The Quandary Christians Put Gays In

[TemplarKormac]

Obviously we're not talking about killing anyone.

No, of course not.

But instead the natural consequence of a faith being out of touch with both its faithful and the public at large.

So... if I am to attribute this to your existing argument... Christianity should be driven naturally by the will of the public, and by the collective wills of the faithful, and not naturally by the will of God. Have I interpreted this correctly? I am far from being a good Christian... heck I don't go to Church on Sundays, but I've pretty much observed from my church and from what the Bible says, is that the will of God is paramount over the collective wills of the faithful. The wills of the faithful, or of the public, don't outweigh the will of God.

Jesus was praying at the Garden of Gethsemane on the night before his crucifixion. In the first half of Matthew 26:39, he begged God to take away the burden of bearing the sin of all mankind through his death on the cross.. "O My Father, if it be your will, let this cup pass from Me" he said. But in the other half, it shows he acknowledged that his will does not surpass that of God's, "nevertheless, not as I will but as you will" he continued.

So, when I say what they are doing is in direct defiance of what the Bible teaches about marriage, they actually are defying the actual will of God, usurping his will with theirs. That plea by Jesus is a good demonstration of the will of God trumping that of man's. If the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman, so be it; it is God's will and it shouldn't be allowed in a church, I repeat, in a church, not outside of it. In my opinion, the church should comply with the Biblical definition of marriage, not 'reinterpret' it. Yes, I am quite the fundamentalist.

 

[Skylar]

Obviously we're not talking about killing anyone.

No, of course not.

But instead the natural consequence of a faith being out of touch with both its faithful and the public at large.

So... if I am to attribute this to your existing argument... Christianity should be driven naturally by the will of the public, and by the collective wills of the faithful, and not naturally by the will of God. Have I interpreted this correctly?

The will of God according to who? Religion is a synthesis, not merely a book. Its interpretations of those reading it, all without a Leviathan. God doesn't come down to break ties and tell you whose interpretations are right. Its a matter of interpretation and consensus as to who is right.

Nor is religion formed in one direction, with a book mandating belief. But in two directions, with the beliefs on the faithful influencing how that book is interpreted. By prioritizing one passage and deemphasizing another, you can get radically different interpretations. Mother Theresa and Grand Inquisitor Torquemada used the same bible.

And how using the same bible in the same general theological tradition, the same faith and the same denomination......the Founders executed gays, while modern Christians didn't. With the Puritans executing both sodomites and adulterers. With neither the Founders nor modern Christians executing the latter. Did 'God's will' change from the 1600s to today, or did the people change?

I argue its the people. As they change, the faith changes. As they are the one's interpreting the the faith. Those faiths that *don't* change as the people change becomes marginalized. Those that do flourish. And Christianity is an adaptable faith. Which is why it still flourishes.

So, when I say what they are doing is in direct defiance of what the Bible teaches about marriage, they actually are defying the actual will of God, usurping his will with theirs.

When you say they are in direct defiance of what the Bible teaches, you're offering us a set of interpretations and priorities of passages that you believe that supports that conclusion. But someone else can have a different set of interpretations and priorities of passages which contradicts it. And there's no one to break the tie to tell you who got it right.

That's how Christianity remains so spry and adaptable. As no one is required to accept your assumptions. Nor you theirs. But you're only alive for a set amount of time. And if you can't convince others to accept your assumptions, they'll likely die with you. As the historically 'bendy' nature of Christian doctrine demonstrates, those intepretations that are the most in touch with the faithful are the most likely to be passed on. And those that aren't, less likely.

Interpretations that don't give ground to gays are already less likely. As Westboro demonstrates. And I see no reason that this trend won't just keep on truckin'.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Pity you had to blemish an otherwise rare cogent post with the following errant nonsense:

“I don't like the Supreme Court circumventing the constitutional and republican form of government that clearly puts this issue to the states to decide.”

The Supreme Court did not 'circumvent' the Constitution, it appropriately followed and applied settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence consistent with a republican form of government, recognizing that citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not 'majority rule,' where residents of the states have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights.

Otherwise, your post reflects the fact that 14th Amendment jurisprudence apples only to the states and local governments, not private citizens or organizations such as churches, who are at liberty to decide the matter for themselves in accordance with religious doctrine and dogma concerning marriage rituals.

It's also appropriate and important to understand that for gay Americans they are infinitely more than just their sexuality, and to focus only on that aspect of who they are is unwarranted and unproductive.

Why do gays want to adopt conservative values?

