Letters to the editor over the St. Petersburg Times' recent decision to run same-sex union announcements along with their wedding announcements. While I'm fairly sure this will break along "it's a sin, it's not a sin" lines, what do you folks think?
I support it because I support the concept of marriage, and anything that encourages stronger and more lasting unions is a Good Thing. What sends a better message for unmarried people? The same-sex union of a couple that love each other and want to tell the world, or a pop star that marries and divorces in two days?
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote:While I'm fairly sure this will break along "it's a sin, it's not a sin" lines,
Actually, there are a few religious people here who have expressed openness for equal marriage rights for homosexual couples, reasoning that their view does not need to be legally established. I think Zan and Pat have fallen into this camp (my apologies if I am mistaken about either of you views!). I just wanted to point out that not everyone who thinks homosexual sex is a sin is in favor of imposing that belief on everybody else.
I think this will break more along legalizing homosexual marriage lines, and can't imagine how it would be otherwise. But we'll still debate it for several pages and viciously insult people on both sides, and one or two people will leave for a while.
Sorry, I shouldn't dump on you.
In any case, I think it's a good idea, and I agree wholeheartedly with your perspective on it. But then, I'm all for legalizing and legally recognizing gay marriage, so no surprise there.
[ January 30, 2004, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: lcarus ]
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
I see this as a triumph, because it just shows that, whether you believe it's right or not, society is moving in a direction where same sex couples will one day have the same rights as heterosexuals. Like evolution, and most controvesies rising from religion vs. society, it's really only a matter of time before society wins, just like it did with heliocentrism.
Society is far too tolerant of far too despicable lifestyles to continue to discriminate against homosexuals. Why is it protected to live your entire life publishing an underground newspaper advocating the death of an entire minority group, but unprotected to engage in a relationship with a member of the same sex.
Okay. Five issues, two paragraphs. I need to stop before I hurt myself.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote:Like evolution, and most controvesies rising from religion vs. society, it's really only a matter of time before society wins, just like it did with heliocentrism.
Okay, this is that general distaste for Christian some people have that I commented on in the other thread, that leads people to make bigoted statements.
I am not gay, but I support equal rights and fair treatment for homosexuals.
I do not consider myself Christian, but I support equal rights and fair treatment for Christians as well.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I don't think he's showing distaste for Christianity, really.
I mean, if I was anything I'd be a Christian, more by culture than be belief, certainly, but...
I think it has been established that society has a way of changing religion. I mean, Christian preachers used to support slavery-- the BIble was even used in that way, but most Christians don't go for that now.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
I find the casual statement that religion is in opposition to society, and that progress can be measured by the extent to which we move away from religion as a whole to be a bigoted statement. It's also shockingly blind to the overwhelmingly positive effect religion has had over the centuries in creating civilization. It's just the sort of wrong-headed thing said by people who find Christianity, and religion in general, distasteful.
Believe what you will, but why was it necessary to insult all Christians in this post? Why was it necessary for Paul to do the same in his first post on the other thread? By all means, put down hypocrites. Put down sanctimonious people. Disagree with the views of anybody you want.
But that statement was a slam.
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
quote:Actually, there are a few religious people here who have expressed openness for equal marriage rights for homosexual couples, reasoning that their view does not need to be legally established.
Only because I haven't commented in a homosexual thread 'til now, I'd like to state that that's my opinion as well. I see homosexuality as a sin, but so are fornication and drunkedness, and there's no law against those (though they can lead to broken laws, but they aren't against the law in themselves). And what about gluttony? That's a sin, but if a law was made against it, the majority of the US population would be behind bars. As long as it's not endangering anybody but the people involved (not to say that the people involved will inevitably be in danger), I don't believe there should be a law against it.
Okay, that's all. Anyway, about this article...when they say "union", I think they mean "marriage", right? Or as close to marriage as is legally possible for them? I'm just not up and ons with this legal mumbo jumbo. If it's merely two homosexuals that start dating, I think that's extraordinarily stupid and is totally out of proportion. If it is marriage, though, or close to it, I don't see the problem with it.
[ January 30, 2004, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Da_Goat ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
That would make a wonderful debate on a different thread--what has the more "civilizing" factor--Religion on Society or Society on Religion.
However, for this one, this is the free market at work. If more people either want same-sex announcements or do not care if they are in their paper than those who will refuse to buy that paper because of this decision, then they will remain.
I think they are great, and am looking forward to the Gay Wedding Show on BRAVO next season.
Posted by Jerryst316 (Member # 5054) on :
quote: It's also shockingly blind to the overwhelmingly positive effect religion has had over the centuries in creating civilization
Overwhelmingly positive? I dont think I would say that as a matter of fact. For the most part (I would like to preface this by saying that it is not simply in refernce to all christians but to all religions, so that I hope to offend no one) religion has had a terrible impact upon the history of mankind. It has caused men to go to war in order to change the relgion of others, it has created an atmosphere of intolernace towards gays, blacks, and other races of man, and most importantly, it allows its follows to justify dispicable acts of evil (september 11). While religion does have some good impact on society, clearly the history of man is a testament to the destructive power of religion.
I applaud those who believe, as I do, that we cannot define love and we certainly should not ill-define it. Marriage should be the union of two people who love each other and want to share that with the world. While I am not gay, I have witnessed first-hand the hardship that follows from telling the world. I have seen a good friend nearly shot by his father for being gay all in the name of God.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I agree that Christians are often slammed in pop culture. Just look at how many stories have crazy preacher-types as the baddies. That has always hacked me off.
