Christian friends of gays and lesbians

[Immanuel]

If that is the concern, Valerie, it can never be guaranteed against. There are dumb judges, one reason we have appeals courts. I feel certain it never will, and that a fear of something so unlikely is not a good enough reason to deny anyone their civil rights.

Who's civil rights have I denied?

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

In my world, I treat my friends with respect, always. If we disagree, I keep the disagreement to the topic...I don't attack their character.

And BTW, Immie has said he supports gay marriage and wishes more christians would do so. I know you're aware of this, as Valerie just quoted him.

You have an unfortunate tendency to wander off topic into ad hominiem attacks, CurveLight. They aren't always deserved and they never advance the convo. There are plenty of homophobes and haters to bash....why choose to dump on a good man?

Do you know what an ad hom is? It is not a personal attack to say someone is a bigot after they proven their bigotry with their own damn words.

It is a character-based insult, and it does nothing to advance your POV, nor this thread. Why not focus on trying to persuade Immie that he's mistaken?

Because he can't so he is attempting to show that my responses to you were in fact a response to his challenge, which they were not.

Instead, he has to attack my point of view rather than attempting to show me where I am wrong.

I have already stated several times (once today and a couple times the other day) that I understand I may be wrong, but that I do not trust the extremists. I highly doubt, there is anything he can do to build my trust in that area.

Immie

 

[CurveLight]

Asking someone to marshal facts in support of their POV might be persuasive to a few. Most times, it is better to use them yourself....

As Valerie has pointed out, there is (some) fear that someday, a judge somewhere will step on religious freedom at the behest of GLBT people regarding weddings. Much as I'd like to, I cannot tell her "that will never happen", as judges can be unpredictable and stupid. I did say such action would be unconstitutional and corrected by any appeals court.

Is this a blind alley, concealing latent bigotry in Valerie? I don't think so. Many, many people have expressed similar anxieties and I think it's better to air them out than it is to dismiss them as stupid.

CurveLight, Immie supports gay marriage and feels more christians should do so as well. He ain't perfect, but I dun think he's Public Enemy No. One.

I never made him out to be PE #1 so the hyperbole is time wasting. He does not support gay marriage because if he did he wouldn't demand it be called civil unions.

 

[Immanuel]

If that is the concern, Valerie, it can never be guaranteed against. There are dumb judges, one reason we have appeals courts. I feel certain it never will, and that a fear of something so unlikely is not a good enough reason to deny anyone their civil rights.

Why are you pretending he ever suggested anyones civil rights should be denied ?

He wants to deny gays the title of marriage which is a denial of civil rights.

Bullshit. I have stated repeatedly that I support any church that wishes to marry homosexual couples. I also support churches that for whatever reason will not do so.

Immie

 

[CurveLight]

Do you know what an ad hom is? It is not a personal attack to say someone is a bigot after they proven their bigotry with their own damn words.

It is a character-based insult, and it does nothing to advance your POV, nor this thread. Why not focus on trying to persuade Immie that he's mistaken?

Because he can't so he is attempting to show that my responses to you were in fact a response to his challenge, which they were not.

Instead, he has to attack my point of view rather than attempting to show me where I am wrong.

I have already stated several times (once today and a couple times the other day) that I understand I may be wrong, but that I do not trust the extremists. I highly doubt, there is anything he can do to build my trust in that area.

Immie

This is where respect for you is lost because you have already quoted me and claimed you responded to my challenge because you cited a photography business as your proof. For the last fucking time: show where any church has been forced to marry any couple. It's that simple. A photography biz is not a church. A pavillion rented to the public is not a church and neither of those cases showed where any church was forced to marry anyone.

I'm attacking your position on the fact it is pure bullshit and you will keep proving it by not being honest and laughably claiming the photog business case somehow equates to a church being forced to marry someone.

 

[Immanuel]

Do you know what an ad hom is? It is not a personal attack to say someone is a bigot after they proven their bigotry with their own damn words.

It is a character-based insult, and it does nothing to advance your POV, nor this thread. Why not focus on trying to persuade Immie that he's mistaken?

You just got done saying he wants to deny civil rights to gays. That makes him a bigot by your own words. What the fuck is up with people being so damn PC sensitive they can't even be honest about simple things? For the tenth time....I have tried to persuade him to seeing his error which is why I asked him to provide evidence to support his position and he fell flat on his face and he has yet to be honest about that.

No you have not. All you have done is attacked my point of view.

