quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: BTW, who is "light" an alt for, if it is one? Does anybody recognize a pattern here?
It does seem kind of peculiar, yet doesn't read like someone else's posting style.
Leaving God and religion completely out of it, my concern about gay marriage is far more simple. If you allow gay marriage, you have to allow every other type of marriage. If not aren't you discriminating against people that have other types of alternative lifestyles?
I recall answering this concern for you in some detail the last time you raised it. You ignored me, clearly. I have no interest in batting the same ball of yarn again. You are quickly running out of credit with me, and I suspect many others here, by playing that particular game. It doesnītīmake you look very honest.
I really don't give a damn if I have any credit with you, because it is impossible to have a discussion with you. You frame most of your posts the same way.
Beginning: Insult the person you disagree with
Middle: Either dismiss the other persons post completely or tell them that they are wrong
End: Insult them again
I would LOVE to have a discussion with you without you resorting to attacks or insults.
I'll let you in on a secret. If you insult people, eventually they stop reading whatever you have to say. I've come into threads and seen a response you have written and just skipped it because I know I will just get angry from the insults.
That being said, I do recall the thread you are referring to but cannot find it to read what you posted. If you don't mind linking me the thread I would be happy to read it and respond.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you allow gay marriage, you have to allow every other type of marriage.
This is only true if your rationale for allowing same-sex marriage is "any declaration of marriage between any combination of things should be valid." It's perfectly possible to believe, for example, that same-sex marriage, opposite-sex marriage, and polygynous marriage should be permitted, but polyandrous marriage should not -- depending on the rationales justifying each.
^
It is pretty easy to maintain a standard of something, like, "Only marriage between consenting adults."
As fun as it is to go for the scare tactic of asserting that allowing gay marriage necessarily means opening the floodgates for allowing 13 year old harem girls and dolphins into marriages, it's pretty d.o.a.!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Destineer, while I am not qualified to set forth all the features and limits of Divine Justice, it seems likely that God will show favor as much as He can, without leaving Himself open to being accused of bribing people to be faithful to Him.
On a local scale, such as the "street" I mentioned, God would have much more freedom to intervene without compromising His overall purposes. As for a city or larger population area, we have at least the example of Sodom, where Abraham pleaded with God to spare the city, because his nephew Lot lived there with his family:
quote: And Abraham came near and said, "Would You also destroy the righteous with the wicked? "Suppose there were fifty righteous within the city; would You also destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous that were in it? "Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"So the Lord said, "If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes." Then Abraham answered and said, "Indeed now, I who am but dust and ashes have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord: "Suppose there were five less than the fifty righteous; would You destroy all of the city for lack of five?" So He said, "If I find there forty-five, I will not destroy it." And he spoke to Him yet again and said, "Suppose there should be forty found there?" So He said, "I will not do it for the sake of forty." Then he said, "Let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Suppose thirty should be found there?" So He said, "I will not do it if I find thirty there." And he said, "Indeed now, I have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord: Suppose twenty should be found there?" So He said, "I will not destroy it for the sake of twenty." Then he said, "Let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak but once more: Suppose ten should be found there?" And He said, "I will not destroy it for the sake of ten."--Genesis 18:23-32; NKJV
As it turned out, God apparently found less than ten righteous men in Sodom. But He sent His angels to lead Lot and his wife and two daughters out of Sodom before it was destroyed by fire out of the sky. Lot's wife disobeyed God's command not to look back, and she lost her deliverance. So only Lot and his two daughters survived.
Will being faithful to God ensure that you never suffer calamity? No. Again, that would leave God open to the charge that He was bribing people to be faithful to Him. But just the same, God will surely bend every limit He can to spare as many as He can.
The Bible speaks of something called the "cup" of God's wrath. (For example, see Psalms 78:5; Rev. 18:6, 7.) There is a limit to God's patience. When the limit of the cup is reached, God's patience ends, and just punishment must come. Rebels against God become emboldened when He does not punish them immediately for their rebellion and acts of persecution against those who remain faithful to Him. But God defers His just punishments only because they are so terrible, and He wants to give everyone who might repent a chance to do so. When the cup is full, Justice will be done, and punishment will fall.
[ January 31, 2011, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you allow gay marriage, you have to allow every other type of marriage.
This is only true if your rationale for allowing same-sex marriage is "any declaration of marriage between any combination of things should be valid." It's perfectly possible to believe, for example, that same-sex marriage, opposite-sex marriage, and polygynous marriage should be permitted, but polyandrous marriage should not -- depending on the rationales justifying each.
Right, but removing religion and morals from the equation completely, what makes one type of marriage ok but another? What are the rationales?