But religion DOES respond to changes in society, and it does seem sort of evolutionary. I mean, slavery, the vote for women, etc. have all been issues that society faced, and people tried to make religious arguments to defend the status quo.
I don't think real Christianity has a problem with women voting, or people of color having equal rights under the law, but religion was used that way.
I don't think that societal recognition of gay couples will cripple Christian beliefs or anything. Some folks use those beliefs to prevent societal change, and that is thier right.
I think Idem is saying that the change itself is kind of inevitable, as many social changes are, regardless of the various religious beliefs of the components of that society.
I mean, he didn't even use the word Christianity; I'm sure Allah probably forbids the man-love, too. Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
I know this came up in the other post. I was there. I remember saying that I in no way find Christianity distasteful. But do you deny that there have been times when religion, particularly Christian religion, has conflicted with society as a whole? Actually. You are right. I was wrong. I suppose I should have said religion took an opposite stance from science, not society. For in the case of Heliocentrism, religion WAS the prevailing society.
I think you will agree with me, however, when I say that the church was wrong when it fought against heliocentrism, but at the time, the sentiments were much the same as they are today on issues like homosexuality and evolution. The idea that the earth revolved around the sun was an affront to God and undermined the sanctity of faith. Now, of course, that issue has been relegated to the history books and Christians see no problem in following God and believing in heliocentrism at the same time.
All I said was that the issue of homosexuality is in the same place now that heliocentrism was then. Social science says it's fine. The courts are slowly but surely coming around to the same thing. Most importantly, homosexuality is no longer seen as a mental illness. Science has taken up the homosexual's part. Religion stands opposed. Those religious organizations that do begin to accept homosexuals take flak from both sides. It's an ugly fight. But the end, history tells us, is inevitable. A triumph for human rights.
As for religion's overwhelmingly positive affect on society, you'll get no arguments from me. I'm a protestant myself (though clearly a bit of a malformed one.) The contributions of people specifically inspired by religion to art, family, yes even politics and science are magnificent. However, when religion takes up one of these causes that become more important to its followers than the very people they try to reach, wars start, people are persecuted, and general badness ensues.
Hopefully no wars will start over evolution or homosexuality, but people ARE being persecuted. Not least those compassionate religious people who interact with others who are not so compassionate. But the world is changing. Unfortunately, it can't change all at once and there will be a lot of hardship before it's done. Every time I see an article like this, it reminds me that the end will be good, though.
Let me just end by saying, when I go to church and see the "God Hates Fags" bus sitting outside in the parking lot to protest the pastor's teaching that is not condemning enough for them, I think "Go, Pastor. Tell it like it is." Christianity is not the problem. Christians who turn their brains off and forget that they are only FIGURATIVELY sheep are the problem.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Oops, Olivet! I think I used the word Christianity now. Damn.
Anyway, I just thought I would share what I mean by saying a split. Religion and science did not always disagree that homosexuality is against God and Nature. If you have time, listen toThis episode of This American Life, which is my absolute favorite radio show of all time.
Jerry,
How could I forget to mention the havoc that emerges when completely different religions meet!
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote:I think you will agree with me, however, when I say that the church was wrong when it fought against heliocentrism, but at the time, the sentiments were much the same as they are today on issues like homosexuality and evolution.
I do agree with you, both on heliocentrism and on this issue. Both of those are cases where I would say religion was wrong. My point was just that it would be arrogant to say that when religion and "society" disagree, religion is necessarily (i.e., always) the one that is wrong.
And there are people who think that.
Thank you for your elaboration of what you meant.
[ January 30, 2004, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: lcarus ]
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
I'm sure this has been said before, probably a lot more succintly:
The difference between heliocentrism and homosexuality is that there was never a law in the Bible that could be interpreted as saying the earth shouldn't rotate the sun, but there are verses that many Christians could reasonably say go against homosexuality. Same with slavery, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong. The only examples I can think of involving slavery were when people were trying to get out of it. That doesn't include verses where slaves were told to be good slaves. That doesn't necessarily mean that slavery was condoned.
The problem with the places in history where there was a fight between "science" (or human rights) and "religion" is that they were usually led be a huge...how do you say it? They were times when religion was the driving force of everything and the guys in charge had to keep themselves there. I'm talking about huge organizations with one guy in charge, and they took over everything. Religion in many places has changed a lot since then, and has been broken up into more of a personal experience rather than a governmental one. I guess my point is that there were many reasons for the guys in charge of the church in the old days to want to make sure everyone knew who was boss, and to resist something that might make them lose a foothold. I'm not sure it's still like that anymore, and the view that homosexuality is a sin is more likely to be a personal feeling rather than a force of nature.
Ramble, ramble.
[ January 30, 2004, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: MaureenJanay ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
If I knew that a newspaper's policy was NOT to run same-sex union announcements, I would NEVER post my own marriage announcement there.
I think they should post divorce announcements though too.
"Scopatz/xxx split" The ex-bride wore a smart business suit as she was rushing between meetings. The ex-husband wore kahki pants, short-sleeve shirt, blue tie and a blazer. In greeting friends after the event, the ex-husband was heard to report that he planned to "catch up on his onanism."
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
quote:The difference between heliocentrism and homosexuality is that there was never a law in the Bible that could be interpreted as saying the earth shouldn't rotate the sun, but there are verses that many Christians could reasonably say go against homosexuality.
