How about my slanted kinda Christian Look at Gay Marriage

[Mick Knox]

Why not.. everyone else posts their opinion.. and I don't like some of them.. so here goes.. and I guess you can not like it if you wish.

After much thought, I have come to the conclusion.. I support Gay Marriage Rights and have posted such on numerous threads.

I believe, from my own personal point of view that the bible clearly considers homosexuality a sin. Gays may in fact find themselves facing a very serious judgement for what they do.. and it may also lead to some type of S&G Apocalyptic Incident.. Thats just my view. It could be wrong. Personally.. and on a side note.. I think GWB is more of a threat to lead to said Apocalypse than gay marriage.

That said... It is NOT for the gov or for me to decide what you are allowed to do as far as gov benefits and licensing go. It is also not for me to place a judgment upon you in the religious sense either. In my belief system, that is for a higher power to do. I also believe I am a sinner.. so I'm no better.. and may burning right beside any other sinner.

Above all, I believe in the USA. I believe in a free country.. I think its clear that if Rosie wants to marry her long time lover (or whatever she is considered) or anyone else to do the same.. it is not for the Christian establishment to pass their judgment that this cannot happen from a government point of view. I believe doing so may in fact be a sin in and of itself.

There are gov benefits involved in Marriage.. and they must be fairly and equally distributed without prejudice. It is up to God to work out the other things.. and up to an individual person to decide for themselves how they want to do things and whether or not they even believe in god or mock him. If you go by the bible.. we need those that mock god to fulfill scripture anyway :) (also just tossed in an aside).

The USA is not a theocracy, to usurped by GWB and his band of kooky thuds.. this is not the taliban.. last time I checked.. this is the Land of the Free and the Home of Brave..

So each person is free to do what they want.. and each gov benefit MUST be equally distributed; without reference to biblical judgements... neither from Christians, Muslims, Wicans, Frog Worshipers, or the Royal Order of the Golden Flea.

The gov MUST be separate from churches, blind, and view all equally.


There .. I said it..

Flame away if you must.. I can take it! .. maybe.. lol

Pro Deo Et Patria
edited spelling.. oops.

[kiahzero]

1. Not a flame, but an appeal to look at some of the theological study

dealing with the Bible.

Soddom and Gommorah was not about homosexuality at all.

Similarly, the Bible's position on homosexuality is much less clear than most consider.

[BigDaddyLove]

5. I wonder how much resistance to Gay Marriage has........

to do with what the Bible says and more with our society's basic uneasiness with homosexuality in general.

[salinen]

2. Apocalyptic Incident..!

Wow! God will treat them harshly huh? But it's o.k. with you if gays marry? I'm totally confused by this post.

[coltman]

3. not slanted

your post should be required reading thank you

[Rabrrrrrr]

4. So what you're saying is, you'd rather that Osama ran this country?

Since your kind of America-hating rhetoric is the same as his. :evilgrin:

Just kidding - well rasoned thoughtfulness from you, and I agree. I totally think gays and lesbians should be allowed to be married, and call it a marriage, because it's a justice issue.

I disagree with you only that I don't think homosexuality is a sin.

I wuold also add that not is it a justice issue, but I would like to reframe the issue not that gay marriage should be legal, but that under our incredible Constitutional construction, the government really has no right to interfere and has to recognize the wishes and will of the people. Which is to say, it should always have been legal because it is illegal for the government to make it illegal. It's a fine point, but I think an important one: it means that this isn't about giving priveleges to gay people, it's about getting the government to stop denying a basic human, legal right.


I was at the Whitney Museum tonight and they have a large sign that says "Legislation is not morality!"

Wonderful!

p.s. - I especially like your asides about the apocolyptic danger of the Idiot Warmongerer War Criminal In Chief and your twist that the anti-gay people are likely the more sinful. :-) Well spoken!

[OneBlueSky]

6. ok . . . so the Bible clearly considers homosexuality a sin . . .

I assume that, when someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, you cite Leviticus 18:22, which clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.

I also assume, from your statement, that if it's in the Bible it must be true, and that the good book's proscriptions must be followed. With that in mind, can you clarify my confusion about a few other verses, to wit:

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21: 7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1: 9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

Thank you for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

(yeah, I stole these from an old Dr. Laura letter . . . but they're accurate and demonstrate just how selective Bible literalists are . . . if it suits their prejudices, it must be followed . . . otherwise, it's okay to ignore it . . . kinda the definition of hypocrisy, don'tcha think? . . .)

[Mick Knox]

8. hmmm ok .. why not.. but just this once

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

They are quite the unruley lot.. and the second some hockey game came on.. forget it.. they wouldnt get anything done.

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21: 7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

Obey the current law of the land.

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

I dont know.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1: 9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

No. Dont smite your neighbors.

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

you are not morally obligated to do it yourself.

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

I dont know and no I cannot settle it.

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

It it not talking about sight in the literal sence.

