Your attitudes toward gays and gay rights (1 Viewer)

[FUBAR]

The only problem I have with homosexuality is when people use the "I was born this way, therefore it's okay" line.

 

[Jayrod]

I'm a little late to this party and don't know what has been covered to date, so please excuse any repeats because I don't have time to read all 5 pages of this thread.

This topic is a very complicated one for me and I don't really find myself comfortable with any of the given responses. I guess if I had to choose, I would be forced into the first category, but probably feel differently than what someone in the first category would typify.

I do find it personally disgusting in that on the homosexual to heterosexual, I'm pretty far to the hetero side of things. I'm pretty confident of this in that through all of my forays into sexuality (including a lot of porn), I have never found a man attractive in any way. However, I've also delved into sexual fantasy enough that the idea of two other men engaged in sexual activity doesn't disgust me, I just am not interested in participating.

As for it being "an abomination", I feel as though God does call it a sin. But he also views many things that I do/have done with equal or even greater disdain. So basically, I believe homosexual actions to be sinful, but so are a lot of things I do every day. And many of my sins are worse than the average homosexual act, IMO.

So what I think about homosexuals is that they are like me, a sinner in need of grace. I think they are normal people with different struggles than mine. Where we as Christians have failed is in classifying homosexuality as some sort of greater sin. Making it worse than our porn watching and masturbating, worse than our lying and cheating in business and taxes, worse than an affair, worse than gluttony or the many selfish or greedy acts we all do on a regular basis.

Where I do struggle to find middle ground is in the area of gay marriage. How do I take something I believe to be a sin and allow it to be merged with something I feel is a gift from God? This is why the whole gay MARRIAGE issue is a problem because to me, marriage is a very special thing. It is the symbol of Jesus and the church. It is the taking of two separate things and binding them together as one and God blessed it as good. The Bible makes it pretty clear that God does not bless a gay marriage as good. And if that is the case, how can I say it is good? Will it kill me or turn me gay or damage my children? No. So what is my responsibility on the issue? Obviously I don't think it is a good idea and won't be marching in support of it, but should I resist the issue? Should I vote against it? I don't feel OK in voting FOR it and I wouldn't attend a gay marriage ceremony, but I think it is foolish to try and "fight" against it also. Why should I expect people who don't believe in God as I do to behave as though they do? Homosexual acts will be performed whether the people are married or not. Stopping gay marriage doesn't stop homosexuality. It is really a legal issue. On the positive side, I believe that gay parents adopting an orphan is better than no one adopting them, but you usually don't have to be married to adopt. Also, I don't like the idea of having to recognize gay marriage as a business owner. I think when it comes to it, I would vote against it in an election simply because of all that entails a legal recognition of a gay marriage union.

So is that discrimination? Maybe. It is a blurry version of it because in my eyes, gay marriage is an illogical thing because marriage is by definition the union of a man and woman. However, I fully understand why someone would disagree.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I should be able to say whatever I like and have whatever opinion I want, but I can't because freedom is dead.

You're able to have whatever opinion you want.

If you mean that you should be able to express whatever opinion you want and not be criticized for it, no society has ever worked that way. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that you've criticized other people's opinions yourself at some point.

 

[Clifford]

Should've made this pole public so we could see who the bigots hiding behind their bibles are.

I'll always support equality

anyone else find this funny?

I find it funny when people equate calling someone a bigot with stripping someone of his/her rights. Does that count?

So does equality stop at laws in your view? Only affected by laws on the books or do social conditions affect equality?

Not sure where you get that idea, but no, I think social conditions also affect equality. Are you of the opinion that bigots are being oppressed in some way?

Not particularly no, but he at the very least correlates bigotry with the bible, implying a thought that Christians are more likely to be bigots than most, which is a statement against Christians, not bigots.

I'm not even defending Christians as not being bigots, though it's certainly a sweeping generalization that could likely be proven false as much if not not more than proven true. I just find the immediate juxtaposition of the two positions reminiscent of "free thought" societies that did nothing other than bash others who didn't share their free thoughts.

tl;dr seems hypocritical

On this particular issue, fundamentally religious people are more likely to be bigoted. There are more Christians in this country than any other religious group. He's clearly making a statement against bigots who hide behind a suspect translation of a 1700-year-old book about a bunch of people who all died 1980 years ago or more.

They can think what they like, and say what they like, and even advocate their positions. Other people get to do the same.

Nevermind.

 

[Ilov80s]

As for the comments about why there has to be flamboyant gay people on TV when most gay people they know aren't that fabulous: It is easy and entertaining, that is why. The jokes are easy, people are interested in it, etc. The same reason Italian people are over represented as gangsters and Jersey Shore types or married middle aged white men are portrayed as incompetent and clueless. It's easy to do and audiences eat it up.

 

[Clifford]

I'm a little late to this party and don't know what has been covered to date, so please excuse any repeats because I don't have time to read all 5 pages of this thread.

This topic is a very complicated one for me and I don't really find myself comfortable with any of the given responses. I guess if I had to choose, I would be forced into the first category, but probably feel differently than what someone in the first category would typify.

I do find it personally disgusting in that on the homosexual to heterosexual, I'm pretty far to the hetero side of things. I'm pretty confident of this in that through all of my forays into sexuality (including a lot of porn), I have never found a man attractive in any way. However, I've also delved into sexual fantasy enough that the idea of two other men engaged in sexual activity doesn't disgust me, I just am not interested in participating.

As for it being "an abomination", I feel as though God does call it a sin. But he also views many things that I do/have done with equal or even greater disdain. So basically, I believe homosexual actions to be sinful, but so are a lot of things I do every day. And many of my sins are worse than the average homosexual act, IMO.

So what I think about homosexuals is that they are like me, a sinner in need of grace. I think they are normal people with different struggles than mine. Where we as Christians have failed is in classifying homosexuality as some sort of greater sin. Making it worse than our porn watching and masturbating, worse than our lying and cheating in business and taxes, worse than an affair, worse than gluttony or the many selfish or greedy acts we all do on a regular basis.

