Obama on Gay Marriage

[stonehart]

I am SO tired of hearing how "marriage" is a sacred rite between a man, woman, and God. For some religions that may be true. Fine. I have no problem with it. Just like I could give damn if you are circumcised or that you are baptized. Neither should mean ANYTHING to the State and Federal government. Period.

Marriage in the US (separation of church and State...right?) is a fiscal categorization. Thats where the law, State and Federal, should stop. Its a personal merger of fiscal responsibility and an acquisition of mutually beneficial assets. When that partnership ends the first thing the law does is separate fiscal responsibility and divide assets. Just as it should. But, arent we missing the 800lb Gorilla in the corner? Where is the reconciliation with God? We took great care in making sure we considered God and religion in the creation of the marriage. How do we reconcile this aspect now that the marriage is ended?

How is this Religious reconciliation mandated or regulated? What's that you say? Its not under the purview of the State or Federal government to mandate or regulate your religious reconciliation? Your relationship with your personal deity is none of their F'ing business? Hmmm, so why should they regulate it using this same criteria when creating it?

BUT, some out there want to deny that fiscal categorization because said persons choose to do things with their genitalia that they find distasteful. Religiously distasteful. Its not like they are performing sexual acts in Public mind you, but in the privacy of their own homes.

I have always found it absurd that people spend so much time concerning themselves with what others do with their genitalia. Yes, I am heterosexual. But, I'll wager that almost nobody really wants to hear the finer points of how I apply that orientation. If you asked me to, I would semi-politely tell you how to apply those same acts to yourself. In vivid detail.

In short, this entire Religious issue should NOT be an issue that any Government has the right to regulate. Its time to truly separate Church and State. So I applaud Mr. Obama's stance and pity the ignorance of those of you that denounce it.

Bravo!!! well said!!

 

[Ezechiel]

Ah, ezechiel, you too easily prove my points in my post about your statement. Tens and tens of millions of Christians and tens more are very supportive of the very things you condemn them for being against as per your simplistic "Christian ideology". And I include many, many Catholics.

Your cavalier dismissal of my suggestion to, yes, simply read about that which you crow about only fortifies my points.

Ah, the bliss of delusion in the pursuit of supposed profundity. When you make generalized and simplistic statements about history and groups of people, be prepared to be confronted.

You have no idea the rich history of the churches on many issues past and right now, and simple statements will not be tolerated, and will be dealt with severely! I have spoken, ezechiel, and get yourself over to amazon! For your own sake, for celebration of the rich past, its complexity not satisfied by simple statements, for those around you who will recognize the new ezechiel, for exploration of things barely encountered by you, I suggest a whole new world, a broadening world, ezechiel. Dip your spoon into the richness of human history, and taste the sweetness of knowledge. Yes, it will be at first just one of those tiny little one fourth teaspoon measuring spoons, but under my tutelage, ezechiel, you will soon graduate to whole ladles of the nectar of knowledge.

Abandon these entreaties now, ezechiel, and your posts will not grow with reflection of the true complexity of knowledge, history, and, yes, the tens of millions of Christians who do not meet your restricted view of and comment on "Christian ideology".

I am in the process of drawing up a quarter teaspoon reading list for you. Let me know if you want to begin a new direction in your mind's growth. Kim

With your vast knowledge of history, I have yet to hear you formulate an informed opinion on the subject at hand. Instead you constantly parrot your self-promoting condescending diatribe. A culturally superior being such as you should be able enlighten us. Detailing the foundations supporting the 'christian' position concerning homosexual marriage would be a good start... And why should this position appeal to humanity as a whole ?

 

[PararealitySaint]

Funny, My Lord teaches me to, "Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged" in situations where a moral "decision" has to be made. I for one interpret this as being, "as compared to" in a Biblical context, but that doesn't mean I have the right "as a Christian" to impose my decisions on others.....

Unless.....

They somehow infringe on my right to worship or personally live.

That being said, I am personally against abortion, against homosexuality and thus marriage, and against many aspects of today's societal standards which others deem acceptable.