You have not shown a damned bit of proof that you are correct in your point of view. You have given no evidence to support your claim that homosexuals will be satisfied the day "gay marriage" finally becomes legal.

You may think I am wrong and quite frankly I respect your right to do so, but you have not supported your own point of view.

Immie

 

[Phoenix]

Or just the fact that as Christians we realize we are all sinners. Might not do the exact same stuff, but we all do something.

Been raised in Baptist church and school. I know how it is.

That being said - I don't disagree with your comment. Thence the hypocrisy statement. Most "Christians" are so in name only, not in practice.

What was it they told us? "You may be the only Bible some people ever read." Unfortunately, they told us that and then showed themselves to be snobbish, hypocritical windbags.

 

[Immanuel]

Asking someone to marshal facts in support of their POV might be persuasive to a few. Most times, it is better to use them yourself....

As Valerie has pointed out, there is (some) fear that someday, a judge somewhere will step on religious freedom at the behest of GLBT people regarding weddings. Much as I'd like to, I cannot tell her "that will never happen", as judges can be unpredictable and stupid. I did say such action would be unconstitutional and corrected by any appeals court.

Is this a blind alley, concealing latent bigotry in Valerie? I don't think so. Many, many people have expressed similar anxieties and I think it's better to air them out than it is to dismiss them as stupid.

One would have to be stupid to think that judges do not legislate from the bench.

Which is what I am afraid may ultimately happen here. Thirty eight years ago the Supreme Court did and costs the lives of nearly 50 million Americans and that number is still growing.

He may think Freedom of/from religion is untouchable. I don't.

Immie

 

[Kat]

Or just the fact that as Christians we realize we are all sinners. Might not do the exact same stuff, but we all do something.

Been raised in Baptist church and school. I know how it is.

That being said - I don't disagree with your comment. Thence the hypocrisy statement. Most "Christians" are so in name only, not in practice.

What was it they told us? "You may be the only Bible some people ever read." Unfortunately, they told us that and then showed themselves to be snobbish, hypocritical windbags.

I understand what you are saying. I wouldn't say most, but would say many.

 

[Phoenix]

I understand what you are saying. I wouldn't say most, but would say many.

I'll allow that.

 

[eots]

"I became a Christian very suddenly (and out of freakin' nowhere) when I was 38 years old.

At that time, I was working in the "Office Services" department of a large law firm. My sole co-worker in that department was a lesbian named Joan Finch.

To a lot of Christians, of course -- just as with a lot of people generally -- someone's being gay or lesbian can register as a Fairly Large Deal. But I had been around gays and lesbians all my life, and had no schema for understanding a person's sexual orientation as having anything whatsoever to do with their moral character, or their status relative to God, or anything like that. Any such concept was foreign to me. All I knew was that some gays and lesbians were awful people, and some were noble, wise, kind people whom it was impossible not to love. Same as anyone else. People are people

."I'd had gay friends all of my life. Real friends. Best friends. As obnoxious as it is to stereotype, I think it's safe to say that generally, gays and lesbians have suffered for being gay and lesbian: just about all my gay friends, for instance, have countless stories about getting regularly beaten-up as kids by ... well, by just about everyone around them. Schoolmates. Siblings. Dads. Crosswalk guards. Dog-walkers. Whomever.

Growing up gay or lesbian in America is just a tough row to hoe, period. If you think it's not, then ... then you're just not paying attention to life.

And that gays and lesbians have generally suffered in their lives means that they are generally sensitive to the suffering of others. And generally that makes them kind, compassionate, and emotionally insightful. It makes them empathic. Which is why I have generally found gays and lesbians rewarding to hang out with.

I had my big fat conversion experience at work with Joan Finch.

A look of genuine concern came across her face.

"Oh, no," she said.

"What is it?" I said. "What's wrong?"

"Now you're going to hate me."

"What? What are you -- why in the world would I hate you?"

"Because Christians hate gays and lesbians," said Joan. She looked heartbroken. "Don't you know that?"

"They do? We do? Why?"

"Because it's in the Bible," she said. "I grew up in the church. I know. Part of the whole Christian deal is to hate gays and lesbians."

And then she turned away from me, so that I wouldn't see her fighting back her tears.

"You must be wrong about that," I implored. I put my hand on her back. "You must be."

"I'm not," she said, stepping away from me. "You wait. You'll see."
John Shore: How My Lesbian Friend Reacted to My Christian Conversion

Do Christians have gay friends?

are not gays and lesbians the same thing....

 

[Madeline]

Asking someone to marshal facts in support of their POV might be persuasive to a few. Most times, it is better to use them yourself....

