bigotry to claim the word marriage for opposite sex couples only. It's like some crazy claim of copyright infringement where none exists.

It's like the liberals claiming the word responsibility....?

Who's trying to legally deny you the right to call yourself responsible?

Goddam you people are pegging the retard meter again.

 

[deltex1]

[
As odious as it is to blame children for the sins of the parents, the children of gays must be ostracized just as much as the parents. Any form of acceptance is wrong.

lol, see, all you 'it's not bigotry! it's not hate! babblers?

I'm gonna mow the lawn...you can mow the carpet.

 

[Silhouette]

The sin is in accepting homosexuality as if it were normal. It might be a greater sin than the act of homosexuality itself.

It's like trying to see the world through the eyes of any pervert. It looks much different to a pedophile or zoophile. All you have to do to make the world comfortable for perverts is to accept and normalize the perversion! See how you can look at the world through their eyes.

Exactly. The equivalent would be meeting bulimics on their terms. We should all just encourage restaurant owners to have vomit urns on tables.

Always always always always important to remember the difference between behaviors and static states of being, like race, in this conversation. People pass on behavioral standards socially. Over time they become standards and collective-mores.

Do we hate bulimics or people with other eating disorders/orientations? No! We each know someone struggling with it who may be a friend or a family member. Do we make bulimia normal or risk being called a "hater" or being sued for refusing to put vomit urns on tables? NO!

 

[SwimExpert]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough.

You first.

 

[deltex1]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough.

You first.

So here I am, a Christian, telling my fellow Christians that the solution may be to start talking TO homosexuals instead of about them; to forge friendships like I have and gain a new perspective and try to see the world through their eyes.
I have and I got no regrets about it.

Here's the problem gays put Christians in: Individual Christans cannot petition to redact the Bible to current trends and fads. In fact, the reason the Bible exists is to remind Christians how current trends and fads of their relative time frame can drag them down to the pit instead of entering the gates of Heaven.

You might want to visit this thread. BTW "Saint", I knew I had you pegged.

Christians are supposed to extend compassion to homosexuals. But their theft of marriage is forbidden. Whatever they do is whatever they do. But they cannot tell the rest of the world that it must like it and revere it as a commonly-held social value. That's where the Bible draws a very clear and distinct line.

Attention Episcopalians Christian Sects of All Denominations Worldwide. Pay Heed. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The Bible is mute on civil marriage.

You should do the same.

My point stands unrefuted.

Civil marriage is none of religion's business.

Marriage is Gods plan. Civil marriage is Caesar's plan. Render unto God the things that are Gods And unto Ceasar the things that are Caesars. Thus the controversy goes away. You could not stand that!

 

[Pop23]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough. Live together. Love together. Benefit together. But leave marriage intact. Perhaps your friends don't push the political agenda...but the political left does...and it has little to do with concern for gays.

It's a civil right that was denied because a bunch of religious people who have always been the worst gay-bashers didn't want it. Now the christian right is acting like an oppressed victim, maybe if they had been a little less hateful and oppressive for the last two thousand years someone would give a shit.

I disagree. Everyone deserves happiness. But this created a legal paradox that can't be addressed easily

Marriage is now a right. Denying that right is discriminatory.

As previously defined, between a male and a female, not too closely related kept polygamy and many relationships traditionally considered incestuous out of government sanctioned marriage.

Now it would be arbitrary to deny several individuals from that dignity and happiness (polygamy) as well as banning to heterosexual same sex siblings, same sex homosexual siblings from marriage.

And if you can't come up with a reasoned legal argument against the above, you are then arbitrarily discriminating against opposite sex siblings.

Marriage excluded male/female siblings the right to keep bloodlines pure, when the couple is same sex, that argument is nonsense.

This will be a mess

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough. Live together. Love together. Benefit together. But leave marriage intact. Perhaps your friends don't push the political agenda...but the political left does...and it has little to do with concern for gays.

It's a civil right that was denied because a bunch of religious people who have always been the worst gay-bashers didn't want it. Now the christian right is acting like an oppressed victim, maybe if they had been a little less hateful and oppressive for the last two thousand years someone would give a shit.

