Are u going to leave USA now?

[JoStories]

The rate of disease, mental illness, promiscuity, drug abuse, domestic violence, etc. are all higher among homosexual men than in the general population. Then there's also the Natural Law view that such acts (i.e. anal sex, aka sodomy) violate the natural order of sexuality, which is ordered towards procreation and bonding between a married man and woman.

Do you have a reliable, and credible source for these assertions? Domestic violence, while clearly seen in gay relationships, is MUCH higher in hetero couples. Mental illness? Prove it by credible studies.

 

[Muffled]

You are absolutely free to do this. I have never liked the southeastern states nor Texas and all those like it. It smacks, at least to me, of another civil war much like the slavery issues. So go right ahead and secede. You will not be missed.

I believe I would like to believe that but it would take the states involved to act and I would have to move to a red state since Iam currently in a blur one.

I believe the Civil war wan't necessary, and shouldn't be now but that doesn't stop warmongers from starting them.

I believe forced slavery to be immoral as I view homosexuality as immoral.

If you turn the light out in your house do you miss the light? I suppose if one loves darkness one would not.

 

[sojourner]

it is indeed caring to inform people about their err as opposed to letting one abide in sin, which is death? I suppose I might say, you underestimate the severity of the situation. At least from my perspective.

1) It's not your job to "correct" others; it's your job to love them.
2) how can one "err" in a) who they are, and b) in something about themselves that cannot be "changed?"

 

[sojourner]

I believe forced slavery to be immoral as I view homosexuality as immoral.

Do you believe blacks' "blackness" to be immoral? Do you believe the forced dehumanization of homosexuals to be immoral?

 

[Muffled]

Do you believe blacks' "blackness" to be immoral? Do you believe the forced dehumanization of homosexuals to be immoral?

I believe blackness to be beautiful as are all God's creations. I believe dehumanizing anyone is immoral. I believe rejecting marriage for homosexuals does not dehumanize them but that marriage does dehumanize them.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I believe blackness to be beautiful as are all God's creations. I believe dehumanizing anyone is immoral. I believe rejecting marriage for homosexuals does not dehumanize them but that marriage does dehumanize them.

How does marriage dehumanize homosexuals?

 

[viole]

An interesting question. I'm not sure if I can give you a completely honest answer, due to cognitive bias. But I will try. Let me preface and say that, in college, I used to advocate the whole "love who you want, marry who you want, it doesn't affect me" mentality. It doesn't "hurt anyone else." That sort of thing. Of course now, I cannot ever go back to that. That was primarily out of indifference; I didn't actually CARE because the issue didn't actually affect me. But it seemed "fair," in my worldly view -- how is it fair I can love and marry and someone cannot, since they love and want to marry someone I wouldn't? It seems hypocritical, if you will, from the worldly perspective.

My honest answer, in your hypothetical situation, is I likely would revert to a state of lack of caring, as before: so it's a yes and a no. I wouldn't "oppose" it, because I wouldn't care about it. Since I'm not gay, the issue doesn't affect me, so I'd probably be on the fence due to indifference. Most say they care -- however, it's my experience, they don't REALLY care; it just seems more fair, from the worldly perspective. Besides, live and let live is non-confrontational, despite more-than-whom-will-admit it's against nature and in general, an off-putting topic overall. Alas, my morals at that time in my life seemed more modern than such an ancient book written by plain old humans.

I can empathize with the position, believe me.

Thanks for the honest answer.

On the other hand, if you hypothetically embraced the God of Israel, His laws, and His Son, would you sudden begin... caring? You phrased it as "opposition," and naturally make it a violent situation. If I could merely phrase it as "caring," would you believe that, in the hypothetical case you believed as I do, that it is indeed caring to inform people about their err as opposed to letting one abide in sin, which is death? I suppose I might say, you underestimate the severity of the situation. At least from my perspective.

Best,
-Dan

it depends. I crossed all phases of Christian belief before becoming a naturalist. From YEC to Universalist with all intermediate steps. If I embraced again the first phases then I would agree with you. If I embraced the latter ones, probably not. After all our official church in Sweden has no problem to marry gays in churches, so you can be a Christian and accept gay marriage.