As Valerie has pointed out, there is (some) fear that someday, a judge somewhere will step on religious freedom at the behest of GLBT people regarding weddings. Much as I'd like to, I cannot tell her "that will never happen", as judges can be unpredictable and stupid. I did say such action would be unconstitutional and corrected by any appeals court.

Is this a blind alley, concealing latent bigotry in Valerie? I don't think so. Many, many people have expressed similar anxieties and I think it's better to air them out than it is to dismiss them as stupid.

One would have to be stupid to think that judges do not legislate from the bench.

Which is what I am afraid may ultimately happen here. Thirty eight years ago the Supreme Court did and costs the lives of nearly 50 million Americans and that number is still growing.

He may think Freedom of/from religion is untouchable. I don't.

Immie

50 million people died from a judicial decision 38 years ago, Immie? Which one are you referring to?

 

[Immanuel]

I just cannot feature what sort of lawsuit a GLBT person could bring against any church, temple or mosque in their capacity as a religious house of worship, Immie. I mean, mebbe if they ran a hospital or something...but not as a house of worship. I think your fears are misplaced.

As for acceptance, yes of course GLBT people want acceptance. Who doesn't?

My best answer to that is this: before the decision in Roe v. Wade was handed down, I suspect most people believed that the lives of human fetus' were relatively safe and that nothing was likely to happen to make abortion legal anytime soon.

Should people who are afraid that the government wants to significantly change the second amendment ultimately infringing on the right to bare arms wait until that right has been extinguished before they start fighting?

I agree with you in that it is hard to imagine a judge or Congress tearing down the wall of Separation of Church and State, but do you really think they won't try? What if it weren't an attack from the left as I see this issue to be, but rather a few members of the Religious Right found themselves in positions of power in Washington and they started pushing us into a Theocracy?

The First Amendment is no longer a sacred right in the U.S.

If you ask me, we should all be standing together to guarantee that no one screws with it.

Immie

 

[Kat]

I understand what you are saying. I wouldn't say most, but would say many.

I'll allow that.

hahaha....you're so very kind

 

[Immanuel]

Asking someone to marshal facts in support of their POV might be persuasive to a few. Most times, it is better to use them yourself....

As Valerie has pointed out, there is (some) fear that someday, a judge somewhere will step on religious freedom at the behest of GLBT people regarding weddings. Much as I'd like to, I cannot tell her "that will never happen", as judges can be unpredictable and stupid. I did say such action would be unconstitutional and corrected by any appeals court.

Is this a blind alley, concealing latent bigotry in Valerie? I don't think so. Many, many people have expressed similar anxieties and I think it's better to air them out than it is to dismiss them as stupid.

CurveLight, Immie supports gay marriage and feels more christians should do so as well. He ain't perfect, but I dun think he's Public Enemy No. One.

I never made him out to be PE #1 so the hyperbole is time wasting. He does not support gay marriage because if he did he wouldn't demand it be called civil unions.

Hehehe,

You've (all four of you) have made me feel like PE #1!

Have you actually read my statements on what I think "civil unions" should be?

I understand your point of view to be that there are civil marriages and religious marriages and that never the 'twain shall meet, but if that is the case, what is wrong with the idea of all civil "marriages" (gay and straight) being termed Civil unions and all religious marriages being termed marriage?

And quite frankly, I think you are wrong when you state that it would a burdensome amount of legislation to do so.

Immie

 

[Madeline]

Immie, if we add abortion to this thread it is likely to go completely sideways. But yes, I suppose it would be fair to say it stands out as an decision that might be viewed as "legislating from the bench". (Let's leave of this topic...we know we disagree about abortion.)

I'm not sure what direction you feel the Gang of Nine could possibly go in that would be analogous, though. It seems to me you fear GLBT people will be able to sue fundamentalist churches, etc. for some sort of injury. For what, exactly? Not conducting gay marriages? It's perfectly clear they cannot be sued for withholding ceremonies from inter-faith couples, or even inter-racial ones.

I have more confidence in Freedom of Religion, Immie. I think you worry too much.

 

[CurveLight]

It is a character-based insult, and it does nothing to advance your POV, nor this thread. Why not focus on trying to persuade Immie that he's mistaken?

You just got done saying he wants to deny civil rights to gays. That makes him a bigot by your own words. What the fuck is up with people being so damn PC sensitive they can't even be honest about simple things? For the tenth time....I have tried to persuade him to seeing his error which is why I asked him to provide evidence to support his position and he fell flat on his face and he has yet to be honest about that.