But before those of you on this forum get ready to hang me out to dry as being one of those, "Evil Christians" who just loves to persecute others and juxtapose his beliefs on them like some hypocritical pulpit reverend on holy juice, hear me out....

A. I have a right like anyone else on this board to feel the way I do, and to vote for my feelings as a United States Citizen.

Wanna know something?

I have friends who are gay, friends who have had abortions in the past, friends who curse, believe a liberal lifestyle is the only way to live, etc. I have them because CHRIST would have had them if he was here, and he would have loved them the same as any of the supposed "sinless." He wasn't kidding when he said, "judge not" and condemn or act as God and I am a perfect example of that. I can disagree with their lifestyles or decisions, but not use thus as some hate filled manner by which to ignore or drop them as a human being...one of God's children to me by the way.
B. I would die (and have almost done so) in defending their right as a citizen of the United States to live they way they want to. I believe it is every citizen's obligation to treat every other citizen as an equal under the, "eyes of the law".....and dare I say it....."and God too."
C. Hate is Evil. Hating is something which any real Christian abhors....When Jesus said, "Love thy neighbor" he wasn't just talking about those who are like you, but EVERY soul which he has made as his children.

Now those in the paranormal world are special friends of mine. I have been around the globe before and have witnessed some aspects of it that I can honestly state I do not, nor will ever understand.

It makes me initially skeptical, but eventually I will form my opinion and live by it the way I see fit. Sorry all those who think that is Politically Incorrect of me...

Handle it.

I know Gene finds my name humorous (just listen to the question part of the last show ), and many of you probably think I have a bad conflict of interest, mainly because there are so many supposed "Christians" out there who judge, and that you automatically place me in the same category as such....

Heck, there have been times when I have gotten mad at what I thought were silly notions here on this forum, but if there is one thing I feel The Paracast and other shows like this one have taught me, it is that we have a very diverse and special planet here, filled with people who aren't all robots walking the earth as one unitary mindset. My Country isn't perfect and there are many hate bashing idiots in it, but they have a right to their feelings as well.....

Just as long as they do not, "Tread on Me".

So in conclusion please note something about "Pararealitysaint".....The first part of my name, or "Parareality" is a word which describes an old moniker on a paranormal radio show I used to consult for and work within for many more years than I like admitting, and the "saint" aspect of the same stands for the fact that I believe everyone of God's children are given the identity and not just those who supposedly ordain themselves as such. It was a "Liberal" way of protesting a judgement call some of my religious brethren have imposed on others without the Lord becoming the final arbiter, as "Judge Not" alludes to.

God Bless.

 

[Kim323]

Ezechiel, I have in this thread and others described some of my social views, and have regarding homosexual marriage in this thread.

I have never claimed to be " a culturally superior being.". But I have and am far superior to you in terms of knowledge about religion, the history of Judaism and Christianity being, yes, a specialty and a personal interest. I am also sure from your comments on other threads and this thread that you for some reason have a very visceral reaction to Christianity that causes you to make blanket condemnations of "Christian ideology," "Christian morality," Christian "guidelines and biblical scripture," and that these cause "scientific research" to be "restricted.". These are your quotes.

You also listed the following as being issues "Christian ideology," etc.,etc restricts negatively:

Definition of life
Definition of death
Definition of a family
Abortions
Contraception
Homosexual marriage
Stem cell research

I have revealed my positions on homosexual marriage and stem cell research. If other threads arise on the others I may say something, or not. I've said on other threads that my social views are very liberal.

So, we agree on homosexual marriage. Parareality saint has different views. I am all for separation of church and state. I have pointed out in vain specifically to you that tens and tens and tens of millions of Christians hold views on these issues you delineated that are very inclusive and, for want of a better word, liberal. Yet your personal aversion to and condemnation of "Christian ideology" and "Christian moral guidelines" does indeed show not only ignorance of this, but also a suspicious perseverance of your derision of Christianity that seems to go beyond any ability on your part to be logical. I saw this on other threads where you did the same condemnatory stuff, indeed to the extent of exhibiting extreme ignorance of history. This is not a diatribe. You are in my opinion very ignorant of history, and exhibit an antipathy even toward Christians who agree with you.