You will say that they err, but they still seem genuinely Christian. You can show them Scripture to prove your point, but that will not go anywhere, since there are many odd things in Scripture that no Christian would follow today anyway. Probably that is why it survived so long, you can adapt it to your nature and filter out only the things you like: it both supports Wesboro baptists and the most liberal Christian, the 6000 years old earthers and the evolutionary Christian, the fire and brimstome guy and the Heaven for all guy, the eye for an eye guy and the opposer of death penalty, etc.

I don't want to sound cynical, but many if not all Christians claim to have a personal relationship with the Lord, apart from reading the Bible, but given all those different views I have to ask myself what do they talk about during these personal relationships with the almighty: the weather?

And this is why I think every little variant of Christianity tells me more about the believers in it, then about God.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are absolutely free to do this. I have never liked the southeastern states nor Texas and all those like it. It smacks, at least to me, of another civil war much like the slavery issues. So go right ahead and secede. You will not be missed.

Just as long as they wait until I'm out of the state.

I believe rejecting marriage for homosexuals does not dehumanize them but that marriage does dehumanize them.

Denying rights to a minority group (or any group, so long as those rights aren't harming anyone) is what dehumanizes them, because it is telling them they are not deserving and worthy of the same rights enjoyed by others. Denying rights creates second-class citizens, which that in itself is dehumanizing.

 

[gsa]

I believe blackness to be beautiful as are all God's creations. I believe dehumanizing anyone is immoral. I believe rejecting marriage for homosexuals does not dehumanize them but that marriage does dehumanize them.

You believe this, even though the overwhelming majority of gay men and lesbians will tell you that anti-gay policies, including the bans on marriage, are dehumanizing? It is remarkable that you know better than they do.

 

[sojourner]

I believe blackness to be beautiful as are all God's creations. I believe dehumanizing anyone is immoral. I believe rejecting marriage for homosexuals does not dehumanize them but that marriage does dehumanize them.

Homosexuality is one of "God's creations." Homosexuals are human beings who are attracted to other human beings, who love, and who have nothing wrong with them. Banning them from marriage is dehumanizing, because it discriminates against them, based upon who they are.

 

[catch22]

Thanks for the honest answer.

it depends. I crossed all phases of Christian belief before becoming a naturalist. From YEC to Universalist with all intermediate steps. If I embraced again the first phases then I would agree with you. If I embraced the latter ones, probably not. After all our official church in Sweden has no problem to marry gays in churches, so you can be a Christian and accept gay marriage.

You will say that they err, but they still seem genuinely Christian. You can show them Scripture to prove your point, but that will not go anywhere, since there are many odd things in Scripture that no Christian would follow today anyway. Probably that is why it survived so long, you can adapt it to your nature and filter out only the things you like: it both supports Wesboro baptists and the most liberal Christian, the 6000 years old earthers and the evolutionary Christian, the fire and brimstome guy and the Heaven for all guy, the eye for an eye guy and the opposer of death penalty, etc.

Yeah, not so much. That's an odd way of thinking about it. Convenient, I suppose, but very dangerous. Not saying I'm less guilty than the next person in areas like this, but I would think we'd honestly strive to be more wholistic in our approach to the bible everyday, not just go with what "feels" better day-in, day-out. I think that's really missing the point.

I don't want to sound cynical, but many if not all Christians claim to have a personal relationship with the Lord, apart from reading the Bible, but given all those different views I have to ask myself what do they talk about during these personal relationships with the almighty: the weather?

I sometimes ask for rain, since we're under a heavy drought where I'm from. Most of the time I pray about my family, my country, my friends, people on this forum, people at work, and just people in general I encounter. Issues I'm having and struggling with... anything you'd talk to your mom or dad or best friend about, I suppose. It's not actually all that different, just more intimate because, you know, there's nothing to hide. Naked before the Lord and all that.

But, most of the time it's just praise and glory. And lots of thanksgiving.

And this is why I think every little variant of Christianity tells me more about the believers in it, then about God.