I think this is a weak statement because of all the dozens (hundreds?) of verses condemning actions that Modern Christians do not condemn.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
The fact that religion was used as a tool of the powerful doesn't change the fact that the people on the ground believed it was still rooted in God. But I'm afraid I can't agree with your first statement. At the time of the "war" over heliocentrism (almost used the word jihad. That would have turned some heads, maybe) took place, it was the view of the religious organization that the scriptures demanded belief in a geocentric universe. I haven't really done much research into the topic, so I'm not sure which verses they used, but it was a firmly held belief that was incorporated into the religion as a whole. Nobody denied that part of being a christian meant that you have to believe in geocentrism. Whether we still interpret the scriptures that way or not, at the time the belief was seen to have a foundation in the scripture.
Conversely, a lot of the laws that really are blatantly spelled out in scripture are now blatantly ignored every time you sit down to barbecued pork chops. The prohibitions homosexuality, however, even if you do still hold them to be true, should not prevent same sex couples from being able to claim the same rights as couples that straights enjoy.
If a gay couple have been together for thirty years and one of them dies, the other can't collect the life insurance.
Once again, seriously listen to the above linked show. I think you'll find it interesting.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Belle will now insert her obligatory post on old vs. new covenant and how Christians are not bound by the old law, e.g., the listings of prohibitions in Leviticus.
Edit: sorry, this was in response to:
quote:I think this is a weak statement because of all the dozens (hundreds?) of verses condemning actions that Modern Christians do not condemn.
[ January 30, 2004, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: there was never a law in the Bible that could be interpreted as saying the earth shouldn't rotate the sun
Actually, Joshua 10:12-13 and Habakkuk 3:11 were interpreted in exactly that way, as part of the anti-heliocentrism argument.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
::wonders how Chris's newspaper handles this::
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
But the New Testament does tell women not to braid their hair.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
quote: 1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”
Here it is ladies and gents. Straight from the Flat Earth society web page.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
IdemosthenesI, do you realize you have posted more times today than in the preceding year?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Chris' newspaper doesn't list them. I have absolutely no idea whether or not it's in the workings, though. I'm not privy to that level of planning. I would guess that if management thought they could do it without annoying major advertisers, they'll get around to it eventually.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Very Well. Old vs. New Covenant is a very good point. Then what is the new Covenant?
quote:Mat 22:37 And He said to him, " 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' Mat 22:38 "This is the great and foremost commandment. Mat 22:39 "The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' Mat 22:40 "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."
None of the following can be found anywhere in the red letters of the Bible, so might as well stop looking...
"Keep not thy sexual desire focused upon thine own gender, but only in those whose sex organs look not like yours. Be not like those who lie with men as though they are women for they shall never enter the kingdom of heaven."
If I'm not mistaken, the above quoted passage from Matthew IS the new covenant, right? There's no more. That's it. No huge scrolls of law, no prescriptions of penalties for specific crimes. Those words of Christ sum up his entire ministry. John 3:16 notwithstanding. The letters by Paul were all written after the church was already formed! Take another look at that. Paul was a missionary, but he was no Christ. Therefore his insights, his revelations, and his studies may be true, but his commands were not binding. That's why hair braiding is still allowed, and that's why homosexuals should be treated with respect.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
And I sincerely hope I don't post this much ever again! I have so much other stuff to do! Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Sun Revolving around the earth question--Doesn't God "stop the Sun" during one of the wars for Cannaan?
More importantly I disagree with you that there are not important people who seek to maintain their earthly/political power over large congregations by blocking too swift of social change.
Even worse, there are Wolves in Shepherd's Clothing who's only claim to fame, power, and the worship of their followers is by attacking any social change.
While these leaders call themselves Christian, and confuse or connive many good Christians into following their hate filled ways, they themselves are more of a problem than Gay Marriages, Heliocentric Universe Dbate or Evolution ever were.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Olivia, I assume you mean 1Pet 3:3?
quote: 1pe 3:3 Whose [adorning] let it not be the outward adorning of braiding the hair, and of wearing jewels of gold, or of putting on apparel;
1pe 3:4 but [let it be] the hidden man of the heart, in the incorruptible [apparel] of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
Put in context it's pretty easy to see that Peter is not writing that braiding of hair should be prohibited. If it were, then we would be prohibited from wearing clothes too.
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
dkw-
My opinion tends to run a little like this in this situation, but not in all of them.
They had to "interpret" the heck out of those verses to get them to say that there's no way for the earth to rotate around the sun. I mean, for goodness sake. It says "Let the sun stand still over Gibeon", not in the whole universe. If I looked up and the sun hadn't moved for three hours, I might say the sun had stopped, too. (Actually, I guess I did.) It's a figure of speech, regardless of whether he thought the sun actually had to be stopped or not. Not that you didn't know that.
But I also feel that it takes quite a bit of special interpretation to get those verses about homosexuality to not mean homosexuality. I know how you feel about this; I'm sorry. I just think the verses about homosexuality lean more towards condemning gay marriage than condoning.
But that's not what this thread is about.
I guess it boils down to how I define interpreting, in this sense, and I'm not going to even go there. That would offend everyone in this forum. (In case there were any left who weren't already.)
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Where in my posts do you get that I think homosexuals shouldn't be treated with respect?
Paul is not Jesus, but Paul is considered an apostle of the church whose writings were inspired by God. They're still scripture.
