I have accused two people on this board of bigotry. Jorge Wallace in this thread, and bamaslammer (conveniently and poetically contracted to BS) on another, unrelated thread. I do not do this lightly. But I strongly feel that isolating a particular group of individuals and denying them rights conferred on the rest of us is plainly bigotry. (Further, I feel that displaying genuine support for a constitutional amendment to codify and solidify this bigotry is borderline psychotic, but that's sort of a side issue to me at this point.) You don't want your church to marry gays and lesbians? Hey, fine with me. But I believe gays and lesbians MUST be offered a mechanism (both devotional and civil) in order to participate fully in the institution of marriage and be rewarded with its attendant rights, responsibilities and securities. I also believe that the 14th Amendment makes this as plain as day. Anyone who seeks to deny gays and lesbians that right is, in my view, a bigot. I really don't see any middle ground here. Can you be opposed to, say, affirmative action and not be a bigot? Sure. There are plenty of contentious issues that are argued on all sides with compassion and integrity. Basic civil rights, equal protection under the law for each citizen, doesn't seem to me to be one of those issues. That said, I understand and accept your point. By the way, I would never be delusional enough to assume that I'm in a position to convert anyone to my way of thinking.
For me, I really love rimrocker's post on homosexuality in the Bible. Max, I don't think I ever saw you respond to that. From what I've read, rimrocker is correct: the interpretation of those passages in question only became something about gay sex in the last few hundred years. What do you think? Am I nuts? (well, I am, but I mean about this reading). And what about mixing different breeds of cattle, and a woman being twice as unclean after giving birth to a girl when compared to giving birth to a boy? I just don't think humans are perfect, so how could they transcribe god's word perfectly? What does a loving, private relationship do to harm society? I have walked down to city hall in San Francisco. I have witnessed the couples there getting married. I have watched all the cars going by giving the thumbs up. I have seen the piles of flowers mailed anonymously from around the US. ... Then, these people go back to normal. Absolutely like they were the day before, give or take a ring, and (if it could ever hold up in court) now with much better protections under the law. If one of them dies, the other can get the social security benefits, et cetera. They feel, for a moment, less like a different social caste. I don't understand a reading of Jesus that has him condemning that. Just my take. I am no expert, and I don't pretend that everyone should view it my way. Finally, I just have a lot of trouble seeing the harm. Straight married men here, a question: when you go home and see your wife, do you love her less or think less of your marriage because two women somewhere have pledged their commitment to one another. Do you really feel differently about your marriage? I hope not.
A wonderful little editorial in the Jasper, AL newspaper... homos deserve death according to the bible. These are the people the leader of the free world is pandering to... _____________________ Who would have thought it would happen this early in the game of politics and moral decay. We now have activist judges, mayors, governors, etc., who go against the will of the great majority of citizens in this nation (forget that it is against the law in most of the nation!) and declare that it is the "right" of homosexual men and women to "marry." Christians need to come up with some ammunition against this grievous sin, and soon. As it stands now, our heads are, as it were, spinning with all the degrading developments that have taken place in the past few weeks. Where will we get this ammunition to fight against "spiritual wickedness in high places"? From the Word of God - the only place that, in the end, will matter. "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." Revelation 20:12 The mayor of San Francisco (where else would it begin) has thrown the law books out the window and the will of most of the people be damned. He has said that no matter the law, he invited any and every homosexual couple to come and be "married,"then he swore in additional clerks to administer this great disservice to humanity. My first question is, do these people not read the Bible? Have they forgotten Sodom and Gomorrah? At what point do they think the Lord changed His mind about the sin of homosexuality? Not only that, but we should be worried that this group and their supporters have worked diligently to have themselves - common sinners, according to God's word - declared a special minority. So now, if you stand up and speak out against them, you are automatically "discriminating" against them. In the book of Genesis when God had created Adam, he looked around and saw that Adam was alone. As everybody knows, he created Eve .."made he a woman, and brought her unto the man... Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh." Genesis 2:22, 24 He created a special person for the man - not another man. He created them in such a way that they could "be one flesh." Notice he said that a man should leave his father and mother - not his father's "partner" or "lover." I want to say here and now that there is no special protection for this group anywhere in the Bible. Quite the contrary. The Israelites were commanded as part of the law given to Moses and Aaron: "If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13. In the beginning, those who were found guilty of such a sin were simply executed. God's opinion of the act of homosexuality was that it was a sin worthy of death. Oh, you say, but that was in the Old Testament. The Christians of the church in Corinth were commanded: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God: Be not deceived: "neither fornicators, not idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind ... shall inherit the kingdom of God." I Corinthians 6:9-10 That seems pretty plain to me. Those who commit unnatural acts with one another will not inherit the kingdom of God. Paul exhorted the members of the church in Rome that "God had given them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves ... and God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly ..."Romans 1:24, 26, 27 The actions of these people were listed along with other practices that are still considered sin: fornication, wickedness, covetousness, murder, backbiters, haters of God, proud, despiteful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without natural affection, unmerciful... "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:32. That also seems crystal clear. Those who do such things, and those who think they are amusing - or innocent - are worthy of death. Doesn't seem as if the Lord is accepting of the sin of homosexuality at all. And Christians had better put on the breastplate of righteousness and the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. The battle for souls has begun.