Keep in mind, too, that when you condemn the bible per se, as the "biblical scripture" of Christians, you are also including Judaism, too, because there are mutually shared books for both. I have spoken before to the practice of taking specific stories and accounts from the old testament out of context of their history, their customs and laws of the times and the reasons for them, and cheaply making encompassing statements about the two faiths based on cherry picking. This reached profane proportions in other threads by some.

Ezechiel, the christian churches over the course of centuries, and yes, because of the very internal disagreements in theology and even fine doctrinal points, have endured baptisms of fire internally and a great deal of introspection. And then we have an ezechiel come along and, well indeed it IS a big question, a very big WHY as to the reasons, who in the most horrific and deep ignorance of the most basic history of Christianity, rattles off a list of very, indeed very, huge issues that affect us personally and humanity as a whole, and categorically exclude tens and tens and tens and yet more tens of millions of Christians WHO ACTUALLY AGREE WITH HIM! Based on what? Their "Christian ideology" which has "taken a hit" (your words) because of the president's statement!

And, ezechiel, Obama has said that it is his Christianity that figured into his decision!

And you call me "culturally superior"? You are the anachronism.

It is and has been many, many CHRISTIANS who have helped move inclusive views on the issues you so pompously list as ones they are against.

Also, jack: I'm enjoying your posts. I do have to point out a bit of the same regarding you. To wit, your statement equating "crazy christians" and "violence". Not sure what you're getting at here. That there have been some violent Christians I won't deny, but I have a feeling that you were making a blanket statement regarding the "Christian ideology" of which ezechiel possesses little to no knowledge. Also this statement: "you really shouldn't be able to pick and choose what you want to follow about your designated religion".

I really don't know where to begin on that one, jack. Seems you're engaging in some repression there of the most personal kind. I will just say that it's, yes, the "cafeteria" style you clearly condemn that is actually a strength of Christianity.

What you two cannot understand is that variety of views among Christians is a strength. The basic theology of christianity is a chiefly accepted set of beliefs, though there have been plenty of disagreements over fine points of theology. That there are different views on how these are interpreted is true. You could go to any Christian church, catholic, eastern orthodox, Coptic, Presbyterian, methodist, episcopalian, and my heavens on and on and on, and find congregants who have different views even within THAT particular church on this particular street. And what, really, are you saying,jack, that they "shouldn't be able to pick and choose" what they want after they have "designated" their "religion"?

I think you two need to look in the mirror and get to a book store. You're as condemnatory toward millions and millions of Christians as you are toward those who are against the president's statement. Kim

 

[PararealitySaint]

Ezechiel, I have in this thread and others described some of my social views, and have regarding homosexual marriage in this thread.

I have never claimed to be " a culturally superior being.". But I have and am far superior to you in terms of knowledge about religion, the history of Judaism and Christianity being, yes, a specialty and a personal interest. I am also sure from your comments on other threads and this thread that you for some reason have a very visceral reaction to Christianity that causes you to make blanket condemnations of "Christian ideology," "Christian morality," Christian "guidelines and biblical scripture," and that these cause "scientific research" to be "restricted.". These are your quotes.

You also listed the following as being issues "Christian ideology," etc.,etc restricts negatively:

Definition of life
Definition of death
Definition of a family
Abortions
Contraception
Homosexual marriage
Stem cell research

I have revealed my positions on homosexual marriage and stem cell research. If other threads arise on the others I may say something, or not. I've said on other threads that my social views are very liberal.

So, we agree on homosexual marriage. Parareality saint has different views. I am all for separation of church and state. I have pointed out in vain specifically to you that tens and tens and tens of millions of Christians hold views on these issues you delineated that are very inclusive and, for want of a better word, liberal. Yet your personal aversion to and condemnation of "Christian ideology" and "Christian moral guidelines" does indeed show not only ignorance of this, but also a suspicious perseverance of your derision of Christianity that seems to go beyond any ability on your part to be logical. I saw this on other threads where you did the same condemnatory stuff, indeed to the extent of exhibiting extreme ignorance of history. This is not a diatribe. You are in my opinion very ignorant of history, and exhibit an antipathy even toward Christians who agree with you.