I disagree. Everyone deserves happiness. But this created a legal paradox that can't be addressed easily

Marriage is now a right. Denying that right is discriminatory.

As previously defined, between a male and a female, not too closely related kept polygamy and many relationships traditionally considered incestuous out of government sanctioned marriage.

Now it would be arbitrary to deny several individuals from that dignity and happiness (polygamy) as well as banning to heterosexual same sex siblings, same sex homosexual siblings from marriage.

And if you can't come up with a reasoned legal argument against the above, you are then arbitrarily discriminating against opposite sex siblings.

Marriage excluded male/female siblings the right to keep bloodlines pure, when the couple is same sex, that argument is nonsense.

This will be a mess

When we work out any two adults, we'll look at three or more eh? Patience.

 

[occupied]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough. Live together. Love together. Benefit together. But leave marriage intact. Perhaps your friends don't push the political agenda...but the political left does...and it has little to do with concern for gays.

It's a civil right that was denied because a bunch of religious people who have always been the worst gay-bashers didn't want it. Now the christian right is acting like an oppressed victim, maybe if they had been a little less hateful and oppressive for the last two thousand years someone would give a shit.

I disagree. Everyone deserves happiness. But this created a legal paradox that can't be addressed easily

Marriage is now a right. Denying that right is discriminatory.

As previously defined, between a male and a female, not too closely related kept polygamy and many relationships traditionally considered incestuous out of government sanctioned marriage.

Now it would be arbitrary to deny several individuals from that dignity and happiness (polygamy) as well as banning to heterosexual same sex siblings, same sex homosexual siblings from marriage.

And if you can't come up with a reasoned legal argument against the above, you are then arbitrarily discriminating against opposite sex siblings.

Marriage excluded male/female siblings the right to keep bloodlines pure, when the couple is same sex, that argument is nonsense.

This will be a mess

No more than allowing whites to marry blacks. Everyone freaked out and predicted all sorts of horrible things and then we got over it (well most of us did). This was as much a fight for the right of states to officially discriminate against homosexuals as it was a fight for them to marry.

 

[Freewill]

Gay marriage was never denied because it never was no matter how the left howls.

Of course that changes now because of 5 old men and women.

I just wonder where the gays will go to be victims now that their status has changed.

I am thinking they will be victims of churches to which they can't force themselves upon.

One thing we can be sure of is that they will find a way to stay the victim.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gay marriage was never denied because it never was no matter how the left howls.

Of course that changes now because of 5 old men and women.

I just wonder where the gays will go to be victims now that their status has changed.

I am thinking they will be victims of churches to which they can't force themselves upon.

One thing we can be sure of is that they will find a way to stay the victim.

Treat them as equals, they are, and all that goes away eh?

 

[Pop23]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough. Live together. Love together. Benefit together. But leave marriage intact. Perhaps your friends don't push the political agenda...but the political left does...and it has little to do with concern for gays.

It's a civil right that was denied because a bunch of religious people who have always been the worst gay-bashers didn't want it. Now the christian right is acting like an oppressed victim, maybe if they had been a little less hateful and oppressive for the last two thousand years someone would give a shit.

I disagree. Everyone deserves happiness. But this created a legal paradox that can't be addressed easily

Marriage is now a right. Denying that right is discriminatory.

As previously defined, between a male and a female, not too closely related kept polygamy and many relationships traditionally considered incestuous out of government sanctioned marriage.

Now it would be arbitrary to deny several individuals from that dignity and happiness (polygamy) as well as banning to heterosexual same sex siblings, same sex homosexual siblings from marriage.

And if you can't come up with a reasoned legal argument against the above, you are then arbitrarily discriminating against opposite sex siblings.

Marriage excluded male/female siblings the right to keep bloodlines pure, when the couple is same sex, that argument is nonsense.

This will be a mess

When we work out any two adults, we'll look at three or more eh? Patience.

What sound legal reason exists against it?

It will be in courts, and the arguments that allowed SSM will be argued for it.

