Defense of Marriage was always a lame and misleading label anyway. How does any other couple's definition of marriage undermine how any couple interprets their own marriage? If couple A chooses to interpret their own marriage through the lens of their religion, how does it affect their marriage of couple B interprets THEIR marriage differently? What defense of marriage SHOULD mean is that the legal definition of marriage, which is founded more in terms of contracts and human rights than any religion should not deny equal rights to any subset of the population considered equal in other civil rights domains. We afford equal rights regardless of sexual preferences in employment and housing, among other areas, so it is hypocritical to dole out rights piecemeal under the tattered umbrella of civil union: inheritance, medical power of attorney, child custody, etc. It doesn't give carte blanche to child molestors, eitherm despite arguments on that basis. That kind of union is not protected by any other civil rights laws, so the "equal rights" argument doesn't apply. Informed consent is still a prerequisite to protected relationships. So, I praise the Supreme Court for taking a badly needed action, and I hope this finally leads to a definitive nationwide ban on discrimination against same sex unions.
@JJ-Max You have no desire to dodge this discussion. If you did, you wouldn't have made the attack calling us immoral. You just want to be the only one using the Bible and you're concerned some of us who disagree with you actually have studied the Bible (yes, Greek, Hebrew,as well as supporting studies in the Midrash, archaeology, history, etc.)and could disintegrate your argument faster than toilet paper in a hurricane. You have a right to be concerned, because we have and can.
I would be more than willing to discuss this with you, even though it is obvious that you are very close-minded. The fact that you are looking to "disintegrate my argument" proves this point. You say you are a Christian, so where is your love and humility? Don't you know that a gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger? (Proverbs 15:1) In 2 Timothy Paul says: "Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will." As I said, I would enjoy to have this discussion with you, if you are open to it, but not as an adversary.
How are your beliefs open-minded and full of love and humility, JJ? How do you rationalize that? Have you considered the Bible accepts change in dogma? Looks to me like the Bible lightens up on homosexuals between Leviticus and Kings. Maybe it's time to take the next step?
Your contention is that I'm close-minded because I am confident that I can quickly destroy your argument that I'm immoral. Just so you know, I must be close-minded that the world isn't flat. Love and humility? The Bible tells me to judge those in the church. The high rate of homelessness and suicide among gay teens - that blood is on the hands of the Religious Right. They have corrupted the church and turned it into a place where the fruits of the spirit are choked by bigotry. My love is for the needy, the poor, and for those who seek to live good lives. As for 2 Timothy 2, it is talking about foolish and stupid arguments, not a serious effort to maintain bigotry in the church.
You seem to feel that to love someone is to accept every action they do. As a parent, I understand that I have rules for my children because I love them. I know what is best for them. Even though they may enjoy twinkies for dinner, I love them enough to not allow that. God is the same way. As far as the rest of your post, once again you can read my previous posts and know that I am not going to debate the Bible in this thread. I understand that I am the only dissenter in this thread, and everyone is focused on debating or arguing with me, but all I wanted to do was share my feelings and thoughts on the topic just as the rest of you have.
I honor the law of the land, unless it forces me to do something contrary to my faith. If the government outlaws religion in government, then I honor that. Render unto Ceasar and all that...
If you merely posted, "my religion forbids it", like some religions forbid eating pork, it would sound different. I respect your posting how this ruling affected you, but not your judgement of others. When you post the, "it's immoral" argument/opinion, you contradict your claims of love and open-mindedness. Let me put it another way, your god beliefs don't create any kind of absolute morality anymore than my biologically based morality (nature nurture combination that I believe is the basis of morality) creates an absolute morality for the human species. Might you recognize that reality? Or do you have a closed mind that other people's morality has validity? When I say "love" and "open minded" (which you didn't address), I'm talking about accepting the fact other people have different beliefs from yours. I don't read in your posts that you have empathy for other people who don't hold your beliefs, you don't see things from their shoes, only that you don't care what they do when out of your presence. While you may be in the minority in the thread, it's homosexuals that are in the minority in the country, and the world. Uganda, after Christian Evangelicals got involved, passed a law with the death penalty for being homosexual. So do try to keep in mind, you are not the persecuted one here. I didn't intend to debate the Bible. You quoted the Bible so I did as well, showing you I could find verses to contradict just about anything you can find a verse to support.
