Proposition Two Passes

chievous,

(I'm trying to type quietly for the Mrs., so pardon my short message). I think Dreamer has written my opinions better than I can. I'll defer to his post, for my response to you.

All my best.

 

chievous,

rereading the thread, I didn't catch the 'intolerance' of disagreement that you and BK seemed to notice. I realize that BK was just trying to be ironic ("bordering on bigoted", lol you kill me BK), but what posts made you think someone was being intolerant? I doubt you feel intolerance from those you agree with... Also, we disagree so friendly, and all of the other posts simply seem like the same sort of peaceful discussion... just exchanging ideas, etc.

Thanks in advance.

 

Perspective of a Christian voting on this proposition:

"God wants me to live forever with Him. That life will embody everything that He meant life to be. (That includes joy, happiness, peace, security,....) Because God is love, He wanted us to love Him in the same way, and that requires the ability to choose to love Him or not to love Him. He allowed evil in this world because without it, we wouldn't have a choice. He made it clear how we could live that eternal life He had planned for us. He said (paraphrased) 'do not sin because if you do, you cannot be with Me because I am holy.' Nothing is worse than being separated from God. If He is all that is good, try to imagine being apart from everything that is good. He clearly details what constitutes sin, homosexuality being just one type.
Now as a Christian, I am called to love others just as God loves me. If I see someone whose actions will cause themselves or others harm, I want to tell them to stop because I love them. This is exactly what a parent thinks when they see their children going toward harm. This is not done out of hatred, but out of love. (So many times I thought my parents hated me.) What's the harm with homosexuality? Think eternal perspective. I don't want anyone including homosexuals to be apart from God for eternity. This vote will be my voice. I am saying your lifestyle will lead you to harm."

So are you going to tell me how my perspective is wrong?

 

God (or was it Christ) also supposedly states…

"Judge not lest ye be judged"

While I understand your position mr gootan, I would hazard to say that through your "perspective", you are making a judgement that only God can make.

But I think we're getting off topic here.

 

Mr. gootan:

The purpose of man-made laws is not to prevent people from going to hell. Laws are created to maintain order in our earthly society. One of the God's key commandments orders mankind not to accept any other gods but he. Using your logic, we should not allow the practice of other religions because it would be the equivalent of damning them.

As far as I'm concerned, allowing gay marriages does nothing but promote order. By that, I mean it promotes stable, long-term relationships. Generally, people in long-term relationships move less and change jobs less frequently. When people move less frequently, they form stronger and better neighborhoods. That in turn typically leads to less crime and better property maintenance, which raises the value of the area.

Similary, when people change jobs less frequently, companies save money on rehiring and retraining. People who have been in a job longer are also more efficient workers (except in local governments ).

Finally, the stability that would come from gay marriages would lead to greater happiness in the population. And the happier people are, the more productive they are.

Maybe you think gays are going to hell, but as so many Christians have said, God gave us a choice how to act. When you prevent gays from being married, you are effectively taking away that choice. As mc mark said, let God be the judge. And if you object to the government taking your money for this purpose, remember what Jesus said - "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

 

1 Corinthians 6

You're right. I'm able to judge the actions of people, not the people themselves. (And when I say "judge", I mean "discernment between good and evil" and not "hypocritical condemnation") But I'm not judging homosexuals here. I'm trying to warn them about how God will judge their actions.

As a Christian, I believe God can speak to us by the Holy Spirit through the Bible, prayer, circumstances, and the church. How do I know what God thinks about this situation? I choose not to ignore what He's been telling us all along.

Happiness, order, love. These things cannot be understood unless you have a reference point by which to gauge them by.
A reference point should never change for definitions to be concrete. And God is one that never changes, unlike ourselves or society.

(Thoughts about my perspective on voting for prop 2 may continue this thread. Anything else, please start a new thread.)

 

I'm just happy that as many people voted "for" as there was. I'm to lazy, and to slow a typist, to leap into this discussion so I would just like to say that:

I have loved reading reading every word of this thread.
All of you rock!