Where I do struggle to find middle ground is in the area of gay marriage. How do I take something I believe to be a sin and allow it to be merged with something I feel is a gift from God? This is why the whole gay MARRIAGE issue is a problem because to me, marriage is a very special thing. It is the symbol of Jesus and the church. It is the taking of two separate things and binding them together as one and God blessed it as good. The Bible makes it pretty clear that God does not bless a gay marriage as good. And if that is the case, how can I say it is good? Will it kill me or turn me gay or damage my children? No. So what is my responsibility on the issue? Obviously I don't think it is a good idea and won't be marching in support of it, but should I resist the issue? Should I vote against it? I don't feel OK in voting FOR it and I wouldn't attend a gay marriage ceremony, but I think it is foolish to try and "fight" against it also. Why should I expect people who don't believe in God as I do to behave as though they do? Homosexual acts will be performed whether the people are married or not. Stopping gay marriage doesn't stop homosexuality. It is really a legal issue. On the positive side, I believe that gay parents adopting an orphan is better than no one adopting them, but you usually don't have to be married to adopt. Also, I don't like the idea of having to recognize gay marriage as a business owner. I think when it comes to it, I would vote against it in an election simply because of all that entails a legal recognition of a gay marriage union.

So is that discrimination? Maybe. It is a blurry version of it because in my eyes, gay marriage is an illogical thing because marriage is by definition the union of a man and woman. However, I fully understand why someone would disagree.

If you Christians could just get off the idea of sexual sin, which is a patriarchal tactic used to oppress women for centuries, then you'd get a lot less friction from the rest of the world. They way you guys (and girls) beat yourselves up for perfectly healthy and natural urges is just hard to watch. All it does is bottle all that sexual energy up inside you and it eventually explodes, usually in the form of cheating on your spouse or getting into hookers or even something worse. Which of course serves to reinforce the notion of sexual sin in the very insulated circles most active Christians work in (something consistently reinforced by the megachurches which are, after all, subscription-based businesses).

It's a sick, sick loop.

 

[timschochet]

Jayrod, I appreciate the honesty of your post. I would suggest that your dilemma might be solved by separating your religious and moral beliefs from what is good for society in terms of the law.

For example, as a Christian I know you must believe that adultery is wrong. Yet I doubt you would be in favor of a law that would make adultery illegal. If you could apply the same libertarian type of logic to gay marriage, then you could accept its legality without having to you yourself morally approve it.

 

[Clifford]

Jayrod, I appreciate the honesty of your post. I would suggest that your dilemma might be solved by separating your religious and moral beliefs from what is good for society in terms of the law.

For example, as a Christian I know you must believe that adultery is wrong. Yet I doubt you would be in favor of a law that would make adultery illegal. If you could apply the same libertarian type of logic to gay marriage, then you could accept its legality without having to you yourself morally approve it.

His dilemma is not in the law, it's in the religious rite associated with it. For your analogy to be applicable, you'd have to be talking about adultery being officially sanctioned by the church (and to really make it work performed in front of the adulterous couples closest friends and relatives in a church and followed up by a lavish party).

The only way around this issue is to divorce the church from the notion of sexual sin. Only when homosexuals can be homosexuals without the Church seeing just being themselves as a sin, will the church be ok with gay marriage.

 

[mad sweeney]

I'm a little late to this party and don't know what has been covered to date, so please excuse any repeats because I don't have time to read all 5 pages of this thread.

This topic is a very complicated one for me and I don't really find myself comfortable with any of the given responses. I guess if I had to choose, I would be forced into the first category, but probably feel differently than what someone in the first category would typify.

I do find it personally disgusting in that on the homosexual to heterosexual, I'm pretty far to the hetero side of things. I'm pretty confident of this in that through all of my forays into sexuality (including a lot of porn), I have never found a man attractive in any way. However, I've also delved into sexual fantasy enough that the idea of two other men engaged in sexual activity doesn't disgust me, I just am not interested in participating.

As for it being "an abomination", I feel as though God does call it a sin. But he also views many things that I do/have done with equal or even greater disdain. So basically, I believe homosexual actions to be sinful, but so are a lot of things I do every day. And many of my sins are worse than the average homosexual act, IMO.

So what I think about homosexuals is that they are like me, a sinner in need of grace. I think they are normal people with different struggles than mine. Where we as Christians have failed is in classifying homosexuality as some sort of greater sin. Making it worse than our porn watching and masturbating, worse than our lying and cheating in business and taxes, worse than an affair, worse than gluttony or the many selfish or greedy acts we all do on a regular basis.

Where I do struggle to find middle ground is in the area of gay marriage. How do I take something I believe to be a sin and allow it to be merged with something I feel is a gift from God? This is why the whole gay MARRIAGE issue is a problem because to me, marriage is a very special thing. It is the symbol of Jesus and the church. It is the taking of two separate things and binding them together as one and God blessed it as good. The Bible makes it pretty clear that God does not bless a gay marriage as good. And if that is the case, how can I say it is good? Will it kill me or turn me gay or damage my children? No. So what is my responsibility on the issue? Obviously I don't think it is a good idea and won't be marching in support of it, but should I resist the issue? Should I vote against it? I don't feel OK in voting FOR it and I wouldn't attend a gay marriage ceremony, but I think it is foolish to try and "fight" against it also. Why should I expect people who don't believe in God as I do to behave as though they do? Homosexual acts will be performed whether the people are married or not. Stopping gay marriage doesn't stop homosexuality. It is really a legal issue. On the positive side, I believe that gay parents adopting an orphan is better than no one adopting them, but you usually don't have to be married to adopt. Also, I don't like the idea of having to recognize gay marriage as a business owner. I think when it comes to it, I would vote against it in an election simply because of all that entails a legal recognition of a gay marriage union.