Ciao

- viole

You'd put too much stock in humans if you rely on them solely for your understanding about God. It's better to rely on God for that. Humans are quite fallible, if that's what you're alluding too. On the other hand, to think oneself important enough to put a dent in God's plan (positively or negatively) is arrogance somewhere in the realm of incomprehensible. We're vessels for His good work, and therein lies joy. However, key word here: His. It's all His. Sometimes we get caught up in our role, and forget about the bigger picture. Alas, it happens to all of us.

Blessings!

 

[catch22]

1) It's not your job to "correct" others; it's your job to love them.
2) how can one "err" in a) who they are, and b) in something about themselves that cannot be "changed?"

1) I'm not sure I'm "correcting" anyone. What's more loving: a) to tell someone they are in sin, which the cost is death, and inform them there's a cure, or b) Do nothing, and allow them to walk into death -- or even worse, encourage them on their walk toward destruction?

(as an aside, your biblical understanding in general seems unsound, so I'm led to think your understanding on the whole concept of biblical and Godly love would be equally unsteady).

2) People are wrong about many things. Most things, I'd argue -- especially when it comes to wants, desires, and feelings. Tell the serial killer they are wrong. The thief and the liar and the adulterer. You've been deceived into believing sin is righteous, which is tragic. I'm not going on the merry-go-round of identity (in this regard) with you again, you know my position, I know yours. You say it can't be changed; I say anyone can change in Christ.

 

[JoStories]

Just as long as they wait until I'm out of the state.

Denying rights to a minority group (or any group, so long as those rights aren't harming anyone) is what dehumanizes them, because it is telling them they are not deserving and worthy of the same rights enjoyed by others. Denying rights creates second-class citizens, which that in itself is dehumanizing.

Marisa, move up here to the northeast. Vermont is lovely. So in Maine. And for the second part of your post, I couldn't agree more.

 

[catch22]

Just as long as they wait until I'm out of the state.

Denying rights to a minority group (or any group, so long as those rights aren't harming anyone) is what dehumanizes them, because it is telling them they are not deserving and worthy of the same rights enjoyed by others. Denying rights creates second-class citizens, which that in itself is dehumanizing.

Define rights? Is driving a right? How about having food? Water? A home? Warmth in the winter, and heat in the summer? Showers? Health insurance? Smart phones?

So why is marriage a "right"?

And who gets to define what harms someone or doesn't?

 

[sojourner]

You'd put too much stock in humans if you rely on them solely for your understanding about God. It's better to rely on God for that.

God is either manifest through relationships with other human beings, or within our own human consciousness. There is no understanding of God outside the human equation.

1) I'm not sure I'm "correcting" anyone.

Telling them they're wrong in their homosexuality is attempting to correct them. Because you believe homosexuality is wrong and requires correction.

What's more loving: a) to tell someone they are in sin, which the cost is death, and inform them there's a cure,

What's more loving is to realize, along with the medical community, that there is no cure, because there is nothing wrong.

or b) Do nothing, and allow them to walk into death -- or even worse, encourage them on their walk toward destruction?

Or, celebrate their difference, respect their uniqueness and their expression of full humanity, allowing them to live fully within human society.

(as an aside, your biblical understanding in general seems unsound, so I'm led to think your understanding on the whole concept of biblical and Godly love would be equally unsteady).

My Mdiv with honors, and years of ordination in a mainstream denomination trumps your aside. Don't get uppity.

2) People are wrong about many things.

Including the "fact" that something's "wrong" with homosexuality.

especially when it comes to wants, desires, and feelings.

Like what we want the bible to say, what we desire everyone else to be, and how we feel about basic differences.

Tell the serial killer they are wrong. The thief and the liar and the adulterer.

Those things are illegal, and they harm others. Human sexuality is neither of those things.

You've been deceived into believing sin is righteous, which is tragic.

You've been deceived into believing normal human sexuality is sin which is tragic.

I'm not going on the merry-go-round of identity (in this regard) with you again

...Because it's correct, you know it's correct, and nothing you can wish or say can allow you to win that argument.

You say it can't be changed; I say anyone can change in Christ.

Science has proven otherwise. Righteous wishing doesn't change that.