Keep in mind, too, that when you condemn the bible per se, as the "biblical scripture" of Christians, you are also including Judaism, too, because there are mutually shared books for both. I have spoken before to the practice of taking specific stories and accounts from the old testament out of context of their history, their customs and laws of the times and the reasons for them, and cheaply making encompassing statements about the two faiths based on cherry picking. This reached profane proportions in other threads by some.

Ezechiel, the christian churches over the course of centuries, and yes, because of the very internal disagreements in theology and even fine doctrinal points, have endured baptisms of fire internally and a great deal of introspection. And then we have an ezechiel come along and, well indeed it IS a big question, a very big WHY as to the reasons, who in the most horrific and deep ignorance of the most basic history of Christianity, rattles off a list of very, indeed very, huge issues that affect us personally and humanity as a whole, and categorically exclude tens and tens and tens and yet more tens of millions of Christians WHO ACTUALLY AGREE WITH HIM! Based on what? Their "Christian ideology" which has "taken a hit" (your words) because of the president's statement!

And, ezechiel, Obama has said that it is his Christianity that figured into his decision!

And you call me "culturally superior"? You are the anachronism.

It is and has been many, many CHRISTIANS who have helped move inclusive views on the issues you so pompously list as ones they are against.

Also, jack: I'm enjoying your posts. I do have to point out a bit of the same regarding you. To wit, your statement equating "crazy christians" and "violence". Not sure what you're getting at here. That there have been some violent Christians I won't deny, but I have a feeling that you were making a blanket statement regarding the "Christian ideology" of which ezechiel possesses little to no knowledge. Also this statement: "you really shouldn't be able to pick and choose what you want to follow about your designated religion".

I really don't know where to begin on that one, jack. Seems you're engaging in some repression there of the most personal kind. I will just say that it's, yes, the "cafeteria" style you clearly condemn that is actually a strength of Christianity.

What you two cannot understand is that variety of views among Christians is a strength. The basic theology of christianity is a chiefly accepted set of beliefs, though there have been plenty of disagreements over fine points of theology. That there are different views on how these are interpreted is true. You could go to any Christian church, catholic, eastern orthodox, Coptic, Presbyterian, methodist, episcopalian, and my heavens on and on and on, and find congregants who have different views even within THAT particular church on this particular street. And what, really, are you saying,jack, that they "shouldn't be able to pick and choose" what they want after they have "designated" their "religion"?

I think you two need to look in the mirror and get to a book store. You're as condemnatory toward millions and millions of Christians as you are toward those who are against the president's statement. Kim

Kim,

One of the differences which makes an honest Christian different from those whom just talk a good talk, lies somewhere in a little story my Father-in-law (who I considered more of a Father in many ways than my own Dad) told both my wife and I years ago.

He said, "Son, listen to me and I will tell you a story about the Good Reverend." Years ago when my Father-In-Law first moved to Kentucky from North Carolina, he was visited by a local Reverend who was looking for worshipers to come to his church. He told Harv (my F.I.L.) about the many plans he had, but that for some reason he couldn't seem to get them to either stay once he found them, or actually come to the schedules he had for his ministry."

Now Harv was one of those old World War Two U.S. Navy Veteran Illinoisans, which like many of us originally from the state knew, are, or were (many dying off now), very special human beings. For the most part they thought a lot about what they said before they "opened their maws", and Pappy as we liked to call him, was just this type of man. He always wore a smile, could fix anything, and never threw away even trash (God I miss him).

Anyway, Harv began to think and then said humbly but with a smile, "Pastor, if it isn't much to much to ask, could you tell me the name of your church?" The Pastor, now flummoxed as to why this would come out after his long diatribe into explanations about what he did, why he did it, and how he thought everything was perfectly set to achieve his aims, replied rather frankly, "Well, the church is called the so and so BAPTIST church".....