Is there a tipping point that says "After X% of people believe in the US believe a certain type of marriage is socially acceptable, we will change the definition of marriage to extend the benefits to the group of people that believe in that type of marriage?"
If that is the case, then I am FINE with it. If there is enough support for it, then by all means let it be legal.
The LGBT agenda though is using the discrimination argument. Using the argument that it is human rights and discrimination issue is a poor way to argue your point unless you are open to allowing all kinds of marriages.
This is the way I am seeing it unfold:
People that believe in traditional marriage are saying, "Marriage is ok for us but not for anyone else!"
People that believe in gay marriage are saying "Marriage is ok for those of the same sex too, but not for those that believe in polygamy, polyandry, or any other type of non-traditional marriage."
A guy named Joe in Australia said a few weeks ago, "Screw all of you, I'm going to marry my dog."
posted
For the record, there are other non-traditional marriage structures I might support, but they are so far removed for what could potentially pass congress right now that I'm leaving that fight for a future generation. I suspect some portion of LBGT supporters feel the same way.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lot with one "t," Geraine. The Bible always tells the truth about people, even about those ultimately judged as faithful. No one was worse than King David, who committed murder and adultery. But when Nathan the prophet confronted him with the truth of how God saw what he had done, David gave in to conviction and repented. See Pslams 51. In this David was an example for sinners to heed.
In defense of Lot's daughters, they were concerned that with his wife gone, he would have no one to continue his line. This did not excuse what they did, but at least what they did was out of concern for their father. By the way, the Biblical record is that the daughters deliberately got Lot so drunk that he did not know what he was doing.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The morals of society are almost always informed by religion, Tom. That is why some atheists have admitted they oppose religion--because it tends to restrict their sexual freedom (Aldous Huxley said that). Link: http://www.facingthechallenge.org/huxley.phpPosts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Although I'm on the same side of the same-sex marriage debate, I'm a little startled at the immediate dogpiling here. Maybe everyone was already keyed up from arguing with Ron and lashed out? Or are we just too tired of this argument to welcome anyone new to it?
Could be that her referring to the relationships of people that I hold dear as "gross and disgusting", her actively working to deny them their rights, and her perversion of my faith got my back up.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Destineer, while I am not qualified to set forth all the features and limits of Divine Justice, it seems likely that God will show favor as much as He can, without leaving Himself open to being accused of bribing people to be faithful to Him.
If he helps even a few people, isn't that a sort of bribery? You're saying that joining the community of the faithful reduces my chances of dying in a natural disaster. Isn't that (among other things) a way of giving me a worldly incentive to believe? What more would it take for this to count as a bribe?
quote:Will being faithful to God ensure that you never suffer calamity? No. Again, that would leave God open to the charge that He was bribing people to be faithful to Him.
Why is that? If you always protect your friends from harm, does that leave you open to the charge that you're bribing people to be your friends?
That's not what I'd call bribery, it's just being a good guy.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The morals of society are almost always informed by religion, Tom. That is why some atheists have admitted they oppose religion--because it tends to restrict their sexual freedom (Aldous Huxley said that). Link: http://www.facingthechallenge.org/huxley.php
What an example to choose. Do you really think that is representative?
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having heard the "I was drunk, it isn't my fault" card played a few times too often (including rape) I would say, if you can't handle your liquor, don't drink. I'm drunk doesn't give a pass in my mind.
As for rights, I will admit, I had a hard time seeing why this was being framed as a rights issue for a while. I was in favor of SSM, but against the argument. However, I have had several discussions that have changed my mind.
First, a civil right is one that society has decided on. In our society, our supreme court has stated that government sanctioning of marriage is a right. This was over the southern states refusing to recognize interracial marriages. Having established this as a right, in order for the state to not recognize a marriage, it must demonstrate a legitimate reason. So,let's look at a few couple: Adam and Eve, Joe and Jane, Jack and Jill, Bubba and Spot and Steve and Bill.