So is that discrimination? Maybe. It is a blurry version of it because in my eyes, gay marriage is an illogical thing because marriage is by definition the union of a man and woman. However, I fully understand why someone would disagree.

How do you feel about non-Christian heteros getting married? Do you think that you legally should have to recognize that? What about atheists getting married?

 

[Clifford]

MS, why would those folks, who are either not Christian or atheist, have a Christian ritual performed?

He can't square a rite within his own religion to officially bless a union which the church feels is rooted in sin, because the bible and the church both seem to say that homosexual sex is a sin. I'm sure we don't need to review the passages.

The issue is this: the church is calling the homosexual lifestyle a sin. Until that is changed there is no way around the gay marriage issue from a religious perspective until that classification changes.

 

[CBusAlex]

His dilemma is not in the law, it's in the religious rite associated with it. For your analogy to be applicable, you'd have to be talking about adultery being officially sanctioned by the church

He mentioned voting for or against it, so he must have been talking about the law, not whether the church should sanction it.

Jayrod, marriage is important to Christians, but it is not an exclusively Christian tradition. People of all faiths (and no faith) practice it. Unless you think the government should be dictating who is and is not allowed to participate in a religious ceremony, the best thing is to consider civil marriage a separate entity from its religious counterpart. There's no reason people can't be married in the eyes of the law but not in the eyes of any particular church.

 

[B-Deep]

MS, why would those folks, who are either not Christian or atheist, have a Christian ritual performed?

He can't square a rite within his own religion to officially bless a union which the church feels is rooted in sin, because the bible and the church both seem to say that homosexual sex is a sin. I'm sure we don't need to review the passages.

The issue is this: the church is calling the homosexual lifestyle a sin. Until that is changed there is no way around the gay marriage issue from a religious perspective until that classification changes.

I don't think legalizing gay marriage means any church has to bless the unions

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Where I do struggle to find middle ground is in the area of gay marriage. How do I take something I believe to be a sin and allow it to be merged with something I feel is a gift from God? This is why the whole gay MARRIAGE issue is a problem because to me, marriage is a very special thing. It is the symbol of Jesus and the church. It is the taking of two separate things and binding them together as one and God blessed it as good. The Bible makes it pretty clear that God does not bless a gay marriage as good. And if that is the case, how can I say it is good?

"Marriage" means different things to different couples. To you (and me), it's a religious rite, with all that that entails. But lots of other people see it mainly as a civil union that makes their partnership "official" in the eyes of society and bestows a portfolio of contract rights under the law, with no special religious significance. Don't let the fact that we use the same word to refer to both unions confuse the issue.

I have no problem with churches that choose not to perform weddings for people in the second category. For example, if a particular pastor decided that she wouldn't officiate a marriage for two atheists, that's fine with me. But I still think atheists should have access to the same civil marriage that I get to enjoy, even if the religious part obviously isn't there. It's the same with gays. I would not want my church performing gay marriages. But if a gay couple wants to run down to the courthouse and get "married," what do I care.

 

[mad sweeney]

MS, why would those folks, who are either not Christian or atheist, have a Christian ritual performed?

He can't square a rite within his own religion to officially bless a union which the church feels is rooted in sin, because the bible and the church both seem to say that homosexual sex is a sin. I'm sure we don't need to review the passages.

The issue is this: the church is calling the homosexual lifestyle a sin. Until that is changed there is no way around the gay marriage issue from a religious perspective until that classification changes.

He's talking about marriage and how he would vote against it. As much as they want, marriage is NOT a Christian institution. Muslims, Jews, atheists, satanists etc... all can get married. But he has a problem with gay people getting married because it's a Christian thing. So I want to know how he feels about the non-Christians who get to use the word "marriage" and have it officially sanctioned.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

If you Christians could just get off the idea of sexual sin, which is a patriarchal tactic used to oppress women for centuries, then you'd get a lot less friction from the rest of the world.

I'm not sure I understand the patriarchy thing here. There's nothing in Christianity that I'm aware of that says that adultery is bad for women but okay for men. But whatever. No sexual sin. Got it.

They way you guys (and girls) beat yourselves up for perfectly healthy and natural urges is just hard to watch. All it does is bottle all that sexual energy up inside you and it eventually explodes, usually in the form of cheating on your spouse or getting into hookers or even something worse. Which of course serves to reinforce the notion of sexual sin in the very insulated circles most active Christians work in (something consistently reinforced by the megachurches which are, after all, subscription-based businesses).

It's a sick, sick loop.

Wait a second. You just told me there's no such thing as sexual sin. So why do you suddenly have a problem with cheating on your spouse or getting into hookers or something "worse?"

 

[njherdfan]

Where I do struggle to find middle ground is in the area of gay marriage. How do I take something I believe to be a sin and allow it to be merged with something I feel is a gift from God? This is why the whole gay MARRIAGE issue is a problem because to me, marriage is a very special thing. It is the symbol of Jesus and the church. It is the taking of two separate things and binding them together as one and God blessed it as good. The Bible makes it pretty clear that God does not bless a gay marriage as good. And if that is the case, how can I say it is good?

"Marriage" means different things to different couples. To you (and me), it's a religious rite, with all that that entails. But lots of other people see it mainly as a civil union that makes their partnership "official" in the eyes of society and bestows a portfolio of contract rights under the law, with no special religious significance. Don't let the fact that we use the same word to refer to both unions confuse the issue.

I have no problem with churches that choose not to perform weddings for people in the second category. For example, if a particular pastor decided that she wouldn't officiate a marriage for two atheists, that's fine with me. But I still think atheists should have access to the same civil marriage that I get to enjoy, even if the religious part obviously isn't there. It's the same with gays. I would not want my church performing gay marriages. But if a gay couple wants to run down to the courthouse and get "married," what do I care.

Yeah. I don't think even the most ardent believers in gay rights believe that a church should be required to perform a gay marriage ceremony if that church doesn't want to.