The Bible does have some specific things to say about homosexuality in both the Old and the New Testament, and a whole bunch to say about what marriage is supposed to be about. In every instance, marriage is described as being between a man and woman.
I'm really quit sick and tired of people assuming that I hate homosexuals just because of my religious beliefs. I think the behavior is a sin. I don't hate the people. I don't condemn them, I don't judge them.
I am just as much a sinner as they are - I just don't happen to share that particular sin. But I have plenty of others I need to repent of every day.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Actually, you are right. The verses about homosexuality do much that condemns it. Nevertheless, those verses are right next to the ones about not eating pork. The laws against homosexuality were in the old covenant that Belle so rightly made the distinction of.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
I'm sorry Belle. I figured we were mostly in agreement. I didn't mean to attack you. I was referring to those people who want to make sure that the incident which inspired this thread never happens. Those who want to see homosexual couples treated like vermin. Those who want to see that they are never given rights. Those who want to see their fellow man suffer for his desires.
Basically, I'm talking about the God Hates Fags guys. I strongly disagree with those people who want to keep homosexuals from being able to legally confirm their commitment, but my revulsion is reserved for those who go out of their way to trample on them. People who have "Marriage = Man + Woman" bumper stickers.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Paul is not Jesus, but Paul is considered an apostle of the church whose writings were inspired by God. They're still scripture.
Well, we're working on that...
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
Nope, there's plenty of good stuff about homosexuality in the NT too...gimme a sec and I'll find 'em.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I've just been having knee-jerk reactions everywhere on hatrack this week.
FWIW, I'm turned off by militant "God Hates Gays" people too. I feel the same way about abortion clinic bombers.
I may agree with their underlying position, but not the way they choose to express it.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Recognizing Homosexual civil unions or whatever, wouldn't necesarily change the beliefs of the church, or of religious people. No reason why it should.
There is also no real support for having those religious views dictate secular law. I mean, lots of things are considered sin and condemned by various religious texts that are NOT illegal.
And I think there are some Christians, who, to this day, even now, actually DO believe that those verses prohibit braiding and make-up and stuff. I sort of think they're crazy, but whaddya gonna do? Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I forget if I read it on hatrack, but I recently saw a citation of a fun verse in Revelation that hardly supports slavery, but does suggest its going to come around again before the end.
Revelation 18:13, I think.
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
quote: Romans 1 26For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
quote: 1 Corinthians 6 9Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
There are a couple.
Added: Wait, did slavery go somewhere?
[ January 30, 2004, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: MaureenJanay ]
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Yeah, I know. I just saw those on the God Hates Fags website. Not that I'm accusing you of being of that crowd, but I thought I would look before posting. That's really why I put in the bit about Paul.
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
I feel weird about the idea that the OT is virtually obsolete because of the new covenant, and that anything written by Paul can be left out because he wasn't God. (Which, I must point out, neither were any of the other people who wrote the Bible.) They might as well stop selling Bibles and just sell sweatbands that say "Love God, love others".
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Nevertheless, that bit from Corinthians is really interesting. Beause you see, nobody is kicking Alcoholics or "Drunkards", out of churches. Nor are they refusing to print their wedding announcements, nor are they denying them insurance benefits. I really am sorry this discussion turned religious because it was about social change in Homosexuals' favor. The very fact that we are arguing about this shows that the tides are turning. BTW, did anybody have a chance to listen to the radio show I referenced above? I'm not going to convince you.
But away from the emotionally charged to the hypothetical. Do you think the next generation will still be having this argument? What about a hundred years from now?
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Well, you're right. The bit about Paul was an easy answer and I shouldn't have written it. Obviously his words are scripture because we have faith in God. If we doubt the words of Paul, we must doubt the human scribes who wrote the Bible. While it's an interesting topic, and very heated, the council of Nicea is a thread for another day. Consider the point about Paul being written off withdrawn.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
-or even conceded.
"You have defeated me in battle. Henceforth, we are brothers. Let us fight for the right as one!" -Sir Didymus, Labyrinth
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
"Beause you see, nobody is kicking Alcoholics or 'Drunkards', out of churches."
Mormons kick them out of temples [feels very non-hypocritical]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Keeping in mind that I'm not theistic, I would say that the Old Testament is obsolete. Rather, the events in the New Testament fulfill the prophecies of the OT. Different thing.
I tend to give St. Paul the same respect I give the Rev. Billy Graham. He's undeniably Christian, he's done a great deal of good in spreading the word and helping others, but I feel that some of his opinions are completely wrong and come from his own beliefs rather than from God.
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
demosthenes-
I will be honest. I turned on the broadcast and listened to the first bit, but I couldn't turn it up loud because my kids were sleeping, and I ended up tuning it out. I'll have to try again later. I did get the beginning though. _____
The problem (this has been said before too) is the confusion about whether Christians hate gays. I guess some do. But I don't think most Christians think people with drinking problems or gay people or anyone like that should be hated and kept out of the church. We just don't believe we are supposed to celebrate and condone them living those lives proudly.
The Bible says they won't enter the kingdom of God. But he's talking about a "drunkard" in the sense that he loves drinking and does it alot and doesn't give a rip. (He loves his sin, in other words.) That is different from a Christian alcoholic who hates his sin and wants to change.