1) Adam and Eve. Adam has been snipped, Eve had a histerectomy. Do w allow them to wed? Well, in current society, yes we do. We believe marriage is about more than baby making and love is what matters. And they could adopt. So, we let them marry as society. 2) Joe and Jane- Jane is 13, Joe 50. Do we let them marry? As a society a major goal is protecting children. In accordance with that goal, we deny this marriage. Furthermore, marriage is a contract and we do not allow children to enter into numerous contracts because they lack the cognitive ability to consent. Therefore, we reject this marriage until Jane is old enough to enter into a formal contract. 3)Jack and Jill- they are siblings. As a society, we question the ability of these two to make a decision without coercion. We don't really trust that they both chose this. Contracts must be entered into without force in our society. Furthermore, there is reason to believe that this marriage would lead to a less physically healthy society (hemophilia in the royal line of europe being an example of this). So, we can look at this marriage and eject it, even if Jack and Jill were sterile. 4)Bubba and Spot. Spot is Bubba's dog. A dog cannot consent to any contract in our society. So, we can reject it right there. Furthermore, having sex with a dog, married or not, is not legal since it is abuse. 5) Steve and Bill- Steve and bill are both 25, both have good income, full mental facilities and have hired a surrugate to carry a child for them. For what reason can we reject this couple? They are both capable of entering into a contract, them having sex is not illegal. There is no issue of abuse. No matter how you look at it, the only difference between them and Adam and Eve is that bill is male. We have decided that "he's a boy" is not a good enough reason to deny someone a right. So, until we come up with a better reason than he is a boy, we cannot forbid this marriage. And yes, he can't have a baby on his own, but neither can Adam and Eve in this scenario. Lastly, what about Rachel, Leah and Isreal? Well, this contract gives 100% rights to one other person (like if Leah is in a car accident and is dying, the person she is married to gets to make decisions). So, now we need to determine a new structure- does rachel get a 50% medical decision making ability, Isreal 50% and the court breaks ties? If Leah has a kid by Isreal, does rachel get 33% rights? Clearly the current contract does not answer these questions. Perhaps it could be modified to answer these questions, but right now, the contract is a 2person deal.
Now let's say you still don't consider that argument a reason. Steve and Bill can go marry chicks, they dont need to marry each other (which I disagree with but let's assume that you won't change that viewpoint). In our example, Steve and Bill hired a surrogate and have a baby. Genetically, it is Bill's. Steve is working, Bill is full time stay at home dad. Steve's company says, nope, no health care for baby. Nope, if you die, baby doesn't get inheritence automatically. Social security, nope, not for you. Baby is at a disadvantage in life compared to adam and eve's adopted baby. Why is BabyEve given rights BabySteve isn't? BabyEve made no different choice than BabySteve. So, why is the government treating them differrently? The fact that BabySteve's parents are gay is not a fair justificaation for denying him the same privelages (such as inheritence, social security,etc) as are given to BabyEve. Even if BabySteve's parents are evil sinners, that does not justify the disadvantages society is putting on BabySteve.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
LIGHT, please limit your blanket statements about the Christian faith to your personal understanding of the Christian faith. Not all of agree with you or care to be lumped in with your generalities.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Having heard the "I was drunk, it isn't my fault" card played a few times too often (including rape) I would say, if you can't handle your liquor, don't drink
Even if it's just with your daughters?
Brick Testament has a great portrayal of Lot's seduction, by the way:
posted
LIGHT, it is a common mistake to assume that all the members of a particular religion believe the same things. Most of us need to be reminded now and again.
As far as your opinions on homosexuality are concerned, I think that you have a lot of misinformation. TO start. But that is a longer conversation.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: BTW, who is "light" an alt for, if it is one? Does anybody recognize a pattern here?
He reads a lot like Week-Dead Possum, to me.
That a joke? This is Ori, I just use WD to show Iīm on my mobile, thus my answers are short, and usually I have harder time editing. I donīt use sock puppets. Everybody who wants to know knows this is me.
Eta: the apostrophes give it away, because my keypad doesnīt have them, because it isnīt in English, so I do īthisī.
Posts: 79 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scolarette, You are absolutely correct that we don't demand couples be fertile, but its also worth noting that we don't even require that they love each other either. We do not require that their relationship is sexual in nature. We don't require that they cohabit. If a man a woman choose to marry solely for financial or legal benefits, its completely legal. All the law actually demands is that they pay the appropriate fees and agree to the legal contract and that the marriage isn't solely to circumvent immigration laws (and maybe the 5th amendment thing).
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: BTW, who is "light" an alt for, if it is one? Does anybody recognize a pattern here?
It does seem kind of peculiar, yet doesn't read like someone else's posting style.
Leaving God and religion completely out of it, my concern about gay marriage is far more simple. If you allow gay marriage, you have to allow every other type of marriage. If not aren't you discriminating against people that have other types of alternative lifestyles?
I recall answering this concern for you in some detail the last time you raised it. You ignored me, clearly. I have no interest in batting the same ball of yarn again. You are quickly running out of credit with me, and I suspect many others here, by playing that particular game. It doesnītīmake you look very honest.
I really don't give a damn if I have any credit with you, because it is impossible to have a discussion with you. You frame most of your posts the same way.