In the particular area of Kentucky where this happened, to be a Baptist in your "denomination" was likened to drinking water, so this wasn't something strange or out of place in the slightest. Actually, it was expected by Harv, and it set him into an explanation/bit of advice for the young man looking to develop his flock....

"Well, have you ever considered calling your church, "The Church of Jesus Christ" instead?"

The Baptist Minister was now perplexed and sat down as Pappy explained his philosophy pertaining to belief, one which I still follow each and every day. You see, a "denomination" means very little if it does not include the advantage of hearing the Lord's Word throughout so many diverse sensitivities. In the case of this Minister, the Church was seeking an audience of those who in this area where probably very dedicated to their particular parish, there would be no way they would up and move out to another.....or so many of us thought.

Paw Paw looked straight at my Wife and I toward the conclusion of this little story, pointed a finger at us and ended by saying, "And do you know what?" He waited a moment.....

"That Pastor left my house that day in deep mediation. I even gave him Mother's (His wife already long gone at that point) huge Bible (one of those 3 foot jobs if any of you out there remember those extremely large Bibles that you needed two people to carry!)."

My Wife and I waited while he sat there quiet and then chuckled....

He said, "And do you know, the next week as I drove by the Church which he told me where he opened up, the Mission Statement in the front sign read,

"THE CHURCH OF GOD, ALL WELCOME HERE".......

To this day, much to the chagrin of all the hate-sayers surrounding the little house Harv once lived in, the Church is one of the largest in every surrounding county. As my Father-In-Law mentioned to the Pastor long before, they do not call themselves, "Christians", but instead, "Those who Believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior"....They hold no obligations, and read only from the Word.

My point here is, if you believe that Gay marriage is something you can practice, well, as Harv would always say even if he didn't believe in it or follow it himself...."Whatever floats you boat"....

You know, this world could use a lot more "HARVS" in it.

 

[Ezechiel]

Funny, My Lord teaches me to, "Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged" in situations where a moral "decision" has to be made. I for one interpret this as being, "as compared to" in a Biblical context, but that doesn't mean I have the right "as a Christian" to impose my decisions on others.....

Unless.....

They somehow infringe on my right to worship or personally live.

That being said, I am personally against abortion, against homosexuality and thus marriage, and against many aspects of today's societal standards which others deem acceptable.

In a multi-cultural society, the logical solution is to impose secular/civic rules. However, when some regions can define themselves as christian due to their demographic concentration (ie. North Carolina) you end up with religious states within a relatively secular nation. What's the next step... force the president of the USA to define the entire country as christian ? (Santorum would have tried ) or split the country into 2 distinct secular/christian zones ?

From the catholic point of view, the resolution of 'social issues' is non-negotiable (Its Benny's way or the highway). This point of view is shared with a majority of christian factions. What should be done here ?... I'm curious.

 

[Ezechiel]

You also listed the following as being issues "Christian ideology," etc.,etc restricts negatively:

Definition of life
Definition of death
Definition of a family
Abortions
Contraception
Homosexual marriage
Stem cell research

Christians call this dogma: infallible teaching of faith or morals. There is no room for negotiation on these issues.

With this in mind, will the US split into secular/religious zones ? Or should the intolerance be imposed on everybody ?

Obama obviously had a look at this graph before speaking out. In the last 3 years there seems to be a exponential curve building up in favor of same sex marriages.

... in the end, what's the point of putting a christian tag on yourself if the definition keeps changing ?

 

[Kim323]

You are wrong on many points here, ezechiel. Generalizing, doomsaying, a seemingly pervasive current of either/or, an assumption that people cannot process information and be reasonable, a misreading of the secular/religious climate, and I can list others.