1. We don't hate people who do things that we don't agree with. 2. We don't have to say we agree with them.
edit: Sorry, it takes me too long to type. I'm a really good speaker, but terrible with the written word. I keep trying to type what I would say, and the written word cannot be treated like that. Therefore my posts take forever to type and are often tedious.
[ January 30, 2004, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: MaureenJanay ]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
But religious belief and law are two different things.
People can, of course, attempt to prevent the recognition of homosexual unions based on their beliefs. I think it is not only common, but a necessary part of social change. It keeps things from changing too fast.
Now, I know that to Mormons, my marriage isn't as... what? holy?... as a temple marriage, but their belif does not mean that my marriage isn't legal, or that I personally don't consider it holy.
I think that can be extrapolated to a larger scale, too. I mean, religious people of many different flavors don't recognize homosexual marriage as in any way equal to their own, and when they do become legally accepted, that probably won't change. It doesn't mean, however, that the married homosexuals take their bonds lightly.
The one letter that was headed, "An Insult To Real Marriages" made me laugh. Britany Spear's marriage was somehow more 'real' than two fellows who went to Canada for a privaledge denied them in the U.S.? *snort* I'm more insulted by the popularity of "Whoops!" marriages than by two committed individuals who probably got death threats over their announcement.
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
For the record, that whole Brittany Spears thing bugs me. Not just because it happened, but because of how people keep using it. I don't think anyone thinks that scenario was a good idea, nor would most people consider it a "marriage", rather than a moment of stupidity. Her "marriage" meant nothing, obviously. Do people keep bringing that up because the state let her have this "marriage" but wouldn't let gays, or what? How could they have known how it would end? I just don't understand why a lot of people keep using this to prove...something. I don't know what it proves. That people are stupid? Duh.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I used it because I consider it unfair that two heterosexual people can abuse the marriage vows legally and without much fuss, but committed and dedicated homosexual couples are left out.
I'm in favor of lasting relationships. I'm in favor of lifelong romance and love and caring for children and forming strong family bonds. I don't especially care what sex the people involved are, or what they do after hours. I submit that if people who truly want to be family were allowed to be, our society would be the stronger for it. And it completely escapes me why anyone would have a problem with that.
[ January 30, 2004, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Chris: Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Well then, for the record, I'm more offended by Britney than I am by gay marriages. Just not all that surprised, I suppose.
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
quote:The one letter that was headed, "An Insult To Real Marriages" made me laugh. Britany Spear's marriage was somehow more 'real' than two fellows who went to Canada for a privaledge denied them in the U.S.? *snort* I'm more insulted by the popularity of "Whoops!" marriages than by two committed individuals who probably got death threats over their announcement.
Though I thought that letter really could have been worded better, no matter what side she supported, she never even mentioned the Britney Spears thing, and I think you're assuming too much by believing that she was okay with that. She may very well think that was also a sham.
[EDIT: <snurgle> I said "worded batter"...]
[ January 30, 2004, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Da_Goat ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Olivet: fortunately I am in a loving and committed relationship and can therefore accept your post in the platonic and sisterly manner is was intended.
Say, who likes cold showers? I sure do.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Da, my piont was, as Chris pointed out, that Britney's marriage was a 'real' marriage-- as in a legal one.
It's an example of abuse of privaledge, like, say, abusing your children, when there are so many infertile couples who would give up a limb to just be able to have one.
One of the major arguments against legal, civil unions for gays is that it will somehow devalue marriage. My point is that straights are doing a fine job of it all on their own.
Chris, of course it was sisterly. I just got carried away. So happy that somebody understood what I was getting at, and stated it so eloquently. I thank you. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Damn.
I mean good! Great, got all that sorted away, yes indeed.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
You know, I think gay marriage is a pretty silly thing to have a contraversy over. Call me when someone is getting killed or cheated or something...
[ January 30, 2004, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Maybe this is a stupid question, but I am serious in my curiosity. Why would anyone non-religious bother to get married? Marriage is hard work. As a Christian, I believe marriage is binding yourself to another person so that individual desires are no longer important. Your focus is now on providing for the both of you. Personal ambition is less important than maintaining a healthy relationship. Individual goals have to be discarded if they interfer with the relationship. What is best for the both of you as one is the only thing that matters. The only reason I believe this is possible is because God is there to help. Two people alone can not possibly make a marriage work. So why would anyone who does not believe in a personally beneficial diety bother? So my real question is, why is society so anxious to usurp what is essentially a relgious ceremony? Let's create civil unions not just for gays but for anyone who does not believe God is involved in their commitment to another person. Marriage is just too hard to work without God. So why are so many people so anxious to fail?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I hate to even go here, but I have to point out that divorce rates are actually a little higher among members of the church than among those who don't consider themselves religious.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
You ever talk to your average churchgoer? They don't know much more about Christianity than your rabid God-haters. It's easy to call yourself Christian, it's a lot harder to BE Christian. So they know it should work, but it doesn't work for them. Frankly, I'm surprised the divorce rate isn't substantailly higher.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
But, according to your logic, even the slightest help from God (even if you're a cursory Christian) should put you well beyond the hapless non-Christians out there. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Christian to the best of my ability, and I'm pretty orthodox. I agree that marriage is actually a religious institution and should be saved (and therefore easier) for a religious person. But you make non-religious people sound like morons. The statistics should make it obvious that people who aren't religious have at least as much luck making their marriage work as Christians today. I think it's more societal than anything. Society says divorcing is bad, many people don't do it. Society says divorce is cool, many people will take that road. Yes, Christians should know better. But everyone else out there has a better rate than if you average your cursory Christians with the really good ones. That's saying something.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I'm not a rabid God-hater. Neither am I a churchgoer.
