That is, care if others engage in them?
I know homosexuality has pretty much run its course here on RF, but I can't remember this specific point having been addressed, and just to be clear I'll restate the question.
Why do Christians care that people of the same gender engage in sex, and why do they care that they marry each other? Even caring to the point of voicing their objections and protesting?
.
So, I've been watching this thread for awhile. Haven't read every post on it, nor even half of them. Part of reason I haven't responded is because I honestly find the 2nd paragraph assertion "can't remember this specific point having been addressed" to be disingenuous. Close to trolling really. I think every discussion between orthodox Christian types on RF and those favoring homosexual civil rights (without limit) are constantly engaged in confronting why (such) Christians care so much or so passionately about this issue.
After rereading about the first 5 pages of this thread, I find same old same old points being made, plus other posts that speak directly to the political debate. Then I see those resisted (as expected). So, again not really about "why do you care so much" but seemingly more about, "is today the day we can convince you to abandon your religious convictions to uphold our version or righteous secular claims? If not, then let's debate this, ad nauseam in the hopes that later today or tomorrow might be that day."
I'll remind some of you, or inform others who may not know, I have consistently favored SSM, but see it as not going far enough, politically. I don't feel like getting into it's limitations on this thread, but do wish to note that I truly am favoring of SSM, while also not favoring the unabashed agenda that comes with such political support. Again, I am a B in the LGBT community and find this is one of those issues that really has very little to nothing to do with B (or T) but somehow if we are all lumped in together it makes it seem like there's a bunch of us and a few of 'them' that need to be confronted for their wayward thinking on this.
I think part of the reason this debate is ongoing is because of how wayward the agenda has gotten on the other side, the LG side of the equation. It's noted in post #77 of this thread, and the bewildering response (by OP) to that was "Homophobic to the extreme, but okay." That's some passive aggressive prejudice being expressed. And to what? Here, I'll quote that (from post #77)
It's not kept in their home. It's not even merely flaunted in public. It's been taken to a new level where there is an agenda to forcibly resocialize the country through the media and public education to have us all view this lifestyle as normal, even admirable, and to stigmatize anyone who disagrees with that lifestyle on religious grounds as someone who is on par with a racist. If they had their way, they'd start jailing Christians just for speaking their opinion publically too.
That's where Christians have an obligation to legally and politically push back for the sake of their own freedoms, and to guard the moral integrity of their families and communities against a powerful minority in media and politics that want to force them to change their values.
So, as noted before, the response was doing exactly what was stated in this point - stigmatizing anyone who disagrees with the lifestyle (of SSM), and if they disagree on religious grounds, treating it as akin to being racist. IMO, that stuff needs to stop. It really doesn't help the cause. Yet, it is something that comes up in debate rather frequently (all too often). It takes the likes of me and really has me question, do I want to be on the same side as that? Especially since L and G have notoriously been quite prejudice toward B in many instances?
Changing gears.
Used to be that the long, decades fight to getting SSM going had patience and strong sense of virtue. Now, it seems like there is no patience and virtue be damned, "we" are hungry and we want it all, screw you if you disagree with 'us.'
For me, the flip side to all this is that if patience were to persist, a whole lot of Christians would be far more accepting of the political fight. But the fight has turned into an agenda that even I see reason to fight back on, and it stems from sense of religious freedoms. In post #127 of the thread, it was asked:
So to be clear, are you saying that you would have no problem with an owner of a restaurant refusing to serve Blacks if the owner thought doing so would violate the tenants of his religion? Is that your position?
And IMO, the reply to that needs to be explored. If the same owner can demonstrate that this is actual tenet of their religion, then they ought to have at least consideration for engaging in that. But, I imagine a whole lot of debate would ensue, that would be far shorter lived than this one, for it's very hard to find a known religion that advocates for such. But if hypothetically there was one that did, then it is plausible to think religious freedom would be such that it is a reason to disallow such an owner to engage in such service. Probably won't bode well for their business, but is choice they'd have to live with as long as they adhere to such tenet.
In this debate, with SSM, I regularly do not get impression that it is discrimination against L and G, but is against SSM. Seems the counter agenda doesn't wish to paint it that way, or rather doesn't have the patience (any more) to understand it in such terms. So, as long as hypotheticals are on the table, imagine if the type of marriage was one between a 52 year old man and a 15 year young male. And imagine that such a marriage arrangement is now legal in society (again going with hypotheticals). But also imagine that a great many people in that society dislike this type of marriage arrangement, so much, that they don't wish to utilize their business service by supporting it and participating in the ceremony via their business. Would you blame them if they chose not to, or would you think it doesn't matter their personal beliefs, at all, and that the law is the law and they must support it, professionally, and have zero complaints? If they do have complaints, is it fair to label those as strictly anti-gay, since it is two males who are getting married?
All rhetorical questions which I can anticipate responses to, some of which will likely miss the point.
For me, this whole topic is tricky for several reasons, some of which I cited and fairly simple, in that if you don't support the type of business request being made because it goes against religious beliefs, then freedom ought to be that you shouldn't have to engage in that request. Yet, even that isn't so simple, especially considering the tenet of Christianity that clearly advocates for "do not marry." I think some Christians care because they think people in love, devoted to each other ought to be able to marry (rather than burn with passion) yet are willing to make distinctions that align with their own take on Christianity, even if it doesn't exactly align (consistently) with scripture. Or seemingly, they'd rather have non-heterosexuals burn with passion than engage in marriage, which would presumably then allow them to devote more time to serving God, divine concerns.
The religious freedom aspect is the last hurdle that I see to the SSM ongoing discussion, and I think more patience and less name calling would be beneficial to the LG community. Once this hurdle is overcome, then we can get to place where marriage equality of the real variety can occur. I've been patient on that for well over 30 years now, I think I can wait awhile longer for the children at the table to express their little temper tantrums.