1. We do have "secular/civic rules," ones that work pretty well, embedded in our laws and constitution.
2. You cannot "region"alize the US as you are doing, on a religious basis. This is more of your, in my opinion, ingrained perseverance to blame Christianity for the world's ills, when Christianity is actively involved trying to alleviate social injustice and the evils of political "isms" which are the true cause and manifestation of what man can do to man.
3. You carry #3 to absurd lengths, forcing that square peg into the round hole, by labeling NC as one of those "religious states within a relatively secular nation". What are specifically the others?
4. Poppycock in short with that "force the president of the USA to define the entire country as Christian". Now, really, that, politically, etc. Is an absurd statement, and there you go with your antipathy to "Christian ideology" you so despise, and about which you generalize.
5. To think that the catholic church is so monolithic, and that it's impervious to change is also absurd, but I don't want to belabor the point of your lack of knowledge on the history of the catholic church and of Christianity.
6. Yet again, that all Christians are the same, so that it leads/will lead to these absurd predictions of yours runs through your post. I think Christians have a right to point out your discrepancies, and that's being euphemistic.
7. "Christian factions.". What does that mean?
8. What needs to be done is for you to search for the loose change I told you was in pants pockets and under cushions and spend sixteen and a half dollars for Diarmaid MacCulloch's, yes, truly magisterial history of Christianity. I mean that seriously, of course, and I genuinely think you would enjoy it on a purely historical and factual perspective. You are an intelligent man, ezechiel, I believe that, really, all tongue in cheek aside. You just lack any sort of big picture of the subject, or, rather more accurately, in an effort to seem magisterial yourself, you indulge in sweeping and false big pictures that have little basis in reality and you generalize about "Christian ideology" and somehow think that you will not be called on it. Kim

 

[PararealitySaint]

In a multi-cultural society, the logical solution is to impose secular/civic rules. However, when some regions can define themselves as christian due to their demographic concentration (ie. North Carolina) you end up with religious states within a relatively secular nation. What's the next step... force the president of the USA to define the entire country as christian ? (Santorum would have tried ) or split the country into 2 distinct secular/christian zones ?

From the catholic point of view, the resolution of 'social issues' is non-negotiable (Its Benny's way or the highway). This point of view is shared with a majority of christian factions. What should be done here ?... I'm curious.

I believe the point I was making is pretty clear. The United States has guidelines within the Constitution which allows for the free practice of religion, not the lack thereof. The way in which we, as a majority, worship, is solely determined at the State and Local levels, because they best represent those in the majority which prefer one practice over the other. This does not force a minority to practice what the majority prefers, merely allows for the majority the right to represent themselves (publicly or privately) within the means by which they feel best for them, without any infringement by the Federal Government (Which unfortunately has changed somewhat during the years due to Supreme Court Opinions).

When my Father-In-Law instilled the idea of a Universal (no pun intended) title to the Pastor's Church, it did not mean he wouldn't teach what it is he believed in. It did mean that he was "open" to all those searching for God no matter what it was he professed. This left it up to the people to decide what was best for them, instead of predetermining what is best, without allowing for an explanation, and then judging from the pulpit.

I am sure that over the years he had lost many worshipers, but then again, when this Pastor began by leading from his heart instead of his instant judgement, and presented Jesus in a way in which his words have been translated from the original as, that is without doctrine perverting thus for what I believe is no less than an evil end, the outcome was probably many more patrons than originally expected for him.

In the context of Gay Marriage, If the results of the majority feel as though the practice is wrong, and profess thus within the bounds of the Church they belong to, then they have the right to do so. If the Gay couple decides its not right for them, they may move on....but they still have the right to be judged by GOD and not man as long as what they do is consensual and not treading upon others within the guidelines of the Constitution.

I say let GOD judge them not man.

 

[mike]

That being said, I am personally against abortion, against homosexuality and thus marriage, and against many aspects of today's societal standards which others deem acceptable.

Why ?

Why are you personally against gay marriage.

What are the specific factors that lead you to this stance ?

 

[mike]

From my pov one of your posts contains a glaring contradiction

that doesn't mean I have the right "as a Christian" to impose my decisions on others.....
Unless.....
They somehow infringe on my right to worship or personally live.

Just as long as they do not, "Tread on Me".

But you also state

I have a right like anyone else on this board to feel the way I do, and to vote for my feelings as a United States Citizen.