 

[Hang 10]

Man the FFA loves a good gay discussion.

What, you don't? You must be a closet pole smoker.

~ FFA

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Where I do struggle to find middle ground is in the area of gay marriage. How do I take something I believe to be a sin and allow it to be merged with something I feel is a gift from God? This is why the whole gay MARRIAGE issue is a problem because to me, marriage is a very special thing. It is the symbol of Jesus and the church. It is the taking of two separate things and binding them together as one and God blessed it as good. The Bible makes it pretty clear that God does not bless a gay marriage as good. And if that is the case, how can I say it is good?

"Marriage" means different things to different couples. To you (and me), it's a religious rite, with all that that entails. But lots of other people see it mainly as a civil union that makes their partnership "official" in the eyes of society and bestows a portfolio of contract rights under the law, with no special religious significance. Don't let the fact that we use the same word to refer to both unions confuse the issue.

It's kind of amazing that he wrote all that out, and his "dilemma" is so easily resolved. Do Christians actually think that when people argue in favor of "gay marriage," they're arguing in favor of "gay marriage in your Christian church?" Are there millions of Jayrods in America who vote against "gay marriage" simply because they don't understand what that phrase even means to its supporters?

 

[Henry Ford]

Jayrod, I appreciate the honesty of your post. I would suggest that your dilemma might be solved by separating your religious and moral beliefs from what is good for society in terms of the law.

For example, as a Christian I know you must believe that adultery is wrong. Yet I doubt you would be in favor of a law that would make adultery illegal. If you could apply the same libertarian type of logic to gay marriage, then you could accept its legality without having to you yourself morally approve it.

His dilemma is not in the law, it's in the religious rite associated with it. For your analogy to be applicable, you'd have to be talking about adultery being officially sanctioned by the church (and to really make it work performed in front of the adulterous couples closest friends and relatives in a church and followed up by a lavish party).

The only way around this issue is to divorce the church from the notion of sexual sin. Only when homosexuals can be homosexuals without the Church seeing just being themselves as a sin, will the church be ok with gay marriage.

Why does a marriage have to be in a church or sanctioned by a Church?

 

[hagmania]

Gays are fine but the transgendered folks aggravate me.

Check your privilege, buddy.

 

[McGarnicle]

Jayrod, I appreciate the honesty of your post. I would suggest that your dilemma might be solved by separating your religious and moral beliefs from what is good for society in terms of the law.

For example, as a Christian I know you must believe that adultery is wrong. Yet I doubt you would be in favor of a law that would make adultery illegal. If you could apply the same libertarian type of logic to gay marriage, then you could accept its legality without having to you yourself morally approve it.

His dilemma is not in the law, it's in the religious rite associated with it. For your analogy to be applicable, you'd have to be talking about adultery being officially sanctioned by the church (and to really make it work performed in front of the adulterous couples closest friends and relatives in a church and followed up by a lavish party).The only way around this issue is to divorce the church from the notion of sexual sin. Only when homosexuals can be homosexuals without the Church seeing just being themselves as a sin, will the church be ok with gay marriage.

Why does a marriage have to be in a church or sanctioned by a Church?

He sees it as a religious thing first and foremost, not merely a legal union.

Where I do struggle to find middle ground is in the area of gay marriage. How do I take something I believe to be a sin and allow it to be merged with something I feel is a gift from God? This is why the whole gay MARRIAGE issue is a problem because to me, marriage is a very special thing. It is the symbol of Jesus and the church. It is the taking of two separate things and binding them together as one and God blessed it as good.

 

[B-Deep]

Jayrod, I appreciate the honesty of your post. I would suggest that your dilemma might be solved by separating your religious and moral beliefs from what is good for society in terms of the law.

For example, as a Christian I know you must believe that adultery is wrong. Yet I doubt you would be in favor of a law that would make adultery illegal. If you could apply the same libertarian type of logic to gay marriage, then you could accept its legality without having to you yourself morally approve it.

His dilemma is not in the law, it's in the religious rite associated with it. For your analogy to be applicable, you'd have to be talking about adultery being officially sanctioned by the church (and to really make it work performed in front of the adulterous couples closest friends and relatives in a church and followed up by a lavish party).The only way around this issue is to divorce the church from the notion of sexual sin. Only when homosexuals can be homosexuals without the Church seeing just being themselves as a sin, will the church be ok with gay marriage.

Why does a marriage have to be in a church or sanctioned by a Church?

He sees it as a religious thing first and foremost, not merely a legal union.

Where I do struggle to find middle ground is in the area of gay marriage. How do I take something I believe to be a sin and allow it to be merged with something I feel is a gift from God? This is why the whole gay MARRIAGE issue is a problem because to me, marriage is a very special thing. It is the symbol of Jesus and the church. It is the taking of two separate things and binding them together as one and God blessed it as good.

which begs the question does he have problems with Muslim or Athiest weddings?

 

[Henry Ford]

Jayrod, I appreciate the honesty of your post. I would suggest that your dilemma might be solved by separating your religious and moral beliefs from what is good for society in terms of the law.

For example, as a Christian I know you must believe that adultery is wrong. Yet I doubt you would be in favor of a law that would make adultery illegal. If you could apply the same libertarian type of logic to gay marriage, then you could accept its legality without having to you yourself morally approve it.

His dilemma is not in the law, it's in the religious rite associated with it. For your analogy to be applicable, you'd have to be talking about adultery being officially sanctioned by the church (and to really make it work performed in front of the adulterous couples closest friends and relatives in a church and followed up by a lavish party).The only way around this issue is to divorce the church from the notion of sexual sin. Only when homosexuals can be homosexuals without the Church seeing just being themselves as a sin, will the church be ok with gay marriage.

Why does a marriage have to be in a church or sanctioned by a Church?

He sees it as a religious thing first and foremost, not merely a legal union.