I predict that as gays start marrying and having children they move to the conservative side.

As odious as it is to blame children for the sins of the parents, the children of gays must be ostracized just as much as the parents. Any form of acceptance is wrong.

Psychotic.

 

[JoeB131]

Gays put themselves in their own quandary. I agree with Deltex, civil unions were good enough, give them the benefits of marriage but leave traditional marriage alone. It's all part of them wanting to appear normal.

FatIrishSow in 1950.

"Coloreds put themselves in their own position. I agree with George Wallace, separate Water Fountains were good enough, give them the benefits of water but leave white people's water alone. It's all part of them wanting to appear normal".

 

[Votto]

Not a religious discussion, a discussion on cultural perspectives.

I do mix it up in our discussions about gay culture and to me it's largely sport, but there's another part of me that attempts to see these social issues through the eyes of gay people. Two of the closest friends of my family happen to be gay, a woman I've known since I was in Junior High who was a teacher of mine and her partner. They are getting married this month and we will be enthusiastic attenders. My trust in them is implicit to the point they often babysit our 4 kids and are called Aunt by them. Yes they are that close.

So their up and coming wedding has gotten me thinking about the issue of gay marriage in the Christian church. They are Christians and church goers, attending a Reconciling congregation, the kind more accepting of gays and gay marriage.

I'm extremely happy for them, so is my wife and my in laws who are somewhat to very progressive. It occurs to me to wonder why happily married Christians would deny nuptial bliss to any couple that love each other. Here's the issue gays are put in by Christians. They're told that the lifestyle is sinful and that they should either abstain from sex altogether or get married to a person of the opposite sex. Many men have done that, living a lie until the lie gets too great and they revert back to their sexual set point, often cheating on their wives in secretive dalliances or outright abandoning their family.

Exhibit A:

Option B is not any better. St. Paul himself said that it is better for a man to marry than to burn with desire. Since Exodus International has demonstrated to us that it's not possible to "pray the gay away" or use therapy to change one's sexual orientation, what choice do they have? Let's review the choices again:

1. Marry a person of the opposite sex and live a lie with disastrous results that hurt an innocent wife and children.

2. Burn with sexual desire until the desire becomes to great and men hook up with other men, often multiple partners increasing the chances for STD's and drug abuse.

3. Same sex marriage; marrying a person they are attracted to and can love for the rest of their lives in a committed manner.

I'm going to be honest, though I don't like the Supreme Court circumventing the constitutional and republican form of government that clearly puts this issue to the states to decide, I'm also not of the opinion that our civilization is imperiled because people who love each other are getting married. I'm just not.

So here I am, a Christian, telling my fellow Christians that the solution may be to start talking TO homosexuals instead of about them; to forge friendships like I have and gain a new perspective and try to see the world through their eyes.

I have and I got no regrets about it.

Well this perspective enables you to vote with a clear conscience for Dims, but what about abortion?

Do tell, how do you live with yourself as a Catholic knowing that you are voting for genocide?

Then again, Catholics in Nazi Germany seemed to have no problem supporting their genocide either.

 

[JoeB131]

So... if I am to attribute this to your existing argument... Christianity should be driven naturally by the will of the public, and by the collective wills of the faithful, and not naturally by the will of God. Have I interpreted this correctly? I am far from being a good Christian... heck I don't go to Church on Sundays, but I've pretty much observed from my church and from what the Bible says, is that the will of God is paramount over the collective wills of the faithful. The wills of the faithful, or of the public, don't outweigh the will of God.

But how do you determine the "Will of God"?

For centuries, it was the "Will of God" that "You shall not suffer a witch to live". And for centuries, women accused of witchcraft were burned at the stake, crushed beneath rocks, whipped, tortured, mutilated, etc.

And then lo and behold, the will of the public was that witch burning was barbaric and there weren't any witches.

So Christians ignored the "Will of God" and you don't see Christian families burning their daughters who decide they take up Wicca in College.

The fact is, the bible is full of rules that "Christians" ignore every day, from things as serious as slavery to as petty as eating shrimp. And Christians come up with all sorts of rationalization about how their Imaginary Friend in the Sky is totally cool with that.

 

[Kondor3]

Christians did not put homosexuals in a quandry in this context.

Gays put themselves there.

Or aberrations of Nature put them there.

Whatever.

Why the hell should the 97% of the population that identifies as Straight have to wear a metaphorical hair shirt about the discomfort of the 3% ?

