Amendment One is Passed in North Carolina

[Jrecee]

I agree. Let's stick to the issue at hand. Mosques.

[Dylan]

I agree. Let's stick to the issue at hand. Mosques.

[Ack]

Besides, the issue here is marriage, not whether one finds homosexuality to be "abominable" or not.

Yup.
This affects both heterosexuals and homosexuals. It's a civil rights issue, not a gay issue.

Ack- It's NOT about homosexual marriage. Again (I talk, no one listens) this is about civil rights as an American Citizen.

The discussion of homosexual marriage as a civil right still focuses on homosexual marriage, hence my statement. Civil rights in general would also apply to keep this topic in check. My point is to not let it turn into open insults and criticism.

[Luke]

My point is to not let it turn into open insults and criticism.

Agreed.

It's just that there is so much more to this law than just marriage. It's the crux, yes, but this affects heterosexuals.....why am I even classifying this?

It affects everyone. To the Grandson who is his Grandfather's caregiver, to the countless couples that don't want to be married by law. This law passing results in preferential treatment to those who do what our government wants, and denies those who do not follow the government's ideals.

Kinda.

I'm not up in arms about this, it's just that this goes against the Constitution. That should be the main point. Not gay marriage, not civil union, but protecting citizen's civil rights.

Then again, I always hope for the best.

[Hobie-wan]

I agree. Let's stick to the issue at hand. Mosques.

I'm almost done with that 4 pound jar of peanut butter. You don't want to make me fetch a new one.

And even though it was a derail, that Betty Bowers video was awesome.

[dsheinem]

@ dshienem: although the old ceremonial laws of the Old Testament were fulfilled by Jesus's death, homosexuality is still said to be wrong in the New Testament.

Romans 1:26-27

New International Version (NIV)

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Ok, I get the argument about the New Testament erasing the old law - that's standard Christian doctrine (even though many anti-gay rights groups still cite the OT). But that New Testament passage? I read that as about condemning lust and other shameful acts (e..g adultery) and the whole passage includes all kinds of sexual dalliances and other "wickedness" - not a specific condemnation of gay sex. In fact, oddly, that passage says that "God gave them over to shameful lusts " - how nice of him! I guess he didn't have to?

I attended more Bible Studies and church services in the first 20 years of my life than most church-going people do in several lifetimes. I have read the Bible inside and out, and I think that some of those hermeneutic skills I developed in church translated into my chosen profession as a critical scholar. I know enough about the New Testament, its various translations, interpretations, and applications to know that there is far from any kind of definitive denouncement of homosexuality as such in that portion of the Bible. That's why so many religious groups who are anti-gay cite the OT, where the language is at least a little less ambiguous.

Here's an article that, long ago, helped me see the light: http://www.philosophy-religion.org/hand ... phobic.htm

[Luke]

I attended more Bible Studies and church services in the first 20 years of my life than most church-going people do in several lifetimes.

This coming from someone who hates broad sweeping generalizations?

It's fine, go ahead and use the hyperbole defense. Seriously, please do as that makes no sense.

[dsheinem]

I attended more Bible Studies and church services in the first 20 years of my life than most church-going people do in several lifetimes.

This coming from someone who hates broad sweeping generalizations?

It's fine, go ahead and use the hyperbole defense. Seriously, please do as that makes no sense.

How is that a broad sweeping generalization? I was literally in church 3 days a week or more for the first 18-20 years of my life, for 10 of those years, my father was either in seminary or a minister, and as such I used to be very involved in a number of youth groups, church clubs, etc. I had leadership positions in churches, I have been to promise keeper events, Billy Graham rallies - you name it. The statement wasn't meant to be hyperbole, I truly believe that I have been to more church-related stuff in my life than most people ever are. And I did it all with 100% sincerity and belief until a few years into adulthood. There was a time, 15 years ago or so, I would have been applauding the decision in NC.

But then education happened.

[J T]

I'm a Christian, too. It just makes my blood boil when that's used as an excuse to deny equal rights or to excuse apathy to the denial of those rights.

Thank you!

It's not really clear to me that being gay is even unethical from interpreting readings of the bible (even though lots of people will claim to you that the bible is clear on this), but even if it is, one or several religions' views cannot be applied to civil rights issues. Political ethics have to be utilitarian and focus on what is best for the collective, while retaining the rights of individuals. This has to cut across various religions and non-religions in a country like the USA that allows freedom of religion.

I know this sticks in the craw of many religious people who see their interpretation of God's law to be of higher value than any man-made law, but part of being an American means a commitment to the ideals of freedom, including religious freedom. The laws that govern the rules for freedom sometimes conflict with God's law, but in a free society, not everyone believes in the same interpretation of God, the same God, or in any God at all. All of these people have to be accounted for in a society with freedom of religion where chuch and state have agreed to stay separate.

I feel bad for a lot of good Christians lately. Your religion (as seen on TV and the internet) has publically become kind of a mockery of itself. I'm an agnostic and a Zen Buddhist now, but a long long time ago (about 25 years ago) I used to be a Mormon, so I know there are a lot of positive aspects to Christian ideology that help guide people to live better lives. But not attending church now for decades and not having many Christian friends or Christian discussions, I primarily see media-based representations of Christian people and they are not pretty. I see loud mouthed, hate spewing people that are thumping on bibles and talking about the sins of "homosexuality" and abortion. And I see people that want to tell us how ashamed/grateful we should all be because Jesus died for our sins. I see people that only have one solution to all problems and that is faith in God and Jesus. But if you don't already believe, it's hard to see why you would start. Even a threat of burning in hell won't do it if you don't believe in hell either.

I'm not saying this is how it is (a religion can be more than its public representation), but that's how it looks from my vantage point, and it looks ridiculous. I don't mean to be rude about that, I'm just trying to give my perspective. Christianity was a lot more appealing to me when it was about loving thy neighbor, doing unto others as you would do unto them, and living a pious and humble life devoted to service rather than stealing, killing, lying or engaging in other sins. Nowadays, however, Christianity has become this monstrous judgmental juggernaut that has lost its primary focus in favor of a decided focus of attention on marriage and pregancy, and more specifically who they don't want to get married (gays) and who they want to stay pregnant (everyone). Can Christians' public perception ever return to that of loving kindness?

Anyway, my point of this is mainly to say that I feel for those Christians that practice what Jesus preached, but feel like they are unfairly lumped in with the Christians of television, because I think they are different people.

[dsheinem]

*excellent post*

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” - Gandhi