Wow. I kid you not: that piece from Jasper reads like a Taliban edict! Seriously, just read it with Allah replacing God, Muslims replacing Christians, et cetera. It's incredibly creepy.
Well, why the hell stop there? Why not quote some more of Leviticus? 9 " 'If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head. 10 " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-with the wife of his neighbor-both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. 11 " 'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. 12 " 'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads. 13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. 14 " 'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you. 15 " 'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. 16 " 'If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. 17 " 'If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible. 18 " 'If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people. 19 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible. 20 " 'If a man sleeps with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless. 21 " 'If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless. 22 " 'Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. 23 You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them. 24 But I said to you, "You will possess their land; I will give it to you as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey." I am the LORD your God, who has set you apart from the nations. 25 " 'You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground-those which I have set apart as unclean for you. 26 You are to be holy to me [3] because I, the LORD , am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own. 27 " 'A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.' " Sorry, but if you slept with a menstruating woman, you're cut off. No more 'unclean animals' for dinner. Curse your parents? Death. Adultry? Death. Incest? Death. Shall we start changing the laws now? But I fear for Arkansas...there won't be anyone left. j/k
My brothers and sisters of the D&D, I commend to you highly the letters to the editor of the Jasper, Alabama, Mountain Eagle. This citizen has been whipped into a frenzy of moral outrage, and she suffers from a caps lock affliction akin to Jorge Wallace's: The title of the next letter is lamentably more prosaic: Ahh, the endless idylls of small town life.
1. thanks 2. i agree...and i think i said so in this very thread. my faith is not everyone else's faith...I understand that.
of course you're not nuts! you're thinking about it and working it through...that's awesome. i agree that the gift of Christ is a testament to our inability to live to the law of the Old Testament. but it doesn't make the old law any less applicable. Christ came because I can't live to it...not to say, "oops...not sure what God was thinking there...do over!" That's what made Christ the perfect sacrifice...the unblemished lamb. Having said that...there are the very same admonitions against homosexuality in the New Testament, particularly in Paul's letters. They're very clear. And they're written after Jesus' resurrection. But I feel like I need to keep saying that I absolutely think God loves homosexuals. That this is a God who meets us where we are and transforms us. That's the God I know. So much of who I was before I really committed to Him is now dead...and that's a good thing. They were self-centered things...and there's more inside that still needs to die. Sounds pretty creepy to many of you, I'm sure...but this is the real story of why I love Him so much. And why I rant on about it....and I'd say I'm sorry for that, but I'd be lying.
I think the presence of bigotry depends on how they frame their argument, not on the belief that gay marriage is wrong. 1) I think a lot of people believe it's ok to legislate morality or a religious belief. Many religions are opposed to homosexuality (for a variety of reason that I don't want to get into here, already a lot of discussion about it) and I think saying "everyone that believes their religion is a bigot" is, well, hypocritical. 2) Another common non-bigoted reason to oppose gay marriage is the fear that churches will be forced to acknowledge gay marriages. I have debunked this a couple times in previous threads, but I think that this fear is not bigotry, just ignorance (all the more reason to have a logical, non-namecalling discussion) 3) Finally, some opponents worry about the implications of changing the definition of marriage (esp. wrt polygamy). The current law defines a marriage as between a man and woman. If it's ok to define as any 2 people, why not any 3 people? This was the line of thinking that I was in, until I realized I could not create a logical argument as to why polygamy should be outlawed.
I don't agree. All religious beliefs do not seek to ostracize or condemn a group of people, and even though all religions have a belief system they all don't try to impose it on others of other faiths.
Great point. I have a number of spiritual beliefs that I think everyone SHOULD live by, but I would never presume to try to codify them into law. I am not egotistical enough to think that what I believe is the ONLY way to stay close to God. I mean, I am an egotist and all, but I also know that I am not Him.
MadMax, Cool. Thanks for the reply. I'm going to check out Paul, but just from a perspective of curiosity. I have to go with my brain and my heart, and I cannot arrive at a place where I think homosexuality is offensive for any reason. Moral laws have to make sense to me, and this makes no sense, especially after spending so much dear time with gay, partnered friends. If evil is anyway inherent in such unions, I can find no evidence of this evil. I can find no negative effect on the society around them. If the condemnation in the new testament is pretty clear, then I'd just have to take an opposing stand, much like I do when it comes to mixing different kinds of cattle and not having sex during my sweetheart's period, et cetera.