 

[Pop23]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough. Live together. Love together. Benefit together. But leave marriage intact. Perhaps your friends don't push the political agenda...but the political left does...and it has little to do with concern for gays.

It's a civil right that was denied because a bunch of religious people who have always been the worst gay-bashers didn't want it. Now the christian right is acting like an oppressed victim, maybe if they had been a little less hateful and oppressive for the last two thousand years someone would give a shit.

I disagree. Everyone deserves happiness. But this created a legal paradox that can't be addressed easily

Marriage is now a right. Denying that right is discriminatory.

As previously defined, between a male and a female, not too closely related kept polygamy and many relationships traditionally considered incestuous out of government sanctioned marriage.

Now it would be arbitrary to deny several individuals from that dignity and happiness (polygamy) as well as banning to heterosexual same sex siblings, same sex homosexual siblings from marriage.

And if you can't come up with a reasoned legal argument against the above, you are then arbitrarily discriminating against opposite sex siblings.

Marriage excluded male/female siblings the right to keep bloodlines pure, when the couple is same sex, that argument is nonsense.

This will be a mess

No more than allowing whites to marry blacks. Everyone freaked out and predicted all sorts of horrible things and then we got over it (well most of us did). This was as much a fight for the right of states to officially discriminate against homosexuals as it was a fight for them to marry.

No, marriage remained between a man and a woman not too closely related.

And I am sure your argument against will include procreation, won't it.

Can you name one other legal contract that exist solely between two individuals. Seems really arbitrary without procreation as a limiting factor.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough. Live together. Love together. Benefit together. But leave marriage intact. Perhaps your friends don't push the political agenda...but the political left does...and it has little to do with concern for gays.

It's a civil right that was denied because a bunch of religious people who have always been the worst gay-bashers didn't want it. Now the christian right is acting like an oppressed victim, maybe if they had been a little less hateful and oppressive for the last two thousand years someone would give a shit.

I disagree. Everyone deserves happiness. But this created a legal paradox that can't be addressed easily

Marriage is now a right. Denying that right is discriminatory.

As previously defined, between a male and a female, not too closely related kept polygamy and many relationships traditionally considered incestuous out of government sanctioned marriage.

Now it would be arbitrary to deny several individuals from that dignity and happiness (polygamy) as well as banning to heterosexual same sex siblings, same sex homosexual siblings from marriage.

And if you can't come up with a reasoned legal argument against the above, you are then arbitrarily discriminating against opposite sex siblings.

Marriage excluded male/female siblings the right to keep bloodlines pure, when the couple is same sex, that argument is nonsense.

This will be a mess

When we work out any two adults, we'll look at three or more eh? Patience.

What sound legal reason exists against it?

It will be in courts, and the arguments that allowed SSM will be argued for it.

That's fine, and why does that matter a damn to you?

 

[Syriusly]

Not a religious discussion, a discussion on cultural perspectives.

I do mix it up in our discussions about gay culture and to me it's largely sport, but there's another part of me that attempts to see these social issues through the eyes of gay people. Two of the closest friends of my family happen to be gay, a woman I've known since I was in Junior High who was a teacher of mine and her partner. They are getting married this month and we will be enthusiastic attenders. My trust in them is implicit to the point they often babysit our 4 kids and are called Aunt by them. Yes they are that close.

So their up and coming wedding has gotten me thinking about the issue of gay marriage in the Christian church. They are Christians and church goers, attending a Reconciling congregation, the kind more accepting of gays and gay marriage.

I'm extremely happy for them, so is my wife and my in laws who are somewhat to very progressive. It occurs to me to wonder why happily married Christians would deny nuptial bliss to any couple that love each other. Here's the issue gays are put in by Christians. They're told that the lifestyle is sinful and that they should either abstain from sex altogether or get married to a person of the opposite sex. Many men have done that, living a lie until the lie gets too great and they revert back to their sexual set point, often cheating on their wives in secretive dalliances or outright abandoning their family.