Enough of this touchy-feely horseshit already.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Gays put themselves in their own quandary. I agree with Deltex, civil unions were good enough, give them the benefits of marriage but leave traditional marriage alone. It's all part of them wanting to appear normal.

FatIrishSow in 1950.

"Coloreds put themselves in their own position. I agree with George Wallace, separate Water Fountains were good enough, give them the benefits of water but leave white people's water alone. It's all part of them wanting to appear normal".

Stop trying to compare the plights of blacks to a mental perversion. Homosexuality is a NOT a race. And grow up, child.

 

[Dragonlady]

Homosexuality is not a mental perversion. It appears in ever race, colour and creed throughout history, and in animal world as well.

It's as natural for gays to be attracted to their same sex as it is for straights to be attracted to the opposite sex.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough.

You first.

News flash: my marriage IS, in fact, a civil contract!

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Homosexuality is not a mental perversion. It appears in ever race, colour and creed throughout history, and in animal world as well.

It's as natural for gays to be attracted to their same sex as it is for straights to be attracted to the opposite sex.

It is not in the animal kingdom. Some daffy homosexual conned someone into paying for a grant and he came back shouting he had proof animals can be homosexual, the problem is he had no proof, no video, nothing. You clowns confuse what they call alpha male with homosexuality. Before you shout, bitch and moan be prepared to provide video proof of animals of the same sex mating. Word of warning: it doesn't exist.

 

[Wildman]

why is it that qweers and liberscum always get their wants/wishes/desires fulfilled?

e.g.,

right here on USMB we lost the ability of a , function/icon, because it "OFFENDED" a few liberpukes, then came censorship, paintshishose displays the censorship all the time.

i despise censorship of any kind here on USMB.

 

[Pop23]

"It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."

How Arguments Against Gay Marriage Mirror Those Against Miscegenation - The Wire

Good lord:

That was prior to the SC ruling.

It says NOTHING about how, when you REMOVE THE LIMITING factors of one man to one women, how the number becomes simply isn't arbitrary!

The number was 2 prior to loving and after loving as that was the minimum number required to procreate.

Tell me, what is the minimum number of same sex individuals required to procreate?

2....6.....10,000?

The number now is irrelevant whe you remove PROCREATION. The number is arbitrary and nonsensical.

It is the exact same hysterical slippery slope fallacy.

Has incestuous marriage been legalized? Has polygamous marriage been legalized? Has pedophilic marriage been legalized? Has this slippery slope been realized?

You talk about the limiting factors of 1 man and 1 woman - how would that limit a brother/sister marriage? Yet that has not been legalized.
Same sex is still 1:1. Hetero is 1:1.

You are a pip. You realize that the law was 1 man to 1 woman ( followed by) not too closely related.

The ratio has reasoning behind it. Not too closely related prohibited incest.

Unless the limiting factors were there for reasons of limiting defective bloodlines, be so kind as to explain the reasoning? Or admit it's simply an arbitrary number.

 

[Pop23]

"It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."

How Arguments Against Gay Marriage Mirror Those Against Miscegenation - The Wire

Good lord:

That was prior to the SC ruling.

It says NOTHING about how, when you REMOVE THE LIMITING factors of one man to one women, how the number simply isn't arbitrary!

The number was 2 prior to loving and after loving as that was the minimum number required to procreate.

Tell me, what is the minimum number of same sex individuals required to procreate?
.

Loving didn't care about procreation or limiting marriage to 1 man and 1 woman. What Loving said was that Americans have a right to marriage regardless of the race of their spouse. Just as Obergefall said that Americans have a right to marriage regardless of the gender of their spouse.

You either have an argument against sibling marriage and polygamous marriage or you don't.

And that is your problem not ours.

If it did not, then the number is arbitrary.

So which is it, it's arbitrary and polygamy is legal. Or

It is not and procreation was important?

 

[Pop23]

You realize that you are talking corporate entities that are representing thousands of investors and parties right?

Perhaps you missed it, but corporations are people.

You can only narrowly define this by excluding the procreation ability of one demographic group, then flip that to include the inability to procreate by the other. ARBITRARY.

That is one of the most asinine things that has ever been said in the whole same sex marriage debate. And there's been alot of stupid shit said. Before you attempt to wade any deeper into exploring legal matters, you need to gain a basic education first. Right now, your arguments are the equivalent of magnetic poetry.

I did notice you didn't include the section of my post that reduced your Super Bowl contract argument out of the water.

So I'll ask again. What law prohibits a third, forth or fifth party from being a party to the contract?