Buddhism doesn't care. http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3769566,00.html Cambodian King Comments on Gay Marriages Friday February 20, 2004 12:01 PM PHNOM PENH, Cambodia (AP) - After watching TV images of gay weddings in San Francisco, Cambodia's King Norodom Sihanouk said Friday that homosexual couples should be allowed to get married. Since the Cambodian government chose in 1993 to be a ``liberal democracy,'' it should allow ``marriage between man and man ... or between woman and woman,'' the king said in a signed statement in French posted on his Web site. The king, currently on a medical visit to Beijing, also said that transvestites should be ``accepted and well-treated in our national community.'' Sihanouk is a constitutional monarch with no executive powers but is highly respected in his country. Gay couples are not allowed to marry in Cambodia. San Francisco has issued more than 2,800 marriage licenses to gay couples in the past week, amid a growing debate in the United States over whether such unions should be allowed. Sihanouk said in his Web site statement that he saw TV footage of gay weddings there.
turns out kerry, the haughty, french-looking democrat who, by the way, served in Vietnam, does support amending the constitution- the state constitution: http://www.boston.com/news/politics.../02/26/kerry_backs_state_ban_on_gay_marriage/ -- Kerry backs state ban on gay marriage Says amendment must provide for civil unions By Patrick Healy and Frank Phillips, Globe Staff, 2/26/2004 TOLEDO, Ohio -- Presidential candidate John F. Kerry said yesterday that he supports amending the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage and provide for civil unions for gay couples. In his most explicit remarks on the subject yet, Kerry told the Globe that he would support a proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would prohibit gay marrriage so long as, while outlawing gay marriage, it also ensured that same-sex couples have access to all legal rights that married couples receive. "If the Massachusetts Legislature crafts an appropriate amendment that provides for partnership and civil unions, then I would support it, and it would advance the goal of equal protection," the senator said yesterday, stressing that he was referring only to the state, and not the federal, Constitution. He has said he would oppose any amendment that did not include a provision for civil unions. "I think that you need to have civil union. That's my position," he said Tuesday. Kerry's remarks angered supporters of gay marriage in Massachusetts, but could help stalled efforts by state legislative leaders to win support for their amendment. The amendment written by Senate President Robert E. Travaglini and Senate minority leader Brian Lees would restrict marriage to heterosexuals but create a same-sex civil union system that would provide all the benefits and protections of marriage. "It is harmful for us and could well affect the vote," said Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, which strongly opposes such an amendment. Over the last several weeks, as the debate over whether to amend the state Constitution has unfolded, Kerry has refused to offer a detailed position. He had said generally that he opposes gay marriage as well as the ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court that cleared the way for gay marriages, but that he supports civil unions. But he has not described his view of any specific amendment under discussion in the Legislature. Nationally, Republicans have tried to pin Kerry down on the highly charged issue and hoped to use the controversy in Massachusetts as part of their efforts to paint him as a Northeast liberal out of synch with the rest of the country. They have also tried to use the complex nuances that surround gay-marriage issues and Kerry's statements to back up their charge that he is inconsistent on major policy issues. Saying at the time that he opposed gay marriage, Kerry was one of 14 senators to vote against a federal law in 1996 defining marriage as a union only of a man and woman, saying it amounted to gay-bashing. Kerry has also denounced the push by President Bush this week to amend the US Constitution to outlaw gay marriage. Kerry has said he opposed amending the US Constitution, because he believes the issue of marriage should be left to the states. In the past several weeks, Kerry has been under pressure to take a position in the ongoing debate in Massachusetts. Two weeks ago, a deadlocked state Legislature, meeting as a constitutional convention, spent two emotionally charged days grappling with proposals for amendments to ban gay marriage, but failed to find consensus. Lawmakers are scheduled to reconvene March 11. Voters would have a chance to make the final decision on an amendment in the November 2006 election. The SJC ruling takes effect May 17. Barring legal maneuvers by opponents, the ruling gives a 2 1/2-year window in which gay couples can legally marry before voters decide the issue. Not everyone on Beacon Hill said that Kerry's comments would affect the debate. Some called it a highly personal issue. "Members are reaching their conclusions based on what they hear from their districts and what they feel in their hearts," said state Senator Andrea F. Nuciforo Jr., a Democrat from Pittsfield, who supports the Lees-Travaglini amendment. "No matter what the good senator or anyone of national prominence has to say, it is unlikely to influence any member of the constitutional convention." Kerry's position is also contrary to that of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, which last month endorsed gay marriage. Kerry has appeared reluctant to enter into the gay-marriage debate as it unfolded in his home state. Earlier this year, Kerry was the only member of the state's all-Democrat congressional delegation who chose not to sign a letter urging the state Legislature to reject a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. When the Legislature convened last month to consider amendment language, Kerry stayed silent, a position that drew criticism from several gay media outlets. New England's largest gay-targeted newspaper, In Newsweekly, cited Kerry's "flip-flops" on the issue of gay marriage in an editorial to be published today that endorses his rival, Senator John Edwards, for the Democratic presidential nomination.Patrick Healy can be reached at phealy@globe.com.