Where I do struggle to find middle ground is in the area of gay marriage. How do I take something I believe to be a sin and allow it to be merged with something I feel is a gift from God? This is why the whole gay MARRIAGE issue is a problem because to me, marriage is a very special thing. It is the symbol of Jesus and the church. It is the taking of two separate things and binding them together as one and God blessed it as good.

Yes, I know, but he's not an idiot. He's aware that people who don't believe in God get married.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Why does a marriage have to be in a church or sanctioned by a Church?

He sees it as a religious thing first and foremost, not merely a legal union.

That's fine, but why does he feel compelled to vote against allowing people to participate in a legal union, which (other than also being referred to as a "marriage") really has nothing to do with the religious institution?

Is he literally conflicted on the issue simply because we use the same word to refer to two different things?

It is really a legal issue.

I think when it comes to it, I would vote against it in an election simply because of all that entails a legal recognition of a gay marriage union.

 

[Henry Ford]

That's fine, but why does he feel compelled to vote against allowing people to participate in a legal union, which (other than also being referred to as a "marriage") really has nothing to do with the religious institution?

Is he literally conflicted on the issue simply because we use the same word to refer to two different things?

It is really a legal issue.

I think when it comes to it, I would vote against it in an election simply because of all that entails a legal recognition of a gay marriage union.

Yeah, I don't know what it "entails" that's such a problem.

 

[McGarnicle]

HEY JAYROD GET BACK IN HERE MAN WE'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS

 

[mad sweeney]

Jayrod, I appreciate the honesty of your post. I would suggest that your dilemma might be solved by separating your religious and moral beliefs from what is good for society in terms of the law.

For example, as a Christian I know you must believe that adultery is wrong. Yet I doubt you would be in favor of a law that would make adultery illegal. If you could apply the same libertarian type of logic to gay marriage, then you could accept its legality without having to you yourself morally approve it.

His dilemma is not in the law, it's in the religious rite associated with it. For your analogy to be applicable, you'd have to be talking about adultery being officially sanctioned by the church (and to really make it work performed in front of the adulterous couples closest friends and relatives in a church and followed up by a lavish party).The only way around this issue is to divorce the church from the notion of sexual sin. Only when homosexuals can be homosexuals without the Church seeing just being themselves as a sin, will the church be ok with gay marriage.

Why does a marriage have to be in a church or sanctioned by a Church?

He sees it as a religious thing first and foremost, not merely a legal union.

Where I do struggle to find middle ground is in the area of gay marriage. How do I take something I believe to be a sin and allow it to be merged with something I feel is a gift from God? This is why the whole gay MARRIAGE issue is a problem because to me, marriage is a very special thing. It is the symbol of Jesus and the church. It is the taking of two separate things and binding them together as one and God blessed it as good.

Yes, I know, but he's not an idiot. He's aware that people who don't believe in God get married.

Which is why I asked how he feels about those MARRIAGES. I would venture to say that he doesn't feel the same way as he does for the gays.

 

[FUBAR]

I should be able to say whatever I like and have whatever opinion I want, but I can't because freedom is dead.

You're able to have whatever opinion you want.If you mean that you should be able to express whatever opinion you want and not be criticized for it, no society has ever worked that way. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that you've criticized other people's opinions yourself at some point.

The right to speak your opinion should be protected, as should the right to voice your opinion that his opinion is wrong.

 

[Clifford]

MS, why would those folks, who are either not Christian or atheist, have a Christian ritual performed?

He can't square a rite within his own religion to officially bless a union which the church feels is rooted in sin, because the bible and the church both seem to say that homosexual sex is a sin. I'm sure we don't need to review the passages.

The issue is this: the church is calling the homosexual lifestyle a sin. Until that is changed there is no way around the gay marriage issue from a religious perspective until that classification changes.

I don't think legalizing gay marriage means any church has to bless the unions

Here's the part that makes me think he is speaking more about the religious institution rather than the legal state of union

How do I take something I believe to be a sin and allow it to be merged with something I feel is a gift from God? This is why the whole gay MARRIAGE issue is a problem because to me, marriage is a very special thing. It is the symbol of Jesus and the church. It is the taking of two separate things and binding them together as one and God blessed it as good. The Bible makes it pretty clear that God does not bless a gay marriage as good. And if that is the case, how can I say it is good?

ETA: I think he's making a bad leap from the above to a vote.

 

[NCCommish]

I should be able to say whatever I like and have whatever opinion I want, but I can't because freedom is dead.

You're able to have whatever opinion you want.If you mean that you should be able to express whatever opinion you want and not be criticized for it, no society has ever worked that way. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that you've criticized other people's opinions yourself at some point.

The right to speak your opinion should be protected, as should the right to voice your opinion that his opinion is wrong.

Not to mention none of us are government actors which is the only people the First Amendment applies to as far as censorship goes. Nothing in the Constitution or our history as a country protects people from the consequences that can come from running their mouths. You can get fired, people can hate on you. All legal and as American as apple pie.

 

[Clifford]

If you Christians could just get off the idea of sexual sin, which is a patriarchal tactic used to oppress women for centuries, then you'd get a lot less friction from the rest of the world.

I'm not sure I understand the patriarchy thing here. There's nothing in Christianity that I'm aware of that says that adultery is bad for women but okay for men. But whatever. No sexual sin. Got it.

They way you guys (and girls) beat yourselves up for perfectly healthy and natural urges is just hard to watch. All it does is bottle all that sexual energy up inside you and it eventually explodes, usually in the form of cheating on your spouse or getting into hookers or even something worse. Which of course serves to reinforce the notion of sexual sin in the very insulated circles most active Christians work in (something consistently reinforced by the megachurches which are, after all, subscription-based businesses).

It's a sick, sick loop.

Wait a second. You just told me there's no such thing as sexual sin. So why do you suddenly have a problem with cheating on your spouse or getting into hookers or something "worse?"

Well, because cheating on your spouse is a breach of trust, almost always involves lies, and betrayal, If it didn't it wouldn't be cheating.