Beginning: Insult the person you disagree with
Middle: Either dismiss the other persons post completely or tell them that they are wrong
End: Insult them again
That being said, I do recall the thread you are referring to but cannot find it to read what you posted. If you don't mind linking me the thread I would be happy to read it and respond.
I should do your homework for you... Why? I read your posts, as awful as they can be. Too bad you canīt bring yourself to read mine. Iīm the one doing the quality thinking here, between you and me.
Posts: 79 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I honestly think the best thing you could do in order to expand your perspective is get to know some happy gay people, LIGHT.
It is difficult - when you are taught that homosexuality is sinful and depraved - to imagine how it seems to people with different beliefs. That other people don't really seem to care can seem like evidence of depravity or lack of morals.
I find it useful to consider that within the religious community of beliefs such as yours, gay people are often tortured by shame, and this can manifest itself in ways that can easily be viewed as proof that the sin of gay sex itself corrupts the basic goodness of the person [and indeed, there is truth to this idea in that context, but the basic correctness of that context is pretty crucial, and I probably believe differently from you on that point]. This is oversimplifying, but I think it is often somewhat true*:
1) Person is taught that homosexuality is evil. 2) Person realizes homosexual tendencies. 3) Person struggles to "repent" and believes deep down that their gay tendencies are a mark of bad character. 4) Failure to cure themselves of gay tendencies leads to deep shame. 5) Person may slip up and commit what they believe are grave sexual sins. 6) Misery and shame over mortal sin may cause the individual to act out in other ways, such as drug use, or obsessing over sex to the detriment of other behaviors that would make them more successful.
Among those more successfully adherent, this can look like evidence that sinning in this manner causes one to become a basically worse person.
However, if you remove #1, the rest needn't follow. (From the faith-based community you are part of, you can also conclude that repentance would have been a viable solution to the problem[s], but this about learning to appreciate a different context. )
If you get to know well adjusted gay people, you will learn that though they might be doing things you consider gravely sinful and against God's will, they are often ALSO paying taxes, doing charity, being good friends and neighbors, raising happy children...i.e. contributing positively to society. It makes it easier to understand that the some of the consequences you thought inhered to the sin might actually be a result of very human - and therefore very flawed - institutions.
*Of course, it's not always true. I know of cases where the person was pretty successfully adherent until they finally realized they no longer believed the same things, which provided the freedom to openly embrace their sexual orientation. Sadly I think the more pathological pattern I described above is quite common, although thankfully not totally inescapable.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I should do your homework for you... Why? I read your posts, as awful as they can be. Too bad you canīt bring yourself to read mine. Iīm the one doing the quality thinking here, between you and me.
Even though I am very likely to agree with whatever you posted in the specified post, you're still being a jerk.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I honestly think the best thing you could do in order to expand your perspective is get to know some happy gay people, LIGHT.
It is difficult - when you are taught that homosexuality is sinful and depraved - to imagine how it seems to people with different beliefs. That other people don't really seem to care can seem like evidence of depravity or lack of morals.
I find it useful to consider that within the religious community of beliefs such as yours, gay people are often tortured by shame, and this can manifest itself in ways that can easily be viewed as proof that the sin of gay sex itself corrupts the basic goodness of the person [and indeed, there is truth to this idea in that context, but the basic correctness of that context is pretty crucial, and I probably believe differently from you on that point]. This is oversimplifying, but I think it is often somewhat true*:
1) Person is taught that homosexuality is evil. 2) Person realizes homosexual tendencies. 3) Person struggles to "repent" and believes deep down that their gay tendencies are a mark of bad character. 4) Failure to cure themselves of gay tendencies leads to deep shame. 5) Person may slip up and commit what they believe are grave sexual sins. 6) Misery and shame over mortal sin may cause the individual to act out in other ways, such as drug use, or obsessing over sex to the detriment of other behaviors that would make them more successful.
Among those more successfully adherent, this can look like evidence that sinning in this manner causes one to become a basically worse person.
However, if you remove #1, the rest needn't follow. (From the faith-based community you are part of, you can also conclude that repentance would have been a viable solution to the problem[s], but this about learning to appreciate a different context. )
If you get to know well adjusted gay people, you will learn that though they might be doing things you consider gravely sinful and against God's will, they are often ALSO paying taxes, doing charity, being good friends and neighbors, raising happy children...i.e. contributing positively to society. It makes it easier to understand that the some of the consequences you thought inhered to the sin might actually be a result of very human - and therefore very flawed - institutions.
*Of course, it's not always true. I know of cases where the person was pretty successfully adherent until they finally realized they no longer believed the same things, which provided the freedom to openly embrace their sexual orientation. Sadly I think the more pathological pattern I described above is quite common, although thankfully not totally inescapable.