To express one's preference for a candidate or for a proposed resolution of an issue; cast a vote: voting against the measure.
2. To express a choice or an opinion

By reserving the right to "vote" on the issue, you are in fact imposing your decision on others.

This is the very crux of the issue, of course you have the right to feel the way you do, but do you have the right to vote on it, to employ a mechanism that might resolve the policy in favour of your worldview ?

Do you think gay people should have the right to vote against heterosexual marriage ?

Some people dont like eating cabbage, should the citizens of a country have the right to vote for the abolition of its cultivation and consumption ?
There are some things we just dont need to vote for or against, and who an individual choses to love is one of them.
Its a matter for personal choice, not democratic vote, Its nobody elses business what two people do in the privacy of their home, so its not something people should be voting about

How would you feel if the gay population were the majority, voted in gay senators and a gay president who then enacted a policy negating hetrosexual marriage ?
Would you cop that on the chin and say oh well , the majority have spoken. Or would you say bugger that its not your business to vote on what my wife and i do with our lives ?

 

[SoCalGNX]

In a multi-cultural society, the logical solution is to impose secular/civic rules. However, when some regions can define themselves as christian due to their demographic concentration (ie. North Carolina) you end up with religious states within a relatively secular nation. What's the next step... force the president of the USA to define the entire country as christian ? (Santorum would have tried ) or split the country into 2 distinct secular/christian zones ?

From the catholic point of view, the resolution of 'social issues' is non-negotiable (Its Benny's way or the highway). This point of view is shared with a majority of christian factions. What should be done here ?... I'm curious.

Just an aside here but when we lived in NC, we were first invited to bible study. When we showed no interest, they invited us to the wife swap club. But that is a state in the heart of the bible belt and the true believers run the place.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

The only reason anyone can be against gay marriage is because of religion. There really is no other reason. And voting on something because of a religious point of view goes against the entire idea of the separation of church and state. Am I completely off base with that?
I'm fine with a church saying that they will not allow a same sex couple to marry - to me that's just like a Catholic church not allowing an unbaptized person to marry. However, for an entire state to not allow two people that love each other to be married is discrimination. There's really no other way to look at this.

 

[Kim323]

SoCal, who is they in your post? I'm confused. You mean, they are the same people in both cases? Kim

 

[Kim323]

Angelo, you are a coy guy, playing around and dealing in coy allusion to just get stuff going, and your post of just a few minutes ago shows it, at least to me.

Just kidding you (mostly), but the real reason you posted that religion is the only reason people are against gay marriage is to perpetuate this all Christians are bad, are the root of all the problems, and on and on ad nauseam.

You and ezechiel should get together and commiserate with each other. I assume you've been reading this thread.

Now, after I read your post I grabbed a pen and paper and for an academic exercise jotted down some notes for reasons some people oppose gay marriage on an other than religious basis. Read my posts on this thread about how many millions and millions of Christians support not only gay marriage but other issues ezechiel mentioned as being restricted by "Christian ideology".

I have said I support it, and I don't necessarily agree with these, but the point is that you knew or should know that there are reasons many, many people who are not religious are against gay marriage. I'm sure there are more, but I timed myself and had this list in less than a minute of notes, fleshed out here in this post, and off the top of my head.

1. Dilutes the definition/concept of the word and the relationship
2. Not allowing it doesn't keep gays and lesbians from having the benefits of marriage
3. Marriage is anthropologically and historically in human history between a man and a woman, or plural in some cases, but not same sex
4. Not allowing marriage doesn't stop gays/lesbians having a loving relationship
5. Breaks cultural tradition of what marriage has been/ is
6. Even where in history homosexuality is permitted or even accepted as a norm, formal marriage is between the opposite sex
7. Marriage is for reproduction
8. Marriage is heterosexual and additionally is for political alliance between kingdoms, tribes, etc.
9. Marriage is for children and additionally for passing on culture and for the cohesiveness of society
10. There have always been conditions/limits/requirements for marriage in societies, nations, cultures
11. I have read studies that purportedly show that statistically homosexuals have shorter life spans due to disease, and that in the west HIV is said to be spread mostly by gay and bisexual men
12. Children should be raised by a father and mother
13. What, exactly, is the point of legal civil marriage per se if all other benefits are available, health insurance, etc., from civil unions?
14. If this exception is allowed, what other reasons might people demand the right of legal civil marriage?
Bigamy, plural marriage are illegal.
15. Children may be confused by being raised by two parents of the same sex

Shorthand notes in less than a minute netted me these, and it's pure delusion to think that many, many people are not against gay marriage for any combination of these reasons.