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

Preferable.. at old age by natural causes.. by the way the church I attended as a youth did not allow women to cut their hair.... interesting huh?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

I would think so.

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

No, it is illegal in this country.

Thank you for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
(yeah, I stole these from an old Dr. Laura letter . . . but they're accurate and demonstrate just how selective Bible literalists are . . . if it suits their prejudices, it must be followed . . . otherwise, it's okay to ignore it . . . kinda the definition of hypocrisy, don'tcha think? . . .)


It raises interesting points for sure. I wonder if homosexuality as a sin is along the same lines? Could be... I hope so. I'm still not gonna be gay though. Anyone else who wants to is welcome too.

[ComerPerro]

11. If I were you I would mention that

in answering number nine, I would mention that many footballs are made from synthetics and rubber now, not actual pigskin.

[foreigncorrespondent]

7. No flame either...

...but have you ever thought about the fact that it really doesn't matter what you like or dislike, or what others think. That is actually what the gay community wants?

The rest of your post offends me.

On edit: And I would like to remind you that religion has no place in the state. Religion needs to stay the fuck out of state affairs.

[iverglas]

13. dittoing

.but have you ever thought about the fact that
it really doesn't matter what you like or dislike,
or what others think.

And I make the same point in discussions about laws regarding abortion.

If one's personal preferences, and feelings about others' personal characteristics and behaviours, are irrelevant -- why make such a big fucking point of all the time telling us what they are?

(Note that I am not referring to sexual orientation as a "preference"; by "preference", I mean how one would like things to be if one had one's druthers -- one might prefer other people not to engage in homosexual activity, or prefer other people not to have abortions, or prefer not to have to look at billboards on the highway, or prefer that restaurants not sell meat ...)

The point is that personal preferences are irrelevant -- and that's the point that the original poster was stating. So why make a great big point of stating them??

I think abortion is immoral and women who have abortions for convenience are sluts ... but hey, I oppose criminalizing it.

I think homosexual activity is an abomination and people who engage in it are sinners ... but hey, I oppose preventing them from marrying.

I think people who eat meat are barbaric supporters of animal torture ... but hey, I'm not gonna try to stop them doing it.

If the goal that someone really wishes to achieve is to keep abortion legal, or make same-sex marriage legal, or preserve freedom of menu choice -- why not just say "I oppose violating their rights"? Why not just say "The issue is their right to equal treatment and my, or anyone's, personal preferences are irrelevant"?

If Christians or anyone else want to debate the theology of their personal preferences among themselves, well dandy. That's their business.

But that question has absolutely nothing to do with whether individuals should be denied equal treatment -- unless those who say it does can demonstrate that it does. And that, they have to do first -- they have to demonstrate that their personal preferences have some relevance to other individuals' exercise of rights.

Persuade us that your personal preferences regarding someone else's sexuality and sexual practices have any bearing at all on his/her exercise of rights, and *then* tell us what they are. "You" say they aren't -- so put yer money where yer mouth is and shut up about them.

It is simply no longer acceptable, in civilized society, to publicly say things like "Well I think Negroes are subhuman and I shore wouldn't want my daughter marrying one of 'em -- but hey, I don't think it should be illegal to do it."

For the life of me, I can't figure out why it should be acceptable to say "Women who have abortions for convenience are sluts ... but hey, I'm not going to try to stop them", or "Homosexual activity is a sin and its practitioners are disordered ... but hey, it should be legal for them to get married."

In short (and to the original poster): nobody gives a crap about your personal preferences.

If you happen to know someone who you think could be swayed to your position in favour of permitting same-sex marriage by a statement of your personal disgust and/or moral/theological objections to it, then put it to that person in private. Just as civilized people expect bigots to do with their opinions about the racially or ethnically or religiously different in the context of a discussion of the exercise of rights, and as most (well, many) bigots now have the good grace to do.

But with friends proclaiming their support for the equal access to marriage prefaced by a disclaimer of any approval of it, I wouldn't wonder if our gay and lesbian colleagues were to say thanks, but no thanks; with friends like that ...

.

[mopaul]

16. agreed

unbelievable as it may seem, there are some people, like me, who don't give a flying fuck what the bible says about homosexuality or anything else. hell, some of us even see the bible as a silly old rag with nothing in it that relates to the 21st century, but, be damn careful if you say it out loud.

can we have political discussions without it sinking into religious dogma and hysteria? i wonder sometimes.

[ComerPerro]

9. I enjoyed reading this

Because, face it:

You have these so-called religious zealots out there shouting "This is wrong, homosexuality is a sin, blah blah".

I say: Who gives a shit?

Does the Bible say homosexuality is a sin? Maybe, maybe not. Its irrelevant, because, as you said, we do not draft legislation based on religious beliefs.

yet...