īI like your style dude...ī
Posts: 79 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's no way I can know what will make you happiest, Light, but I confess it makes me feel a little sad that you struggle so. I hope you find the accommodation between desires and beliefs that you need.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by LIGHT: So more than anything else, a civil marriage is simply a union for accounting and census purposes, and really nothing more than that... Is that right?
No. a civil marriage accomplishes a large number of the same social objectives that a religious marriage does, minus the religion. Some people, myself included, believe that there are significant social benefits to the extension of civil marriage to homosexual couples. Marriage has been around longer than Christianity, is not practiced exclusively in Christianity, nor was it created for the purposes of Christians, nor do the Christian views of marriage in actual fact define the term or institution. So removing marriage, legally, from a religious context is not in fact co-opting anything, nor stripping anything from the concept of marriage, other than the specific religious traditions of Christians. As a democratic society, we cannot and must not actively preference the traditions of Christians or any other religion when it comes to matters of civil rights. Marriage is a civil right. Should homosexuals become fully recognized as a protected legal class in this country (meaning for your purposes, that they are protected against alienation of civil rights in the same ways that the individual sexes are), the right for them to marry will become a reality, in the same way that the rights of women to own property, to work, to vote, and to protect their reproductive rights have become reality. I hope it does.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
LIGHT, for some people (St. Augustine for example) sex is an unhealthy thing. They are not capable of experiencing it in a healthy way that brings them closer to God. This is not very many people. Some people could experience sex in a healthy way but they have been conditioned by church, family, society to regard normal, healthy sexuality as bad. Sometimes they never get over this. Others can manage to understand sexuality as a blessing and a sacrament - a conduit of God's grace and one of God's greatest gifts. With or without the added blessing of procreation. Too often, we approach sexuality as though everyone is in the first group when this is simply not so. And you may well be in that first group. I suspect that you are in the second (because that is the case for so many people), but I don't know you. Whichever is the case, I hope you can recognize that there are plenty of people in the last group, including people who are gay.
Edit to add: This may be a good place to insert a reminder that some Christian denominations do celebrate marriage between same-sex couples.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit- you are correct. Technically, marriage does not require love, sex or cohabitation, unless you are immigrating. In a more extended conversation, immigration rights do come up with regard to gay marriage. I have a close friend who was in love but visa ran out and while they were willing to move to be together, immigration issues made that almost impossible, so the immgration rules are a factor in my thinking.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
LIGHT, would you vote for jail sentences for Sabbath breakers? To keep people who fail to honor their parents out of the military? Would you have rape victims stoned? There is as much scriptural weight for those positions as there is for yours.
Do you think that Muslims are right in choosing Sharia law? Would you care to live under such a system if they were in the majority? Remember that their motivations and religious zeal are as pure as yours and their convictions held as firmly.
I think that, should you examine your conscience on those issues, you may come to more of an understanding of how you can support civil rights while not participating in something you feel is wrong.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Light, I think everyone is happy that you take the effort to go into a voting booth and vote your conscience. If you can't vote for gay marriage, at least you won't be tempted to physically block others from doing so, nor will you see them as "Evil" or "The Enemy". Just as we hope those that vote for gay marriage won't condemn you for your vote.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by LIGHT: Thanks, Chris. Yes, I actually did forget to include that whole part about how there are good, contributing members of the community that do happen to embrace a homosexual lifestyle. Like I said, I don't hate the people. Perhaps hate is too strong of a word. Maybe the better word is 'reject'. I can't abide sexual sin. If it comes into my life, I get rid of it to every extent that I can. Same goes for every other sin. I don't ever reject the people, or at least I try my hardest not to, but everyone has their bad moments, right?
I apologize for being antagonistic. It's not even that I was "coming off" as antagonistic--I really was. I don't know what got into me. I think I have some serious issues to deal with. Sin has given me so much crud over the past several years that my resolve against it has grown rather hard, and that can reveal itself in fairly hostile ways--as you all saw earlier. So I do sincerely apologize.
How do you combat evil in your life without becoming evil yourself? How is it done?
I think the first step is to recognize that sin is a personal and private issue, not a matter of public policy. Unless other people are engaging in sex acts with you, their "sins" have nothing to do with you. You can choose sexual purity even if everyone in your community is engaging in wanton, lascivious, sinful sex. Their sins are between them and God, not you and them. That's what Jesus meant when he taught "Judge not, that ye be not judged".
Once you internalize that, "Love the sinner, hate the sin" doesn't even make real sense because you don't hate sin, you avoid sinning. And a major part of avoiding sinning is loving everyone and refraining from judging them.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
LIGHT, I understand. Your religion requires that you believe what your prophets tell you. I get that you do not wish to let go of that. I am not asking you to do that though there are some that (happily) do.
