Are u going to leave USA now?

[dust1n]

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left it up for future generations to decide, so those of us today wouldn't be bound to the ways of yesterday that are no longer applicable or needlessly boggling things down because the ways of yesterday aren't the best for today.

It doesn't really matter. The end goal is to ban homosexual marriage. So it doesn't really matter if Jesus came down on a chariot in front of the Supreme Court and gave them all high-fives. Anything that leads to gay marriage is bad, even if it's this country.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

The believers I like are the ones who don't let their scripture be a source, expression or vehicle for hatred.
I can live with a scriptural disapproval which is without oppression & hatred towards us sinners.
You know the old expression...."Love the sinner....hate the sin". That works for me.

I know that some people feel bad because of this disapproval, & that some will even see disapproval as an attack.
They need more self confidence, & thicker skins.
Thus, we may be friends with people who we think are deluded, & who think we are sinners.
After all, we disagree primarily over things which don't even exist! (That always gets a chuckle from me fundie friends.)

 

[catch22]

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.

I agree with your last sentence, from a legal perspective. Spiritually, these are dark times, however.

Although in all fairness, the institution of marriage has been heading downward for some time. I'm not surprised by this outcome. It only exacerbates the problem, and only goes to show how far it's gone. People have been desecrating marriage in heterosexual settings for a long time. Marriage itself, in modernity, is a perverted concept from its original intent. It's just more so now than it was prior to the ruling, at least in this land in particular.

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.

It harms them. But, it seems most who rationalize this way, are also keen on allowing drug addicts to continue to do drugs since it's on them, and no one else ("their problem" or "your problem")

It doesn't make it right.

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.

I understand. You possibly mistake approval and tolerance as equal. They are not the same things. Have I slandered or call names, here? Have I treated people without respect...? If so, show me, that I may apologize.

And it isn't my approval that matters or that is being spoken to here, anyway. It is God's. Most people's reactions who are on the other side of the fence simply choose to disbelieve in God, deny Him, or reinvent who He really is.

None of these wipe the slate clean. This is a heart issue, "accept me or else." Who hasn't been here, before? I think it's fair to say we all have, about various things. Everyone is different in the sense that our sins vary. We are the same in that we all have suffered it. But it doesn't have to be that way.

I can't stop same-sex people getting married anymore than I can stop a woman from having an abortion. Nor can I stop the drug addict from abusing, or the adulterer from sleeping around. It isn't my goal to heal or cure people of their ailments, I am not capable. Jesus is, though, and I just want people to know about Him.

 

[fantome profane]

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.

I think you are confused about the chronology of events. Marriage was at one point a private matter between families. At some point in history the state got involved. It was after that that the state allowed the church to become involve. Marriage did not start out as a religious concept.

But in more recent history marriage in the United States has always been a secular matter. The power to decide who can or cannot get married has always been the in the hands of the government, never in the church. The church (any church) really has nothing to do with it. No church or religion has any right to claim ownership of this concept.

 

[sojourner]

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.

On the one hand, it may not be. On the other hand, there are lots of religious and spiritual folks (like me) who do see it as a spiritual and church issue.

 

[gorkybjork]

It might be wise to leave before the **** hits the fan. They'll be rounding up preachers, soon and then attendees.

 

[gorkybjork]

It's coming down like dominos. Soon anarchy!

 

[catch22]

I think you are confused about the chronology of events. Marriage was at one point a private matter between families. At some point in history the state got involved. It was after that that the state allowed the church to become involve. Marriage did not start out as a religious concept.

But in more recent history marriage in the United States has always been a secular matter. The power to decide who can or cannot get married has always been the in the hands of the government, never in the church. The church (any church) really has nothing to do with it. No church or religion has any right to claim ownership of this concept.

I think I was trying to convey the point it used to not be a legalized matter, sorry if I misconstrued. I meant the state got involved later, and hence the issues people who'd like to remain a private or faith based issue, are having... issues.

On the one hand, it may not be. On the other hand, there are lots of religious and spiritual folks (like me) who do see it as a spiritual and church issue.

As the above poster I quoted made clear, I can see that possibility.

Just to re-state it probably should have been called something else.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Although in all fairness, the institution of marriage has been heading downward for some time.

Marriage has never been a static institute. It has always changed, it has always meant different things to different cultures and different people.

t only exacerbates the problem, and only goes to show how far it's gone.

Saying gay marriage "exacerbates the problem" is disrespectful. What it basically is saying is that "you people are causing problems for the rest of us." But the only problem comes from religious people who believe it is their right to dictate the lives of others in accordance to their religious beliefs.

It harms them.

This is simply your opinion and belief. There is no concrete evidence to support this claim.

It doesn't make it right.

What isn't right is insisting people are less deserving of equality and hurting each other because they have been granted a step towards equality.

Everyone is different in the sense that our sins vary.

Sin only applies to those who believe it exists. Myself, I am sinless. It does not burden me, it does not trouble me, it does not worry me, for a sin is a trangression against your god, but I cannot transgress against something I don't believe in (similar to the fallacy of atheists being angry at/hating god, even though that is silly to hate something you don't believe in).

It might be wise to leave before the **** hits the fan. They'll be rounding up preachers, soon and then attendees.

Bull! That alarmist paranoid attitude is nothing more than a deeper manifestation of the "woe is me" card.
No one is coming for you. No one (who will ever be taken seriously, that is) wants to criminalize your beliefs. America doesn't even go after the WBC, so it is a very safe assumption that no one is coming for you. Watches the shadows for bogeymen is all you are doing.

 

[gorkybjork]

I would like to. I need to find the means, though.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think I was trying to convey the point it used to not be a legalized matter, sorry if I misconstrued. I meant the state got involved later, and hence the issues people who'd like to remain a private or faith based issue, are having... issues.

The state, or some equivalent of a ruling body, has long been involved with marriage to a degree, most often and typically as it pertains to inheritance and other next-of-kin statuses.

Just to re-state it probably should have been called something else.

Separate but equal was ruled unconstitutional decades ago. Saying that a gay marriage should be called something else is saying that homosexuals are undeserving of a basic right of our society that heterosexuals freely enjoy.

 

[gorkybjork]

The government is going after preachers who won't p reform gay marriages. I think the preachers are right. I'm guilty by association. Believe me, they're coming.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The government is going after preachers who won't p reform gay marriages.

No, they aren't.

 

[gorkybjork]

Fine. You don't watch the news, I guess.

 

[gorkybjork]

Maybe your idea of a reliable news source is MTV News.

 

[columbus]

The government is going after preachers who won't p reform gay marriages. I think the preachers are right. I'm guilty by association. Believe me, they're coming.

As much as I would like this to be true, I see no evidence that preachers will even be expected to pay taxes like the rest of us.
Tom

 

[gorkybjork]

Oh. I change my mind, then.

 

[fantome profane]

I would like to. I need to find the means, though.

And where would you go?

 

[gorkybjork]

I have no idea.

 

[sojourner]

I think I was trying to convey the point it used to not be a legalized matter, sorry if I misconstrued. I meant the state got involved later, and hence the issues people who'd like to remain a private or faith based issue, are having... issues.

I think we need to remember that, in the bible, the state was a faith-based issue, and marriage was governed legally.