Good post

[nemo137]

10. you're close to where i am in opinion.

i'm not entirely sure what the bible says or what god thinks about homosexuality, whether it's a sin, whether it's more or less of a sin that the countless others people practice everyday (that was rhetorical, sin is sin is sin, but that's another topic). i do, however, belive that the government needs to stay out of the church and the bedroom.

[Hammie]

12. Oh, goody

Another gay marriage thread.

[kayell]

15. You have the ability to hide threads that annoy you

To some of us, this issue is of urgent importance.

[iverglas]

17. no ox to gore

... or axe to grind here -- but really. This thread really is just someone else taking the opportunity to say "I don't like ____ but I think ____".

Really and truly, who cares?

Wouldn't One Big Thread where we ALL say:

My personal preferences are irrelevant and I oppose denying anyone the equal protection of the law and I therefore support extending the legal institution of marriage to include same-sex couples.

... really be enough?

And if anybody didn't want to sign on to that position statement, s/he could then be prevailed upon to offer justification for denying the equal protection of the law and reasons to oppose extending the legal institution of marriage to include same-sex couples ... and to leave his/her religious beliefs or personal tastes or favourite colour out of the discussion unless s/he could demonstrate their relevance.

And no, I'm not suggesting that anybody should be censored, or that anybody should not be perfectly free to say whatever s/he wants. I'm suggesting that people use common sense and a little more humility, and maybe read a bunch of what has already been said on the board about an issue (and hell, even respond to it if what one wishes to say has already been spoken to repeatedly on the board instead of just starting something up all over again as if nothing had ever been said to/about what one is saying), before starting yet one more thread saying nothing new whatsoever.

I *agree* that it is an issue of considerable importance. I have contributed to a number of threads about it. I am adamantly opposed to the denial of equal protection/due process in this area, and have been for, oh, decades.

But I'm at a loss to know why there is any need for yet one more person to express his/her personal preferences, whatever they may be and for whatever reasons s/he may hold them, in yet another thread in which nothing novel is said.

Ignoring people and ignoring threads, by individual option, does not address the fact that the discourse itself is sometimes dragged down, and dragged pointlessly out, by some people and some threads (and here I speak generically).

There are issues within this issue that are worth putting some joint thought into. Is issuing marriage licences strategically wise? What are the implications of the proposed amendment to the US Constitution? Even: is there really justification for denying equal protection by excluding same-sex couples from the institution of marriage? (There can indeed be justification for violating constitutional rights, and it is worth knowing what kind of justification is recognized by the courts, and demanding that anyone proposing such violations meet those standards.)

But much more of this "I don't like ___ ..." stuff and this place just looks more and more like Yahoo.

.

[wellstone_democrat]

18. That says absolutely

everything. Everything that matters at any rate.

Who cares what *I* think about gay marriage--really? What matters is whether I understand the meaning of equal protection under the law. Who cares what "road to Damascus" led to your revelation? Congrats, but the issue is one of legality.

My likes and dislikes---those emotional judgements based on my beliefs and life experiences are for my family and friends to hear but my duty as an American is to stand up for the Constitution and work to make sure that it applies to all. And, when it does not, to work to make that a reality.

All these threads, however well intentioned, seem to be a case of not wanting to be post#239 on a long thread since its obvious that no one seems to read entire threads (anymore) even before jumping into them with both feet.

[kayell]

14. No flame

I definately disagree with you on your interpretation of Christian scripture, but it is your right to interpret it any way you wish.

You seem to have exactly grasped the point of separation of church and state. It is your right to have any religious views you wish, so long as you do not try to impose them on your fellow citizens.

On the other hand, I sincerely hope that you will take a look at interpretations of Christian scripture that are more inclusive. While I am not a Christian, I know quite a few Christians (including my mother) who believe that there is far more evidence for acceptance in the bible than not.

An excellent statement of those views is here: http://www.cathedralofhope.com/homosexuality/index.php

[Nobody]

19. Whether it's a sin or not is irrelevant

Fortunately, we have a document that has specified that Congress shall make no law preferring one religion over another. That document is the US Consituttion. Amending the Constitution to forbid same sex marriage is unConstitutional.

I'm glad you were able to separate your religious beliefs from this issue. So many right wingers can't. There have been very few people who oppose same sex marriage for reasons NOT based on religion. Their only reason for opposition is based on a religion that not everyone subscribes to. In fact, not everyone who subscribes to the same religion agrees with them.

The religious zealots (not to be confused with rational people who believe in a higher power of some kind) need to remember that if the USA becomes a theocracy, the state religion might not be their own.

[drb]

20. That's not a "slanted Christian" look...

...that's a true Christian look!

God loves gay people. He may sigh and scratch his head once in a while, but let me assure you that he sighs and scratches his head at me quite a bit, too.

I'm no better than anybody in God's sight.

But here's one thing that confuses me: If the "christian right" is so upset about homosexual behavior, why do they oppose gay marriage? Getting married is just about the best way I've found to stop any kind of sexual behavior!! :D