But try and balance that belief about what is not okay for you to do with a government that allows religious freedom. There is no more reason to vote against equal rights than there is to vote for a ban on cola.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I figured I'd jump on the bandwagon and join the new members... now's as good a time as any, and I've been lurking for a while.
Personally, I think that opposing gay marriage goes against what Christianity is fundamentally about. To me, Christ and Christianity is about living in a loving way. And if two homosexual partners love each other and want to get married, I think that's a beautiful thing and a very Christian thing.
Also, I don't believing in God or faith precludes a degree of reason when it comes to society and its laws. I think that a conscience is a God-given, God-created thing, and mine says (very loudly) that the current state of affairs, in which gays are not allowed to marry, is wrong. It's not fair to those who are gay, and neither is it fair to their children (as scholarette already said).
LIGHT, your religious choices are your own. Not drinking tea or coffee doesn't make sense to me, but if you believe in it, then by all means don't drink them. But not condoning homosexuality and spreading this kind of alarmist rhetoric actively hurts other people. And personally, I think that if you're conflicted about this issue yourself, you shouldn't be opposing same-sex marriage this vehemently.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
:snort: If you eliminated all the vehement same-sex marriage opposition that was coming from deeply conflicted sources, there wouldn't be very much of it.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
LIGHT, I am watching with interest to see if your continual apologizing, etc., gets you anywhere with this crowd. I expect that they will only interpret it as weakness.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by LIGHT: What I am conflicted about is how to portray this resolve without angering everyone on this board. That's a kind of sensitive subject, as I've discovered. So no, I'm not conflicted about the issue so much as I'm conflicted about the delivery.
You have to know what it is that's 'angering' people. If it's your delivery, then changing the deliver will help. If it's the actual position you hold, then it doesn't matter how you deliver it.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually respect Light's argument, don't agree, but respect it. She admits it comes down to her religious philosophy, I can deal with that.
Ron is trying to give political reasoning, that his rights would be infringed. That just doesn't hold up. His rights aren't infringed during any other "godless" ceremony (courthouse ceremonies) or interfaith ceremonies.
I agree with what others have said, let all non-religious marriages be called civil unions.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: LIGHT, I am watching with interest to see if your continual apologizing, etc., gets you anywhere with this crowd. I expect that they will only interpret it as weakness.
What, compared to cowardice?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: LIGHT, I am watching with interest to see if your continual apologizing, etc., gets you anywhere with this crowd. I expect that they will only interpret it as weakness.
And I sincerely hope, it allows for good discourse to take place. Don't you?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I am conflicted about is how to portray this resolve without angering everyone on this board.
Implying that the desire of homosexuals to marry is selfish and destructive won't win you many friends, true. But I think you've already hit the point where you've acknowledged that that opinion is a post-facto justification for the commandments you've decided to obey, and not something you've confident is true.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
LIGHT, I appreciate that you want to be considerate and polite but there just isn't a nice way to deny people equal rights.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
LIGHT- I am trying to post without violating TOS so if I go out of line, I apologize and will edit or delete whatever needs to be. In our religion, we believe the prophet can be wrong. We accept that certain statements of Brigham Young can be ignored because they were made by the man, not the office. At the time, which of those statements were doctrine and which are personal was not clear. Now, we can basically ignore all of the crazy racist crap because it was not added to the D&C. So, in modern days, we have a prophet who said some stuff regarding a politcal bill. He specifically stated that you can vote as you wish with no negative consequences. The closest thing we have to official doctrine on this issue is the proclamation on the family, which does not address specific bills. Also, when an apostle referred to the potf as doctrine at general conference, it was specifically changed from doctrine to guideline before the talk was published, leaving many members doubting the potf's place in LDS canon. So simply stating that your religion says vote this way is a copout. If you have prayed and received confirmation, I really can't argue with that.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
I agree with what others have said, let all non-religious marriages be called civil unions.
Works for me. And for gay religious Americans, there are churches that will marry same-sex couples.
I am curious, and this directed to Light and others on that side of the issue, is it key that a marriage be "between a man and a woman" or that it is "Christian sacrament between a man and a woman?" I've never heard an anti SSM person voice the opinion that a non-Christian (for example, Hindu or atheist) marriage is less valid than a Christian marriage. Is a Wiccan male-female marriage preferable to a male-male Christan marriage? The whole "my Christian God said..." argument seems to be focusing rather oddly on the gender rather than the faith. Not that I want Cheistians fighting to invalidate non-Christian marriages, but it makes me wonder.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For what it's worth, LIGHT, your care taken in getting more specific and ackowledging other points of view, I've got respect for that proportional to the amount I think you care about the issue overall, which is obviously a great deal.