Exhibit A:

Option B is not any better. St. Paul himself said that it is better for a man to marry than to burn with desire. Since Exodus International has demonstrated to us that it's not possible to "pray the gay away" or use therapy to change one's sexual orientation, what choice do they have? Let's review the choices again:

1. Marry a person of the opposite sex and live a lie with disastrous results that hurt an innocent wife and children.

2. Burn with sexual desire until the desire becomes to great and men hook up with other men, often multiple partners increasing the chances for STD's and drug abuse.

3. Same sex marriage; marrying a person they are attracted to and can love for the rest of their lives in a committed manner.

I'm going to be honest, though I don't like the Supreme Court circumventing the constitutional and republican form of government that clearly puts this issue to the states to decide, I'm also not of the opinion that our civilization is imperiled because people who love each other are getting married. I'm just not.

So here I am, a Christian, telling my fellow Christians that the solution may be to start talking TO homosexuals instead of about them; to forge friendships like I have and gain a new perspective and try to see the world through their eyes.

I have and I got no regrets about it.

Thank you for that very thoughtful and well written post.

 

[Syriusly]

Gay marriage was never denied because it never was no matter how the left howls.

Of course that changes now because of 5 old men and women.

I just wonder where the gays will go to be victims now that their status has changed.

I am thinking they will be victims of churches to which they can't force themselves upon.

One thing we can be sure of is that they will find a way to stay the victim.

LOL....the ones I see playing the victim card right now are the members of the far right who just cannot accept people of the same gender marrying.

The couples who sued for the right to marry- they just wanted to be able to get married.

Just like my wife and I are married- and now they can.

You want to pretend that makes them 'victims'- sounds like the only claiming the victim card is yourself.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Not a religious discussion, a discussion on cultural perspectives.

I do mix it up in our discussions about gay culture and to me it's largely sport, but there's another part of me that attempts to see these social issues through the eyes of gay people. Two of the closest friends of my family happen to be gay, a woman I've known since I was in Junior High who was a teacher of mine and her partner. They are getting married this month and we will be enthusiastic attenders. My trust in them is implicit to the point they often babysit our 4 kids and are called Aunt by them. Yes they are that close.

So their up and coming wedding has gotten me thinking about the issue of gay marriage in the Christian church. They are Christians and church goers, attending a Reconciling congregation, the kind more accepting of gays and gay marriage.

I'm extremely happy for them, so is my wife and my in laws who are somewhat to very progressive. It occurs to me to wonder why happily married Christians would deny nuptial bliss to any couple that love each other. Here's the issue gays are put in by Christians. They're told that the lifestyle is sinful and that they should either abstain from sex altogether or get married to a person of the opposite sex. Many men have done that, living a lie until the lie gets too great and they revert back to their sexual set point, often cheating on their wives in secretive dalliances or outright abandoning their family.

Exhibit A:

Option B is not any better. St. Paul himself said that it is better for a man to marry than to burn with desire. Since Exodus International has demonstrated to us that it's not possible to "pray the gay away" or use therapy to change one's sexual orientation, what choice do they have? Let's review the choices again:

1. Marry a person of the opposite sex and live a lie with disastrous results that hurt an innocent wife and children.

2. Burn with sexual desire until the desire becomes to great and men hook up with other men, often multiple partners increasing the chances for STD's and drug abuse.

3. Same sex marriage; marrying a person they are attracted to and can love for the rest of their lives in a committed manner.

I'm going to be honest, though I don't like the Supreme Court circumventing the constitutional and republican form of government that clearly puts this issue to the states to decide, I'm also not of the opinion that our civilization is imperiled because people who love each other are getting married. I'm just not.

So here I am, a Christian, telling my fellow Christians that the solution may be to start talking TO homosexuals instead of about them; to forge friendships like I have and gain a new perspective and try to see the world through their eyes.

I have and I got no regrets about it.

Thank you for that very thoughtful and well written post.

It was. Too bad subsequent posts weren't as well done.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Gay marriage was never denied because it never was no matter how the left howls.

Of course that changes now because of 5 old men and women.

I just wonder where the gays will go to be victims now that their status has changed.