Hookers? Besides being illegal, not exactly a healthy consensual relationship. Consensual sure, but cmon, do I really have to explain what could be bad or sinful about developing a hooker habit?

Something worse would be cheating on your wife whilst smoking crack with your gay hooker lover, eg Haggard.

Point being repression of sexual urges often leads to bad results. Remove the need for repressing them, eg sexual sin, and you remove effects that are a hell of a lot worse than sex.

 

[Jayrod]

I've been away for a bit, but I've read the reactions to my post.

I suppose the biggest difference between two atheists or Muslims getting married is that there is nothing inherently sinful within their marriages. In fact, I would prefer that all heterosexual couples, no matter what they think about God, be married and monogamous and never divorce as I believe that to be the best thing for all involved. So it is not really comparable to the gay marriage issue.

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice. To say that as a society we accept gay marriage means we accept homosexual sex which means that we accept you doing something that is damaging to you. The main problem with that, of course, is that the damage is primarily spiritual and that the state is in no way connected to spiritual things. So again I'm conflicted. I guess I'm at the point where I can't justify condoning the practice and if pushed to vote on the issue, I'd vote against gay marriage, but I'm not actively campaigning against it.

 

[RUSF18]

I've been away for a bit, but I've read the reactions to my post.

I suppose the biggest difference between two atheists or Muslims getting married is that there is nothing inherently sinful within their marriages. In fact, I would prefer that all heterosexual couples, no matter what they think about God, be married and monogamous and never divorce as I believe that to be the best thing for all involved. So it is not really comparable to the gay marriage issue.

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice. To say that as a society we accept gay marriage means we accept homosexual sex which means that we accept you doing something that is damaging to you. The main problem with that, of course, is that the damage is primarily spiritual and that the state is in no way connected to spiritual things. So again I'm conflicted. I guess I'm at the point where I can't justify condoning the practice and if pushed to vote on the issue, I'd vote against gay marriage, but I'm not actively campaigning against it.

The "damage" that they are doing to each other is "spiritual" according to you, not according to them, as they do not share your spiritual beliefs. So again, why does it matter to you?

Of course this is again saying that it is understandable that you don't want your particular church to support gay marriage.

 

[NCCommish]

I've been away for a bit, but I've read the reactions to my post.

I suppose the biggest difference between two atheists or Muslims getting married is that there is nothing inherently sinful within their marriages. In fact, I would prefer that all heterosexual couples, no matter what they think about God, be married and monogamous and never divorce as I believe that to be the best thing for all involved. So it is not really comparable to the gay marriage issue.

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice. To say that as a society we accept gay marriage means we accept homosexual sex which means that we accept you doing something that is damaging to you. The main problem with that, of course, is that the damage is primarily spiritual and that the state is in no way connected to spiritual things. So again I'm conflicted. I guess I'm at the point where I can't justify condoning the practice and if pushed to vote on the issue, I'd vote against gay marriage, but I'm not actively campaigning against it.

You have got to know that isn't even close to being a good thing. Especially for the women involved.

 

[CBusAlex]

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice. To say that as a society we accept gay marriage means we accept homosexual sex which means that we accept you doing something that is damaging to you. The main problem with that, of course, is that the damage is primarily spiritual and that the state is in no way connected to spiritual things. So again I'm conflicted. I guess I'm at the point where I can't justify condoning the practice and if pushed to vote on the issue, I'd vote against gay marriage, but I'm not actively campaigning against it.

Do you think it is more spiritually damaging to engage in homosexual sex than it is to be an atheist or a practicing Muslim?

 

[Jayrod]

If you Christians could just get off the idea of sexual sin, which is a patriarchal tactic used to oppress women for centuries, then you'd get a lot less friction from the rest of the world.

I'm not sure I understand the patriarchy thing here. There's nothing in Christianity that I'm aware of that says that adultery is bad for women but okay for men. But whatever. No sexual sin. Got it.

They way you guys (and girls) beat yourselves up for perfectly healthy and natural urges is just hard to watch. All it does is bottle all that sexual energy up inside you and it eventually explodes, usually in the form of cheating on your spouse or getting into hookers or even something worse. Which of course serves to reinforce the notion of sexual sin in the very insulated circles most active Christians work in (something consistently reinforced by the megachurches which are, after all, subscription-based businesses).

It's a sick, sick loop.

Wait a second. You just told me there's no such thing as sexual sin. So why do you suddenly have a problem with cheating on your spouse or getting into hookers or something "worse?"

Well, because cheating on your spouse is a breach of trust, almost always involves lies, and betrayal, If it didn't it wouldn't be cheating.

Hookers? Besides being illegal, not exactly a healthy consensual relationship. Consensual sure, but cmon, do I really have to explain what could be bad or sinful about developing a hooker habit?

Something worse would be cheating on your wife whilst smoking crack with your gay hooker lover, eg Haggard.

Point being repression of sexual urges often leads to bad results. Remove the need for repressing them, eg sexual sin, and you remove effects that are a hell of a lot worse than sex.

So basically you think that sexual urges should be repressed, then.

Everyone has repressed sexual urges. Giving in to some of them to try and find "relief" doesn't really solve the issue.

 

[CBusAlex]

EVERYONE PILE ON JAYROD!

 

[B-Deep]

I've been away for a bit, but I've read the reactions to my post.

I suppose the biggest difference between two atheists or Muslims getting married is that there is nothing inherently sinful within their marriages. In fact, I would prefer that all heterosexual couples, no matter what they think about God, be married and monogamous and never divorce as I believe that to be the best thing for all involved. So it is not really comparable to the gay marriage issue.