To think when you posted, Angelo, that you didn't think of these reasons too begs credulity.

Do I agree with these reasons? I have made clear that I support gay marriage, and have very inclusive and liberal perspectives on the list ezechiel posted as being issues "Christian ideology" restricts and condemns.

You know why you made that blanket statement. It was to lump all Christians together, and get a dig in. I remember how Steve pointed out to you that you had admonished members who attacked Muslims, when I don't know, I can guess, of course.

But he pointed out this was not the case when profane and dirty things have been posted about Jews and Christians. I certainly noticed that, and in my opinion abetted it more than merely tacitly.

I remind you again that tens and tens of millions of Christian Americans support and in many cases are in the forefront for not only gay marriage, but for issues dealing with contraception, end of life issues, civil rights, and on and on. And this has been the case historically for the Christian churches worldwide. But, oh no, they're all the same, all Catholics are the same and on and on. Ever hear of catholic priests preaching liberation theology? And I could go on and on with many more examples in the histories (plural) of the Christian churches (note plural again). Kim

 

[Ezechiel]

What you don't seem to understand Kim is that it is the job of Christian leaders to define limits that are consistent with the Christian framework.
According to Benny, homosexuality is an abomination or a manifestation of evil... An unnatural state that runs against the propagation of life which needs to be protected at all cost.
You can tell him that the phenomenon has been observed in other life forms and may eventually find its source in genetics but he'll never back down. He'll blame the individual instead of trying to understand and show compassion.

Fear and guilt is the name of his game.

 

[Ezechiel]

Just an aside here but when we lived in NC, we were first invited to bible study. When we showed no interest, they invited us to the wife swap club. But that is a state in the heart of the bible belt and the true believers run the place.

I've heard that before. If you don't play their game they tag you as heathens and you get a few indecent proposals out of spite.

Another anecdote for you. Was trying to set up an industrial monitoring system that involved putting your hand on a detection plate in Wichita. Complaints about the number of the beast came up,... System had to be removed or the union would start a strike.

 

[Kim323]

Who is Benny? Kim

 

[Kim323]

Oh,ok, you mean Benny hinn. Now I really know how abysmally ignorant and yes, cruel and stupidly cutting and jabbing you are, ezechiel. To judge Christians by Benny hinn. But of course you have no other recourse because the horrific depth of your ignorance, and the psychological and personal reasons, whatever they are, that give rise to this utter hatred and derision that you exhibit toward Christians, limit you to cheapness, crudity, cartoons, sweeping generalizations, and all around lowness. You are incapable of engaging in any true discussion because you can't even acknowledge any of the obvious truths I've written about the variety in Christianity and the truly wonderful things millions and millions of Christians do daily personally and as churches on a nationwide and worldwide level. They are in the forefront of moving inclusive views forward, fighting for them, the very things in your list you claim they despise.

You are tawdry and cheap in your method of discussion.

And you and SoCal offer each other little anecdotal stories of wife swapping regarding Christians.

You both are cheap, ignorant, hateful, and uneducated in the most fundamental ways.

I should wake up and see what others have told me, that I'm succumbing to trolls. I see what they mean. Kim

 

[mike]

Again the arrogance is only matched by the ignorance, a cup of which runneth over here.

In the context of the discussion here benny is pope benedict...................

As usual doesnt have a fricken clue.................

And as usual contributes only his confusion and ignorance to the debate.

Jesus wept.................. Its painful to watch this clown make a pompus ass of himself yet again