Yet my marriage holds a place of importance in my heart and mind that is unequalled by anything else. Marriage is sometimes hard work. I also agree that:
quote: I believe marriage is binding yourself to another person so that individual desires are no longer important. Your focus is now on providing for the both of you. Personal ambition is less important than maintaining a healthy relationship. Individual goals have to be discarded if they interfer with the relationship. What is best for the both of you as one is the only thing that matters.
It may be true that this is not possible without supernatural help. In that case, I think my beloved and I have had that help. Our marriage is one of the most successful that I know of. We don't even watch movies that portray adultery in a positive light. We protect our committment and love for each other with constant nurturing and vigilence.
We are more or less agnostic, though I do believe in God. My beloved admits there may be a God, though he doesn't see how it's really relevant to how we live and make our choices. I tend to pray... but I can't say I'm sure why.
Marriage may be religious institution, but I don't think it's a Christian one exclusively. I mean, I think it existed before Christianity, and in non-Christian cultures.
So while I can understand your curiosity, coming from your cultural perspective and all, I don't reaaly understand the relevance of the question. I admit that that may just be my own cultural biases coming through.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think homosexuality is a sin and I don't support homosexual marriage. But I don't see anything wrong with publishing them in the newspaper. If you are getting your ideas on morality from the newspaper, you're already going to be reading about homosexuality a lot. If your 14 year old son is reading the wedding announcements, I think you're too late
I think the higher rate of divorce among church goers reflects that more of them are married to begin with.
Do heterosexual cohabitants have any greater rights than gays in end of life directives and so forth? If so I think it is wrong.
Oh, and I also think Hollywood marriages breaking up are disgusting.
Olivet: Mormons view civil marriage as equally binding as temple marriage. It just ends at death is all. The couple I respect most were those ones who were married 84 years. I doubt they were LDS. And you'll be interested to know Mormons generally divorce at the same rate as the culture they are in, and Mormons married in the temple do as well.
[ January 30, 2004, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I actually admire the Mormon view of marriage, because in my religious culture we are taught to put 'God's work' first, even above family. If I am not mistaken, the Mormon view is that the marriage and family IS 'God's work' and therefore keeping them strong and healthy is of greater importance than, say church calling. Or at least that they are equal.
I dated a few pre-seminary fellows in college, and a few more deeply religious Protestant guys, too. In general, they treated me with much less care and attention than the religiously indifferent ones (and yeah, the crazies, but that is a differnt story ).
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
That is a good way of putting it. I don't think I've seen it in this thread, but there is an irony in viewing marriage as a Christian tradition since the majority of Christians don't think Christ was married and worship under a hierarchy of celibates.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
The only celibate I worship under IS Jesus.
Plus you have to remember, we Christians think Christianity, or at least Judaism, did invent marriage. At least, our God did it.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Dang, Olivet, get out of my brain!
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:(and yeah, the crazies, but that is a differnt story)
Criminy sakes, I apologized. I did my community service. I even moved to TX so you'd never have to deal with me again.
What more do you WANT, woman?
<puts on best Bowie voice> Everything I've done I've done for you. I move the stars for no-one. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I think marriage is a deeply spiritual thing, but not strictly a religious thing. There's a difference.
It's also an economic thing, and a bonding thing, and a relationship thing, and a family-making thing. Someone who believes that God is in all things will certainly see it in religious terms, but a long-happily-married agnostic like me sees no reason why God is necessary for a successful marriage. Our marriage ceremony did not mention God, it spoke of our love and our commitment and our dedication to each other, and of our delight in announcing our relationship to the world.
18 years later, it seems to be holding together pretty well...
[ January 31, 2004, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Sorry, Icarus-- I didn't realize I was in your brain.
*wanders off to wash shoes*
Bob has a Bowie voice? I might just have to reduce that restraining order to 50 feet so I gan hear this...
Oh, and what Chris said.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Plus you have to remember, we Christians think Christianity, or at least Judaism, did invent marriage."
Um....Really? The institution of marriage predates Judaism by some time -- even in scripture. Abraham, who you might consider the first Jew, was already married when he met God. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Christian preachers used to support slavery
And many Christian preachers worked to oppose it. Slavery was certainly not a case of "Christian v. society" so much as a society perverting Christianity for monetary gain.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Christian preachers used to support slavery --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And many Christian preachers worked to oppose it. Slavery was certainly not a case of "Christian v. society" so much as a society perverting Christianity for monetary gain.
While no doubt many preachers supported slavery because it was popular for its potential monetary gain, the first and foremost behind Christian advocation of the innate inferiority of colored people was racism. Black people didn't get official recognition of equality until a century after the Civil War, and arguably have yet to see any real equality in terms of political and justice systems.
Please don't pretend Christianity's been a squeaky-clean religion all these years, only run by corrupt people. Fifty years ago, Christians invoked God to deny equal rights to colored people; today Christians invoke God to deny equal rights to homosexual people. Neither brand of bigot will be respected fifty years from today, I hope.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:pooka said That is a good way of putting it. I don't think I've seen it in this thread, but there is an irony in viewing marriage as a Christian tradition since the majority of Christians don't think Christ was married and worship under a hierarchy of celibates.
The irony only arises among people who don’t understand the Catholic sacrament of marriage. It is a vocational sacrament, meaning it is considered the alternative to holy orders.