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice. To say that as a society we accept gay marriage means we accept homosexual sex which means that we accept you doing something that is damaging to you. The main problem with that, of course, is that the damage is primarily spiritual and that the state is in no way connected to spiritual things. So again I'm conflicted. I guess I'm at the point where I can't justify condoning the practice and if pushed to vote on the issue, I'd vote against gay marriage, but I'm not actively campaigning against it.

i don't see how two people declaring their love and being joined before Allah is not sinful

that's the big sin

and by letting someone even worship Allah we are allowing them to damage themselves

 

[B-Deep]

EVERYONE PILE ON JAYROD!

jayrod has put forth a very well said point of view

it is not piling on to question him about it, it seems people are being respectful

 

[Jayrod]

I've been away for a bit, but I've read the reactions to my post.

I suppose the biggest difference between two atheists or Muslims getting married is that there is nothing inherently sinful within their marriages. In fact, I would prefer that all heterosexual couples, no matter what they think about God, be married and monogamous and never divorce as I believe that to be the best thing for all involved. So it is not really comparable to the gay marriage issue.

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice. To say that as a society we accept gay marriage means we accept homosexual sex which means that we accept you doing something that is damaging to you. The main problem with that, of course, is that the damage is primarily spiritual and that the state is in no way connected to spiritual things. So again I'm conflicted. I guess I'm at the point where I can't justify condoning the practice and if pushed to vote on the issue, I'd vote against gay marriage, but I'm not actively campaigning against it.

The "damage" that they are doing to each other is "spiritual" according to you, not according to them, as they do not share your spiritual beliefs. So again, why does it matter to you?

Of course this is again saying that it is understandable that you don't want your particular church to support gay marriage.

It matters to me because I care for their spiritual well being. And whether or not someone things they are being damaged or not doesn't negate the facts. If I don't believe I'm dying of cancer, but am, indeed dying of cancer, my belief doesn't change the fact.

 

[Clifford]

I've been away for a bit, but I've read the reactions to my post.

I suppose the biggest difference between two atheists or Muslims getting married is that there is nothing inherently sinful within their marriages. In fact, I would prefer that all heterosexual couples, no matter what they think about God, be married and monogamous and never divorce as I believe that to be the best thing for all involved. So it is not really comparable to the gay marriage issue.

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice. To say that as a society we accept gay marriage means we accept homosexual sex which means that we accept you doing something that is damaging to you. The main problem with that, of course, is that the damage is primarily spiritual and that the state is in no way connected to spiritual things. So again I'm conflicted. I guess I'm at the point where I can't justify condoning the practice and if pushed to vote on the issue, I'd vote against gay marriage, but I'm not actively campaigning against it.

This is where religion is failing you. Nothing is damaging them or us or society. If you can present an argument as to why other than "the bible calls it a sin" then I would be glad to hear it. I can present a similar argument for just about every other sin I can think of. I have never heard an argument as to how homosexual sex or homosexual relationships damage a homosexual or anyone else.

 

[NCCommish]

I've been away for a bit, but I've read the reactions to my post.

I suppose the biggest difference between two atheists or Muslims getting married is that there is nothing inherently sinful within their marriages. In fact, I would prefer that all heterosexual couples, no matter what they think about God, be married and monogamous and never divorce as I believe that to be the best thing for all involved. So it is not really comparable to the gay marriage issue.

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice. To say that as a society we accept gay marriage means we accept homosexual sex which means that we accept you doing something that is damaging to you. The main problem with that, of course, is that the damage is primarily spiritual and that the state is in no way connected to spiritual things. So again I'm conflicted. I guess I'm at the point where I can't justify condoning the practice and if pushed to vote on the issue, I'd vote against gay marriage, but I'm not actively campaigning against it.

The "damage" that they are doing to each other is "spiritual" according to you, not according to them, as they do not share your spiritual beliefs. So again, why does it matter to you?

Of course this is again saying that it is understandable that you don't want your particular church to support gay marriage.

It matters to me because I care for their spiritual well being. And whether or not someone things they are being damaged or not doesn't negate the facts. If I don't believe I'm dying of cancer, but am, indeed dying of cancer, my belief doesn't change the fact.

You realize that those two things have nothing in common right? I can prove cancer exists.

 

[Jayrod]

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice. To say that as a society we accept gay marriage means we accept homosexual sex which means that we accept you doing something that is damaging to you. The main problem with that, of course, is that the damage is primarily spiritual and that the state is in no way connected to spiritual things. So again I'm conflicted. I guess I'm at the point where I can't justify condoning the practice and if pushed to vote on the issue, I'd vote against gay marriage, but I'm not actively campaigning against it.

Do you think it is more spiritually damaging to engage in homosexual sex than it is to be an atheist or a practicing Muslim?

No, but their marriage isn't a support of their atheism or their adherence to Islam like gay marriage is a support of homosexuality.

 

[mad sweeney]

I've been away for a bit, but I've read the reactions to my post.

I suppose the biggest difference between two atheists or Muslims getting married is that there is nothing inherently sinful within their marriages. In fact, I would prefer that all heterosexual couples, no matter what they think about God, be married and monogamous and never divorce as I believe that to be the best thing for all involved. So it is not really comparable to the gay marriage issue.

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice. To say that as a society we accept gay marriage means we accept homosexual sex which means that we accept you doing something that is damaging to you. The main problem with that, of course, is that the damage is primarily spiritual and that the state is in no way connected to spiritual things. So again I'm conflicted. I guess I'm at the point where I can't justify condoning the practice and if pushed to vote on the issue, I'd vote against gay marriage, but I'm not actively campaigning against it.

Guess what that makes you.

eta: if something being spiritually unhealthy is your yardstick then why don't you apply that equally to people who don't believe that Jesus is their Lord and Savior? Seems that's a little more spiritually unhealthy than gay sex.

answer: Another one who hides behind the "good" book.

 

[Fennis]

EVERYONE PILE ON JAYROD!

smear the jayrod

 

[Jayrod]

I've been away for a bit, but I've read the reactions to my post.

I suppose the biggest difference between two atheists or Muslims getting married is that there is nothing inherently sinful within their marriages. In fact, I would prefer that all heterosexual couples, no matter what they think about God, be married and monogamous and never divorce as I believe that to be the best thing for all involved. So it is not really comparable to the gay marriage issue.