 

[sojourner]

Define rights? Is driving a right? How about having food? Water? A home? Warmth in the winter, and heat in the summer? Showers? Health insurance? Smart phones?

So why is marriage a "right"?

And who gets to define what harms someone or doesn't?

Marriage isn't really the "right." Equal treatment under the law is the "right." It's the denial of equal rights that dehumanizes. The majority get to marry those they love. The minority, thanks to the wisdom of SCOTUS and an increasing number of citizens, now can do the same thing.

 

[catch22]

Marriage isn't really the "right." Equal treatment under the law is the "right." It's the denial of equal rights that dehumanizes. The majority get to marry those they love. The minority, thanks to the wisdom of SCOTUS and an increasing number of citizens, now can do the same thing.

The point of conflict is the title and intent. This is what happens when a religious or church concept gets endorsed by law. It's our own fault, really. Church and state, and all that. The community property, messy divorce, love or lust first, elvis attended, chain monogamy modern "marriage" is who's fault again? Yeah.

I wish it was called something else so I wouldn't be compelled to defend it (and I do defend it with heteros too, btw; I see so many willy nilly "waahhh i want something new" problems all the time). If this was about tax breaks and exemptions and other legal issues surrounding the union of two people who may join on the compulsion of love (called legal union, or civil union, or something similar), I don't think the faith-based response would be what it is.

 

[dust1n]

Things I've seen on RF & elsewhere about those who oppose gay marriage.....
- Stupid
- Hateful
- Hypocritical
- Evil religions
If you're looking for citations of specific posts, I ain't do'n that.

Always weird to be expected to never insult a religion, whose holy book as dictated God dictates that anyone who doesn't believe in God (atheists) is a fool. And a fool in a Biblical context isn't just stupid. It means to lack character or integrity as a human. But for some reason, I couldn't say that people who actually believe this book are fools. They are certainly free to refer to any homosexual as unnatural, sinful, evil, disgusting, wrong, against the singular moral authority of the universe... and do.

I beleive I am beginning to like the idea of a red state secession. We could keep the Bill of Rights and actually interpret it correctly as opposed to the way the stupid justices interpet it.

Sometimes you got to hate the constitution to revere the constitution.... I guess.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Define rights? Is driving a right? How about having food? Water? A home? Warmth in the winter, and heat in the summer? Showers? Health insurance? Smart phones?

So why is marriage a "right"?

The courts ruled that marriage--a concept that in some form and name has existed in all cultures as far as I know--is a basic human right. Because people, in our culture, get "married" to socially declare their commitment to one another, it is the right of all to be able to enter into this arrangement. And because our society bases this around a contract, it must be entered into by those who are of age and consenting to enter into this arrangement. Religious opposition is not a good enough reason to deny this right to homosexuals.

And who gets to define what harms someone or doesn't?

It's not that hard. Homosexuality does not harm anyone, except for those who have a problem with it. A serial killer does harm others, sexual predators cause harm to others, consenting adults forming a consensual relationship harms no one.

1) I'm not sure I'm "correcting" anyone. What's more loving: a) to tell someone they are in sin, which the cost is death, and inform them there's a cure, or b) Do nothing, and allow them to walk into death -- or even worse, encourage them on their walk toward destruction?

Telling someone they are wrong and going to hell, for no other reason than you believe that they are, is not loving. It's really only saying that you disapprove of them.
And believe me, this "love" quickly turns sour and into annoyance when people do not respect your choices, your decisions, and you as a person, especially when this "love" is for nothing more than religious purposes. Often times the best thing to do is just respect people for being different, accept that they are not of the same beliefs and viewpoints as you, and show them the same basic dignity and respect that everyone deserves.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sometimes you got to hate the constitution to revere the constitution.... I guess.

Or realize it was never meant to be a static document, changing it is built into it, and the world of the 18th century no longer exists. I think the Founders knew the world would change, and because they knew they couldn't predict the future, they intentionally left it up for future generations to decide, so those of us today wouldn't be bound to the ways of yesterday that are no longer applicable or needlessly boggling things down because the ways of yesterday aren't the best for today.