And Catholics don’t “worship under a hierarchy of celibates.” There is a hierarchy to the priesthood, yes. But Catholics don’t worship “under” priests.
And Christ had some very pointed words to say about the importance of marriage.
quote:Lalo said: While no doubt many preachers supported slavery because it was popular for its potential monetary gain, the first and foremost behind Christian advocation of the innate inferiority of colored people was racism.
Wrong. Racism was used to justify slavery. The reason slavery needed a justification was because of its monetary gains. Anytime someone who purports to hold any religious beliefs does something so publicly, they will use their religious beliefs to justify it.
Most slaves in the history of the world have been owned by non-Christians. It’s not peculiar to any one religion – it’s a mercenary practice justified by various sophisms and perversions of the prevailing belief systems surrounding slaveholder.
quote:Lalo said: Black people didn't get official recognition of equality until a century after the Civil War, and arguably have yet to see any real equality in terms of political and justice systems.
True. Relevant to Christianity, how?
quote:Lalo said: Please don't pretend Christianity's been a squeaky-clean religion all these years, only run by corrupt people. Fifty years ago, Christians invoked God to deny equal rights to colored people; today Christians invoke God to deny equal rights to homosexual people. Neither brand of bigot will be respected fifty years from today, I hope.
And while those Christians were doing that, other Christians were opposing them.
50 years from now, most Christians will still consider homosexual actions to be sinful. Hopefully, the dichotomy of “civil union” and “marriage” will be fully ensconced by then, so this discussion won’t even have to occur.
The civil benefits of what we today call marriage should be available to any two consenting adults. But thinking homosexual actions are sinful does not make someone a bigot.
Dagonee
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:The civil benefits of what we today call marriage should be available to any two consenting adults. But thinking homosexual actions are sinful does not make someone a bigot.
Actually, yes, it does.
I think people should just come clean and embrace their essentially bigotry though. I mean really, is it that important to you to NOT be a bigot that you would change the entire definition of a perfectly descriptive word?
We're all bigots. And branding someone else's actions a sin is one of the most popular forms of bigotry.
Go with it!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You've just made bigot a useless word. If everyone is one, why does the word exist?
You're ignoring the intolerant aspect of the word. It's possible to think an action is sinful and not be intolerant.
Dagonee, Bigot against murderers, rapists, and thieves.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Bigot against murderers, rapists, and thieves.
Ha...yep, some things ARE sins. See, this is how religious bigotry works. By making a comparison between one thing that you don't particularly care for with something that EVERYONE can agree to is a very very bad thing.
Sinners!!!
By the way, I haven't robbed the word bigot of its meaning by claiming everyone is a bigot. Any more than you would rob the word "sinner" of it's meaning and power by the universal Christian claim that we are all sinners.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Oh, and by the way, how you ACT on your particular bigotry is what makes you intolerant or not.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
You folks are right.
According to your religion, your beliefs, and your deep personal faith, the marriage of homosexuals is an attack on the sanctity of the marriage sacraments.
However, according to my religion, my beliefs, and my deep, personal faith, denying the marriage of homosexuals is an attack on the sanctity of marriage.
I believe in God. I believe in a just and loving God. I do not believe that God would condemn anyone for whom they fall in love with, but for how they fall in love.
By how, I am not refering to the mechanics of the act, but to the dedication, self-sacrifice, and love that they put into thier relationship.
I beleive that God's first and only commandment is to love. Love God. Love your family. Love each other. To deny the romantic love of two committed individuals is a far greater sin than any homosexual act those two may commit.
I believe that helping two people remain in a commited relationship, building together something stronger than two what began as two separate people is a sanctified obligation. Building walls to keep them apart is a sin.
I believe that God has created billions of individual souls, not so that they can each find the one mass path to enlightenment, understanding, and salvation, but so they can each live the path that God has ordained for them, each in their own way. If not, why make individual souls in the first place?
But the important thing is, these are my beliefs and my religion. This is my faith and it is as deep and as strong as any one elses, Christian, Muslim, or what ever. You can argue and bring in logic and quote biblical passages all you wish.
That won't change my faith any more than it will change yours.
So gay marriage delutes the value of Christian marriages. The answer is simple. Don't let them get married in a Christian church.
But what you are doing is devalueing the sanctity with which I hold marriage by limiting it to man and woman only.
You are attacking my faith with this law.
That is why this is so upsetting to me.
You do not agree with my religion. Fine. Yet you have no right to stop me from practicing it. Nor do I have a right to stop you from performing marriages, christening children, or spreading your ideas to others.
You can argue with me, boycott my works, protest my existance, but as long as we claim to have freedom of religion in this country, you cannot make it illegal.
My religion is love, faith, and God, not defined by sexual orientation, race, or nationality. My religion is freedom, exploration, and contemplation not restricted to one book or one teacher. My religion is mine. I do not ask you to share it, but I demand you do not illegalize it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Bob,
You missed the point of my murderers, etc. aside. I was pointing out that I am intolerant of murderers, etc. in the sense that I beleive we should not tolerate their presence unopposed in society.
I am not intolerant of homosexuals, even though I think homosexual actions are sinful.
The word bigot certainly contains an element of intolerance. Applying it where someone is not intolerant is a misapplication of the word.
Dagonee
[ January 31, 2004, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Bob_Scopatz said And branding someone else's actions a sin is one of the most popular forms of bigotry.