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice. To say that as a society we accept gay marriage means we accept homosexual sex which means that we accept you doing something that is damaging to you. The main problem with that, of course, is that the damage is primarily spiritual and that the state is in no way connected to spiritual things. So again I'm conflicted. I guess I'm at the point where I can't justify condoning the practice and if pushed to vote on the issue, I'd vote against gay marriage, but I'm not actively campaigning against it.

You have got to know that isn't even close to being a good thing. Especially for the women involved.

Well...I mean never need to get divorced. You know, a utopia type thing.

 

[RUSF18]

I've been away for a bit, but I've read the reactions to my post.

I suppose the biggest difference between two atheists or Muslims getting married is that there is nothing inherently sinful within their marriages. In fact, I would prefer that all heterosexual couples, no matter what they think about God, be married and monogamous and never divorce as I believe that to be the best thing for all involved. So it is not really comparable to the gay marriage issue.

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice. To say that as a society we accept gay marriage means we accept homosexual sex which means that we accept you doing something that is damaging to you. The main problem with that, of course, is that the damage is primarily spiritual and that the state is in no way connected to spiritual things. So again I'm conflicted. I guess I'm at the point where I can't justify condoning the practice and if pushed to vote on the issue, I'd vote against gay marriage, but I'm not actively campaigning against it.

The "damage" that they are doing to each other is "spiritual" according to you, not according to them, as they do not share your spiritual beliefs. So again, why does it matter to you?

Of course this is again saying that it is understandable that you don't want your particular church to support gay marriage.

It matters to me because I care for their spiritual well being. And whether or not someone things they are being damaged or not doesn't negate the facts. If I don't believe I'm dying of cancer, but am, indeed dying of cancer, my belief doesn't change the fact.

Hmm I think you may have a different definition of "facts" than me.

 

[NCCommish]

I've been away for a bit, but I've read the reactions to my post.

I suppose the biggest difference between two atheists or Muslims getting married is that there is nothing inherently sinful within their marriages. In fact, I would prefer that all heterosexual couples, no matter what they think about God, be married and monogamous and never divorce as I believe that to be the best thing for all involved. So it is not really comparable to the gay marriage issue.

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice. To say that as a society we accept gay marriage means we accept homosexual sex which means that we accept you doing something that is damaging to you. The main problem with that, of course, is that the damage is primarily spiritual and that the state is in no way connected to spiritual things. So again I'm conflicted. I guess I'm at the point where I can't justify condoning the practice and if pushed to vote on the issue, I'd vote against gay marriage, but I'm not actively campaigning against it.

You have got to know that isn't even close to being a good thing. Especially for the women involved.

Well...I mean never need to get divorced. You know, a utopia type thing.

Got ya

 

[Jayrod]

I've been away for a bit, but I've read the reactions to my post.

I suppose the biggest difference between two atheists or Muslims getting married is that there is nothing inherently sinful within their marriages. In fact, I would prefer that all heterosexual couples, no matter what they think about God, be married and monogamous and never divorce as I believe that to be the best thing for all involved. So it is not really comparable to the gay marriage issue.

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice. To say that as a society we accept gay marriage means we accept homosexual sex which means that we accept you doing something that is damaging to you. The main problem with that, of course, is that the damage is primarily spiritual and that the state is in no way connected to spiritual things. So again I'm conflicted. I guess I'm at the point where I can't justify condoning the practice and if pushed to vote on the issue, I'd vote against gay marriage, but I'm not actively campaigning against it.

This is where religion is failing you. Nothing is damaging them or us or society. If you can present an argument as to why other than "the bible calls it a sin" then I would be glad to hear it. I can present a similar argument for just about every other sin I can think of. I have never heard an argument as to how homosexual sex or homosexual relationships damage a homosexual or anyone else.

If you don't understand how sin is damaging spiritually, then I don't know how else to explain it.

 

[Clifford]

If you Christians could just get off the idea of sexual sin, which is a patriarchal tactic used to oppress women for centuries, then you'd get a lot less friction from the rest of the world.

I'm not sure I understand the patriarchy thing here. There's nothing in Christianity that I'm aware of that says that adultery is bad for women but okay for men. But whatever. No sexual sin. Got it.

They way you guys (and girls) beat yourselves up for perfectly healthy and natural urges is just hard to watch. All it does is bottle all that sexual energy up inside you and it eventually explodes, usually in the form of cheating on your spouse or getting into hookers or even something worse. Which of course serves to reinforce the notion of sexual sin in the very insulated circles most active Christians work in (something consistently reinforced by the megachurches which are, after all, subscription-based businesses).

It's a sick, sick loop.

Wait a second. You just told me there's no such thing as sexual sin. So why do you suddenly have a problem with cheating on your spouse or getting into hookers or something "worse?"

Well, because cheating on your spouse is a breach of trust, almost always involves lies, and betrayal, If it didn't it wouldn't be cheating.

Hookers? Besides being illegal, not exactly a healthy consensual relationship. Consensual sure, but cmon, do I really have to explain what could be bad or sinful about developing a hooker habit?

Something worse would be cheating on your wife whilst smoking crack with your gay hooker lover, eg Haggard.

Point being repression of sexual urges often leads to bad results. Remove the need for repressing them, eg sexual sin, and you remove effects that are a hell of a lot worse than sex.

So basically you think that sexual urges should be repressed, then.

Everyone has repressed sexual urges. Giving in to some of them to try and find "relief" doesn't really solve the issue.

How on earth did you get this from what I wrote?

The point is get rid of the guilt and you get rid of repressing the urges and feeling bad about them. Once the church finally decides that sex is a natural and normal part of God's creation they solve all these silly little internal quibbles, like how God expects them to love another as themselves and love all of his creation, yet they are supposed to view an entire subsection of society as living in sin simply for being who they are.

Anyway, simple enough concept.