I'm on the mobile now, but I didn't want you to think Ron's 'suggestion' was accurate. It ain't, for me at least. Can't speak for everyone.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
During that time period I went to my stake president and told him I would not be willing to vote againt SSM (during a temple interview). He said church was not requiring that of members and there was the day after the vote a statement issued reminding everyone that they should vote their conscious and there were to be no negative repurcussions for voting in favor of SSM.
My point was more that we have a responsibility to seek out personal revelation and confirmation. Our moral duty does not end when the prophet speaks. We mst get confirmation for ourselves.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: My point was more that we have a responsibility to seek out personal revelation and confirmation. Our moral duty does not end when the prophet speaks. We mst get confirmation for ourselves.
how do you reconcile that with the belief that a prophet acts as the mouthpiece of god?
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by LIGHT: We have access to that kind of personalized guidance--given by the prophet to the masses, yet confirmed on the individual level.
individualy confirmed or not, does it not stand as the word of god? what im saying is, it doesnt become god's will once you accept it, right?
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, LIGHT, in response to your attempts to be more civil, perhaps I can pop in more:
How to phrase this? There are several important things you need to understand.
The first is that homosexuality is not a choice, at least not for most people. I, for example, never chose to be heterosexual. I just was. I find girls attractive, and I never once had to make an attempt to make that true. It simply was. I couldn't become gay if I wanted to. I mean, I could partake in the physical acts, of course, but they would be at best unpleasant.
Now, is it a leap to say that homosexuals are the same way? Not really, when they describe something very similar to my own experiences -but with the same sex, instead of the opposite sex.
Now, can people actually go from gay to straight? In all practical matters, no. They can force themselves in straight relationships, just as I could conceivably force myself into a homosexual relationship. But that won't stop the fact that they are no more attracted to their partner than I would be any other guy, even an apparently attractive one.
But if they can do that, why do I say they cannot change? Because I've seen the effects of the attempts firsthand. At very best, the methods attempted result in willful celibacy, or in the case of bisexuals, who are attracted to both sexes, merely not being with a subset of the people they're attracted to. I've also seen what they do in some of those "ex-gay ministries" and found that they really aren't effective. I could send links, if you want.
More importantly, I have seen friends struggle with this first hand. I have seen good, pure, innocent people that I love come to me begging me to help them change. I have seen those same people, pure and innocent and good beyond measure, broken by people like you. I have seen the destruction your beliefs cause firsthand. Standing as I am within the fallout of splintered hearts and the radiating despair of those I love, I cannot accept the price your belief asks.
And more on topic, I have seen, to a degree that is beyond questioning, that no amount of faith can change basic human nature. You are attracted to who you are attracted to. You can make good decisions about individuals, you can act with prudence, but you can't just decide one day to like the same sex anymore than you can switch it off. You can avoid it, you can fight against it, and you can certainly be celibate, but you can't just switch something like that off, anymore than I can switch off attraction to the opposite sex.
So, that's my view. I can get more into it, but I assure you, faith doesn't change you that way. God doesn't just magic it away. If He did, then the people I love would certainly have never turned out gay in the first place. After all, they "knew" it was wrong, they believed it wholeheartedly.
But when they felt it anyway, through no fault of their own, their response was fear. Anguish. Self-destructive guilt and all-encompassing shame. This over something basic to who they were. Something that didn't harm anybody, not even themselves! To watch this happen, and ultimately be unable to help because the influence of those who believe like you did trapped this girl I loved dearly as though in a cage, is something that I will never forgive myself for.
I've been down that road. No amount of faith talk, no amount of belief to the contrary, will change this anymore than it will change the gravity which holds this whole world together.
Now, you also said to me that I shouldn't box homosexuals into a life without hope, in response to asking you how you'd feel if the same happened to you.
Well, I suggest you think more on how you'd feel if people did to you what you intend to do to others. My point was not that homosexuals are trapped in a hopeless situation, but that you needed to use the empathy that Christ himself asked you to use (You are aware of where I took "do unto others as you would have done to you", right?) to realize why what you are doing is hurtful.
The only suffering homosexuals would feel is the suffering you would impose on them. If it seems like suffering to not be able to marry those who you love, because you are told it is a sin... then maybe you shouldn't do it to others.
So: Homosexuals can't change anymore than you or I can, check. Reiterating my point on empathy, and not treating others the way you wouldn't want to be treated, check. What else did I want to explain? Oh yes, the humanity part, along with the whole "sin" part.