I am thinking they will be victims of churches to which they can't force themselves upon.

One thing we can be sure of is that they will find a way to stay the victim.

What makes you think they have to go anywhere? Blacks and women were given equal rights a long time ago, and it hasn't stopped THEM from claiming perpetual, caterwauling victimhood.

 

[Pop23]

Gay marriage was never denied because it never was no matter how the left howls.

Of course that changes now because of 5 old men and women.

I just wonder where the gays will go to be victims now that their status has changed.

I am thinking they will be victims of churches to which they can't force themselves upon.

One thing we can be sure of is that they will find a way to stay the victim.

LOL....the ones I see playing the victim card right now are the members of the far right who just cannot accept people of the same gender marrying.

The couples who sued for the right to marry- they just wanted to be able to get married.

Just like my wife and I are married- and now they can.

You want to pretend that makes them 'victims'- sounds like the only claiming the victim card is yourself.

Then why is there so much angst when pointed out that there are others wishing to attain the same rights?

Seems odd that pointing out that the arguments used for one alternative lifestyle seem to work for all, created such displeasure

 

[NYcarbineer]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough.

You first.

So here I am, a Christian, telling my fellow Christians that the solution may be to start talking TO homosexuals instead of about them; to forge friendships like I have and gain a new perspective and try to see the world through their eyes.
I have and I got no regrets about it.

Here's the problem gays put Christians in: Individual Christans cannot petition to redact the Bible to current trends and fads. In fact, the reason the Bible exists is to remind Christians how current trends and fads of their relative time frame can drag them down to the pit instead of entering the gates of Heaven.

You might want to visit this thread. BTW "Saint", I knew I had you pegged.

Christians are supposed to extend compassion to homosexuals. But their theft of marriage is forbidden. Whatever they do is whatever they do. But they cannot tell the rest of the world that it must like it and revere it as a commonly-held social value. That's where the Bible draws a very clear and distinct line.

Attention Episcopalians Christian Sects of All Denominations Worldwide. Pay Heed. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The Bible is mute on civil marriage.

You should do the same.

My point stands unrefuted.

Civil marriage is none of religion's business.

Marriage is Gods plan. Civil marriage is Caesar's plan. Render unto God the things that are Gods And unto Ceasar the things that are Caesars. Thus the controversy goes away. You could not stand that!

Why are so-called Christians pretending that the scriptures forbid same sex marriage?

 

[deltex1]

Gay marriage was never denied because it never was no matter how the left howls.

Of course that changes now because of 5 old men and women.

I just wonder where the gays will go to be victims now that their status has changed.

I am thinking they will be victims of churches to which they can't force themselves upon.

One thing we can be sure of is that they will find a way to stay the victim.

Treat them as equals, they are, and all that goes away eh?

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough.

You first.

Here's the problem gays put Christians in: Individual Christans cannot petition to redact the Bible to current trends and fads. In fact, the reason the Bible exists is to remind Christians how current trends and fads of their relative time frame can drag them down to the pit instead of entering the gates of Heaven.

You might want to visit this thread. BTW "Saint", I knew I had you pegged.

Christians are supposed to extend compassion to homosexuals. But their theft of marriage is forbidden. Whatever they do is whatever they do. But they cannot tell the rest of the world that it must like it and revere it as a commonly-held social value. That's where the Bible draws a very clear and distinct line.

Attention Episcopalians Christian Sects of All Denominations Worldwide. Pay Heed. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The Bible is mute on civil marriage.

You should do the same.

My point stands unrefuted.

Civil marriage is none of religion's business.

Marriage is Gods plan. Civil marriage is Caesar's plan. Render unto God the things that are Gods And unto Ceasar the things that are Caesars. Thus the controversy goes away. You could not stand that!

Why are so-called Christians pretending that the scriptures forbid same sex marriage?

I am not a so called Christian. I am a Catholic. So you will not hear me quoting scripture. I quote tradition, common sense and the natural law. All of those indicate that same sex marriage is like marrying a dead person. No procreation is possible. Lots of fun. Benefits for sure. But no creation.