Thanks, Cog. I hope so too. And my wish is that it continues to come from The People as is now happening. I think the important thing for those still participating in this thread to remember is that the victory has been had. Fairness has taken the day. I never thought I would see the day when people outside of my community would be so emotionally charged to come to my defense, to the defense of a fairness they didn't have to pay attention to or be concerned with, but chose to anyway. I know not everyone is happy about this and they may never be. That's fine with me. Those who are and who have made this change a possibility are the moderate majority, and theirs may only be a mild happiness, a sense that something has been put to right. And that is also more than fine with me. I don't want to be the gay couple on parade. I want to be the invisible gay couple whose invisibility is the right kind, because everyone else around just sees us as another couple, no more, no less. Just another invitation to send out for the Saturday barbecue at Ted and Tammy's place. This is life-altering for me in a most positive and joyous way.
Not yet, but we're a step closer. The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step and every step is a celebration.
Be careful when putting words in peoples mouths. I never called anyone immoral. I merely stated that I believe homosexuality to be immoral, just as I do lying, stealing, cheating, adultery, divorce, etc... I can love the person without condoning their actions. I believe that men apart from God are not able to create their own morality. I believe that true morality only comes from God. How can you love someone and not care? If we are under the assumption that I believe homosexuality to be detrimental spiritually, wouldn't I care about that if I were to live as Christ lived? Of course I care. Any Christian that would promote killing or even harrassing homosexuals is a Crhistian in name only and is not following Christ. But you and Justin have posted verses allegedly claiming to support homosexuality. I have not posted any verses except to show how I should treat others. I purposefully refrained from arguing homosexuality if you didn't notice.
No words went in your mouth except maybe by saying everything you identify yourself as is immoral, but gee, I'm not calling you immoral. If I do any of those other things on your list, they are acts. Certainly some people commit those acts on a frequent basis. But when you are talking about homosexuality, that's the person, not their acts. I don't think you get that, do you? I gotta run so I'll address the rest later.
Of course you largely avoided posting scripture. That's because you know that anyone who has actually studied the Bible could disintegrate your position faster than toilet paper in a hurricane. As for claiming you didn't call anyone immoral, what you've done is the same as asserting that being black is immoral than saying that you didn't call anyone immoral.
I look forward to the day when certain adjectives don't always gravitate forcefully to certain nouns: black President woman judge gay couple Latino Senator male nurse It's that nasty little assumption that the noun can't stand alone, that the adjective matters more. That what they are trumps what they do.
I understand of course and this is where your beliefs diverge from my own. I don't believe that attraction toward the same sex is imaginary, on the contrary. But just as anger is not a sin, it is what you do with those feelings that causes people to sin. I believe homosexuality is an act, as in, it is something people do. As Dante said, my belief itself will offend some, but it is what I believe. It really can't be argued against because it is my belief based on prayer and the Word of God. If someone asks me a question, I will answer it truthfully. I'm not forcing anyone to believe the way I do. I respect everyone's right to believe the way they see fit.
This part will never happen, Ginger. It's the keystone to their precept. To admit that being gay is an intrinsic part of the person, as fundamental to them as their bones would mean that god made them that way, and if god made them that way and made their very existence a sin, then that is simply cruel. So homosexuality must be seen as an action, the end result of a transitive verb, not a copula verb, because then a separation can be made between the person, who can be saved, and the action, which can be modified or abstained from.
So you should have no problem with DOMA being shot down. It certainly isn't forcing you to do something, and we're in agreement that religion shouldn't influence government policy.
I'm sorry Justin, you are disrespectful and angry. Unlike Ginger, who apologized for her rhetoric, you continue to post inflammatory things. I have already answered your question and explained why I will not have this conversation with you. I'm sorry if that's not good enough for you. I ask that you would respect my answer for what it is.
The Religious Right has little appreciation for science. Expecting them to compare being black to being gay is a bridge too far regardless of the scientific evidence indicating the physical basis of homosexuality.
Not quite, while I agree to follow the law of the land, I don't believe we are better off in a God-less country. I believe as George Washington did, that morality and religion should be a pillar of government.
Madison (the Father of the Constitution) "The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821).
Justin, you're missing the point. I'm not debating you. This isn't point-counterpoint. My beliefs align closely with George Washington. That's not debatable. Relax, man it's not always a confrontation.
JJ, I stopped debating you many posts back. Now, I'm just posting to correct your bs (such as your befuddled idea that religion and government are best when combined) in case any third person is still following the thread.