 

[Pop23]

Homosexuality is not a mental perversion. It appears in ever race, colour and creed throughout history, and in animal world as well.

It's as natural for gays to be attracted to their same sex as it is for straights to be attracted to the opposite sex.

It is not in the animal kingdom. Some daffy homosexual conned someone into paying for a grant and he came back shouting he had proof animals can be homosexual, the problem is he had no proof, no video, nothing. You clowns confuse what they call alpha male with homosexuality. Before you shout, bitch and moan be prepared to provide video proof of animals of the same sex mating. Word of warning: it doesn't exist.

I wonder if they understand that Males are not monogamous by nature? Marriage was an attempt to bring order to that.

If we are going to bring nature into this, realize that monogamy is so against nature, some male animals will kill the young of the female so she will go into heat faster so he can breed her again.

 

[Pop23]

"It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."

How Arguments Against Gay Marriage Mirror Those Against Miscegenation - The Wire

The number now is irrelevant whe you remove PROCREATION. The number is arbitrary and nonsensical.

Your lack of understanding of the law- and of the Supreme Courts decision is not our problem.

Your lacking however is out business

 

[Pop23]

We're not pushing anything, fucktard. We're just echoing the exact same bullshit arguments you've been giving, with "same sex" replaced by "polygamous" or "incestuous". Unlike you, WE are actually bright enough to construct an argument we don't necessarily hold with for the intellectual purpose of playing devil's advocate. Not everyone does their thinking with their glands.

Yes- you fucking idiots are pushing discrimination- and you are deliberately using the straw man of incestuous marriage and polygamy because you are fucking bigots who lost your battle to continue to discriminate against homosexuals- and you still haven't even figured out why.

Just as mixed race marriage bans are not the same as gay marriage bans are not the same as incestuous marriage bans are not the same as polygamous marriage bans.

Unlike you- we can tell the difference.

Unlike you- we understand the legal distinctions.

And unlike you- we don't spend our time fantasizing how other people have sex- or care.

Then post the legal distinction with the sound reasonable argument.

Geez, like pulling teeth

Why?

I am enjoying watching you idiots flounder around.

You are against couples marrying if they happen to be gay- but you couldn't come up with an argument any better than "Its icky".

You are against sibling marriage- but the only argument you seem to be able to think of is 'birth defects'- but as I have pointed out- States resolved that issue with First Cousins marrying by requiring them to prove that they could not bear children. So the States don't believe that argument either.

You are against polygamy- for some reason- so far it appears to be that your argument against polygamy is once again 'its icky'

The State's have laws against sibling marriage and polygamy- if they are as clueless as you are as to why they think they should be illegal then that will be a problem for the State.

Please post the finding in which same sex siblings have ever produced a child , defective or not, then please share the compelling governmental interest to deny closely related same sex couples from marrying?

I can't come up with a single one. You?

Try sharing it if you actually have one. Using procreation as the reason is stupid and goes against SSM.

Why?

I am enjoying watching you idiots flounder around.

You are against couples marrying if they happen to be gay- but you couldn't come up with an argument any better than "Its icky".

You are against sibling marriage- but the only argument you seem to be able to think of is 'birth defects'- but as I have pointed out- States resolved that issue with First Cousins marrying by requiring them to prove that they could not bear children. So the States don't believe that argument either.

You are against polygamy- for some reason- so far it appears to be that your argument against polygamy is once again 'its icky'

The State's have laws against sibling marriage and polygamy- if they are as clueless as you are as to why they think they should be illegal then that will be a problem for the State

Heterosexuals would need to prove sterility for a reason, same sex would not for a reason.

Homosexuals now have easier and therefor greater access to marriage.

Bizarre

 

[Seawytch]

Gays put themselves in their own quandary. I agree with Deltex, civil unions were good enough, give them the benefits of marriage but leave traditional marriage alone. It's all part of them wanting to appear normal.

FatIrishSow in 1950.

"Coloreds put themselves in their own position. I agree with George Wallace, separate Water Fountains were good enough, give them the benefits of water but leave white people's water alone. It's all part of them wanting to appear normal".

Stop trying to compare the plights of blacks to a mental perversion. Homosexuality is a NOT a race. And grow up, child.

But darlin', we're not comparing race to sexual orientation. We're comparing racist bigots to anti gay bigots. There's little to no space between those.

 

[bodecea]

Gay men cannot have children. They have to depend on lesbians child-trafficking (after they've had sex with a man) to get the boys they want to adopt.

That post pretty much sums up your ignorance on gays, gay marriage, and gays having children.