Actually, branding someone else’s actions a sin is one of the most popular justifications for bigotry.
Dagonee
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Yes, that too.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lalo said: While no doubt many preachers supported slavery because it was popular for its potential monetary gain, the first and foremost behind Christian advocation of the innate inferiority of colored people was racism. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong. Racism was used to justify slavery. The reason slavery needed a justification was because of its monetary gains. Anytime someone who purports to hold any religious beliefs does something so publicly, they will use their religious beliefs to justify it.
You're making a chicken-and-egg argument, Dagonee. I could just as easily say slavery arose as a result of racism. Because fact is, Negroes were quaint houseservants in Europe long before they were slaves in America -- and Africans were never considered as equals to the superior European man, even before slavery was put in place.
But it's incredibly ironic that you (presumably) condemn racists for justifying their bigotry by the Bible and don't recognize that the exact same process goes on with modern-day homophobes.
quote:Most slaves in the history of the world have been owned by non-Christians. It’s not peculiar to any one religion – it’s a mercenary practice justified by various sophisms and perversions of the prevailing belief systems surrounding slaveholder.
You're misunderstanding me if you think I'm declaring slavery or racism as exclusive to Christianity. Think of it as an including-but-not-limited-to concept.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lalo said: Black people didn't get official recognition of equality until a century after the Civil War, and arguably have yet to see any real equality in terms of political and justice systems. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
True. Relevant to Christianity, how?
Heh.
Dagonee, your argument was that Christians supported slavery for monetary reasons. ("Slavery was certainly not a case of "Christian v. society" so much as a society perverting Christianity for monetary gain.") Yet, for over a century after the monetary benefit was removed from racism, it prevailed among white Christians -- why? Why were interracial marriages and black civil rights so condemned by Christ even after the Civil War?
Perhaps the standard of racism wasn't carried by Christians for solely monetary reasons?
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lalo said: Please don't pretend Christianity's been a squeaky-clean religion all these years, only run by corrupt people. Fifty years ago, Christians invoked God to deny equal rights to colored people; today Christians invoke God to deny equal rights to homosexual people. Neither brand of bigot will be respected fifty years from today, I hope. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And while those Christians were doing that, other Christians were opposing them.
I can come up with Christians right now that believe Jesus is an alien, or, more easily, Christians who believe interracial marriage is a sin against God. The first is an extreme minority (among Protestant/Catholic circles, to addendum), and while the second isn't small, I like to believe it doesn't represent most Christians. From here on out, let's assume when we talk about Christian sentiment, we're talking about the prevailing attitude -- what actually happened, in other words.
While it's true that there were a select few -- very few -- Christian households that, for example, operated as abolitionist strongholds for the Underground Railroad, please don't blind yourself to the fact that they were extraordinary minorities in a sea of righteous Christian hatred. They aren't representative of the era's version of Christianity, and to claim thus is disingenuous.
quote:50 years from now, most Christians will still consider homosexual actions to be sinful. Hopefully, the dichotomy of “civil union” and “marriage” will be fully ensconced by then, so this discussion won’t even have to occur.
Ugh. I hope not. I like to have a little more faith in the goodness of humankind.
It was only fifty years ago that people followed Christianity's teachings against the interbreeding of races or the rights of women. Some people still follow those teachings -- however, I like to believe that the greater mass of Americans now believe women have equal rights as men, and shouldn't, say, be submissive to their husbands. Shouldn't wear veils or be prohibited from teaching men.
In fifty years, I hope most people will recognize homophobia -- even self-righteous homophobia -- for what it is. I hope they won't settle for a seperate-but-equal status, which is exactly what you offer them in these "civil unions" -- we'll give them the benefits, just so long as they recognize that they're not entitled to real love like us heterosexuals are capable of. Above all, though, I hope people in fifty years will be as ashamed of modern-day homophobes as we are today of the KKK or other white supremacists.
That you believe in heterosexual supremacism even as you condemn white supremacism only proves my point that Christianity (or, more accurately, self-righteous people in general) moves from convenient bigotry to convenient bigotry. Someday, I hope homophobia won't be convenient for popular religious hatred, and this senseless persecution against homosexuals can end.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Actually, branding someone else’s actions a sin is one of the most popular justifications for bigotry.
It's also one of the most popular ways to get people to behave themselves...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Lalo said In fifty years, I hope most people will recognize homophobia -- even self-righteous homophobia -- for what it is.
So now believing in traditional Christian chastity is homophobia?
quote:Lalo said: I hope they won't settle for a seperate-but-equal status, which is exactly what you offer them in these "civil unions" -- we'll give them the benefits, just so long as they recognize that they're not entitled to real love like us heterosexuals are capable of.
So now the prohibition against separate but equal applies not just to civil rights but to private beliefs. If civil unions provide all the civil benefits of marriage today, how is that separate?
quote:Lalo said: That you believe in heterosexual supremacism even as you condemn white supremacism only proves my point that Christianity (or, more accurately, self-righteous people in general) moves from convenient bigotry to convenient bigotry. Someday, I hope homophobia won't be convenient for popular religious hatred, and this senseless persecution against homosexuals can end.
As opposed to your self-righteousness about what I believe my faith to be? Do you read what you write before you post it?
I also believe heterosexual sex outside marriage is sinful. Does that make me a promiscuphobe?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
-Sir Didymus, Labyrinth
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[feels very non-hypocritical]
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)