I know you said you regret speaking in such a manner, at least in part because you don't want to make people like me angry. I understand that. It's easy to get heated, and I wish we could have this discussion in person instead, because I could work to make you comfortable, and not sound as antagonistic as I probably am.
However: That hyperbole about questioning your humanity is definitely something to shy away from.
Now: About the whole "sin" thing. You've stated why you believe it, the same reason you won't drink tea or coffee. You said you have been told, and believe it because you believe it is from God, through the prophets.
However, and this won't change your mind, but ask yourself: What harm are they causing? What harm does a happy family with two women and a couple of children cause? What damage does two consenting adults deciding to marry do to your life? What physical manifestation of this tainting sin is there in the world?
If sin destroys the public good, then what part of the public good is destroyed, specifically, by two men loving each other the way a man and a woman do?
What is my friend, who wanted so damn badly to not love another girl, doing to harm this world by feeling this in spite of herself? What damage would be done if she accepted her feelings and actually felt happy?
For homosexuals can be happy in the same way heterosexuals can, and unhappy in the same ways. There's no difference there. Relationships are relationships, there are good ones and bad ones, and which bits you have don't change that. You can have happy same-sex relationships. I've seen them. You can have happy, normal same-sex families, with children thriving no less than in the household of a married man and woman. I've seen this, too.
Let me reiterate: The only harm here is the demonstrable harm people cause by telling these people "your feelings are sinful. You must change. I will not let you marry the person you love, and if you do anything ELSE with them I will be nearly as disgusted."
Do you realize what an effect that has on a human psyche? Do you realize what pain the message causes? I've seen it. If you could only see it too. Maybe it wouldn't change your mind on what God said. But it would help you to understand the consequences of your actions.
Let me be clear: I don't want to attack or insult you. I've probably failed, but I hope you forgive me for that. I am being passionate here, because it matters to me. Because this has affected me. Because for me, the pain of true friends affects me more strongly than my own pain. You are not an enemy. You are not someone I wish to dislike. You have shown some integrity, both in sticking to your position, and to concern that you have insulted others. I hope now you have some stronger sense of where I'm coming from.
Now, speaking as, not a friend but a normal fellow poster with passionate opinions on a matter:
You speak of sexual temptation being a huge battle for you. I'm sorry for that. It's concerning, because it's never good to see someone struggling so strongly with someone.
Naturally, I would not suggest you do something rash, such as hopping into bed with the nearest cutie, or even premarital sex at all: But sexual desire is something fundamental to the human drive. It's something wired in. And for good reason! If we didn't feel it so strongly, and if we didn't enjoy it so much in its own right, we probably wouldn't go to the trouble at all, considering the costs.
If you feel attraction to people, that's not something to feel bad about. What's bad is using that attraction in the wrong way: Making someone have sex with you through coercion or force. Acting irresponsibly in a socially destructive way, such as having sex with someone married or getting some girl pregnant without any plans or means to take responsibility for your actions, or worse skipping out entirely. Recklessly spreading STD's, or even just recklessly having sex with people without concern for the emotional consequences, because this is one of the cornerstones of human intimacy, and not something to be done callously.
I am not, in and of itself, against premarital sex, or cohabitation. What I am against is irresponsible sexuality, like that of a close friend of mine: He has STD's, gave girls STD's because he lied about it, two-timed on girls constantly and betrayed their trust, manipulated them to feel affection towards him, when he didn't love them back, just for sex, got a girl pregnant and put the girl through emotional turmoil because of his noncommital actions and desire to evade responsibility, etc. As seen in that, sex can and is used in ways that are demonstrably bad.
But I don't hold sex as intrinsically bad. Just intrinsically important to be mindful of, due to the emotional and practical ramifications the decision to have sex has. With that in mind, waiting until marriage is not a bad choice. But if you struggle, you do need to know that such intimacy is not wrong. You just have to be responsible. I know your belief is different. And I'm not telling you to do anything, certainly nothing you think is wrong. However, I will offer reassurance, if I can.
As for the civic angle: Others have said it perfectly and succinctly already. The difference between personal morality and civic duty, and public policy, is a good thing to know. kmboots' question (and my earlier similar question, both unaddressed!) about what you feel about other things the Bible says are wrong, and whether you vote against those as well, is important too. You should definitely think on those things.
Even if your personal revelations say differently, I cannot accept the cost. I cannot allow people I care for to suffer, because of someone's personal revelation (which happens to contradict the personal revelations of thousands of others throughout recorded history). That way went some of the most destructive wars in European history. That way went the reason so many people fled to this country in the first place. That way went the reason why the Mormons were ostracized in the first place, and settled in Utah.
That way, ultimately, lies genocide, as is shown by the path Uganda is taking.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