No you have not. All you have done is attacked my point of view.

You have not shown a damned bit of proof that you are correct in your point of view. You have given no evidence to support your claim that homosexuals will be satisfied the day "gay marriage" finally becomes legal.

You may think I am wrong and quite frankly I respect your right to do so, but you have not supported your own point of view.

Immie

Do you understand how it works you dishonest fuckwad? You made the claim so the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim. You've had ample opportunity and haven't even come close. Your bigotry defense is on the claim gays would force churches to marry them and you have nothing to show that is a reasonable enough concern to justify denying marriage to gays. Keep dancing....the bigot-hop is on loop.

Where's your post saying you've never responded to my challenge? Either you edited/removed it or someone else said it.

 

[Immanuel]

It is a character-based insult, and it does nothing to advance your POV, nor this thread. Why not focus on trying to persuade Immie that he's mistaken?

Because he can't so he is attempting to show that my responses to you were in fact a response to his challenge, which they were not.

Instead, he has to attack my point of view rather than attempting to show me where I am wrong.

I have already stated several times (once today and a couple times the other day) that I understand I may be wrong, but that I do not trust the extremists. I highly doubt, there is anything he can do to build my trust in that area.

Immie

This is where respect for you is lost because you have already quoted me and claimed you responded to my challenge because you cited a photography business as your proof. For the last fucking time: show where any church has been forced to marry any couple. It's that simple. A photography biz is not a church. A pavillion rented to the public is not a church and neither of those cases showed where any church was forced to marry anyone.

I'm attacking your position on the fact it is pure bullshit and you will keep proving it by not being honest and laughably claiming the photog business case somehow equates to a church being forced to marry someone.

Sorry, but you are being dishonest here. Perhaps, you think others will not read the entire thread and simply take your word for this shit.

I repeatedly stated that my responses were in reference to Madeline's posts and at the time I posted those links I had not read your "challenge".

You had the audacity and continue to do so, to claim that my posts were in response to your "challenge". The only thing I stated when I read your challenge was that my previous post (the one regarding the NJ couple attempting to force the church to marry them) was applicable to your challenge.

You have also been dishonest in regards to my position on this. I have never once stated that any church has been forced to marry any homosexual couples. The two issues I presented were only being used to back up my belief that in the future extremists will attempt to do so.

The case of Elaine Photography was exactly what I stated to Madeline. An attempt to force a Christian business to perform services that they did not wish to perform. The NJ complaint was again what I had said it was from the beginning... an attempt by activists to force compliance by religious organizations. I never claimed any church had been forced to, rather my belief is that in the future, activists will attempt to do so and I have used these very real cases as support for my claim.

You have done a piss poor job of defending your point of view and since you can't defend your point of view, because the evidence is out there that once homosexual marriage is legalized (as it was in the NJ case at the time) activists will seek to further their cause and require those who do not support their right to marriage to perform services and I believe that eventually this MAY happen to a church which could threaten the Separation of Church and State.

What I have purported to show is that activists will not be happy with this win. They will want more than the right to be married. They will insist that conservative churches and conservatives perform services for them. That may be okay with you, but I have always landed on the side of it being a business' right to decide who they will perform services for as long as they do not discriminate against a protected class indiscriminately.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Asking someone to marshal facts in support of their POV might be persuasive to a few. Most times, it is better to use them yourself....

As Valerie has pointed out, there is (some) fear that someday, a judge somewhere will step on religious freedom at the behest of GLBT people regarding weddings. Much as I'd like to, I cannot tell her "that will never happen", as judges can be unpredictable and stupid. I did say such action would be unconstitutional and corrected by any appeals court.

Is this a blind alley, concealing latent bigotry in Valerie? I don't think so. Many, many people have expressed similar anxieties and I think it's better to air them out than it is to dismiss them as stupid.

One would have to be stupid to think that judges do not legislate from the bench.

Which is what I am afraid may ultimately happen here. Thirty eight years ago the Supreme Court did and costs the lives of nearly 50 million Americans and that number is still growing.

He may think Freedom of/from religion is untouchable. I don't.

Immie

50 million people died from a judicial decision 38 years ago, Immie? Which one are you referring to?

Are you seriously asking that question?

Does Roe v. Wade ring a bell?

Immie

 

[CurveLight]

Hey Immie, gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for over five years so show us all how your bigotry is justified by showing where. ONE church has been forced to marry a gay couple. Just one.