 

I think the whole genetics/choice approach to addressing the issue is fruitless (no pun intended). A first, but less critical issue is that undoubtedly their are genetic predispositions to be gay, but likely social and environmental causes too. Science is never going to be able to unequivocally say homosexuality is due to (genetics) or the environment entirely. For some homosexuals, it likely is heavily genetically caused, for others less so, but teasing it apart for individual homosexuals or looking at homosexuals as groups just isn't going to be relevant for policy.

However, the more important point is that you don't solely get constitutional protections for what you <i> can't choose </i>. You can certainly choose what religion you want to follow, but whatever you choose, or if you choose none, there are constitutional protections regarding discrimination. Further, you can make a tax-deductible contribution to any of them (say even the Church of Satan if there is such a thing), even if 99% of Americans didn't like it. Majority peoples do not trump basic rights.

As discussed above, "Science" used to be used to justify slavery, as was the Bible by many Southern Baptists. Even many decades after slavery was abolished many states had laws against inter-racial marriage using similar justifications. Marriage invokes social, legal and financial benefits for 2 people. To allow one set of people (e.g., same race opposite sex couple) to benefit but not others (e.g., opposite race opposite sex couple, same sex couple) is not "intolerant" but discriminatory. Society has caught up with the opposite race marriage, at least legally and economically, there is no reason it shouldn't apply in the other case. Of course social acceptance may take longer, after all there are still plenty of persons against inter-racial marriages on a personal bases. Having a fair and non-discriminatory law does not take away anyone’s right to have their own personal prejudices, morals or beliefs.

 

mr_gootan,

"Telling" them, or "advising" them to stop is one thing. "Forcing" them to stop is another. "Not allowing" them, is different from "advising" too.

God gave us all free will, so you (or anyone) don't have the right to try and take that away. Unless, you're saying God was wrong. Then you still don't have that right.

Why can't religious people see the difference between governmental law, which are not necessarily God's laws, and the Laws of The Bible, which are not necessarily our governments or any governments) laws? How hard is that?

God never said go around and make sure people don't sin.

That's the one beef I have with Islam. Islamic countries are governed by Islam. The laws of the Q'uran are the same as the laws of the government (in most cases). I'm sorry, but I'm a Christian, and I don't want The Bible to be the one and only reference for laws for our country. It would be "forcing" Christianity on people, and neither God nor Jesus ever would support something like that. It is also our freedoms which make this country so great, and why so many people want to live here.

I'm glad there are Muslims, Buddists, Aetheists, Agnostics, Christians, Mormons, Deists, etc in my country, state, city, neighborhood. Many people who do not follow my faith are good people. Many people who do follow my faith are not good people. One's faith has little to do with who you are here on Earth. Of course, the after-life is what matters most, but our life here must hold some importance otherwise we wouldn't be here.

Also, you are assuming that homosexuals cannot become (or already be) saved or enter into the Kingdom of God. Why can't they?

Is it because they are sinners? Well, aren't you a sinner? Did you magically stop sinning once you became a Christian? I know I'm a sinner. In fact, in my faith, I believe everyone's a sinner. If fact, if you could somehow "cure" a homosexual (not saying you could), that person would still be a sinner!

Sin does not keep you out of Heaven. The only thing that can keep you out of Heaven, is not having a relationship with Christ. It is so simple. Why do people try to make it more complicated? Because that's what people do.

Sin is a personal act between you and God. Of course, some sin has repercussions here in the physical world. But, those usually (and rightfully) are when they affect someone else's ability to live their life.

Does our government allow other sinners to marry? Hell yeah. So, how does our government differentiate between sins?

Even convicted murderers are allowed to marry. How f&cked up is that? Are they saying it's better to be a killer than a homo?

Ugh, I'm getting angry.... (Deep Breath)

mr_gootan,

If it is truly you're (and Christians like the ones you describe) intention to get sinners/homosexuals/people to change their ways and become "saved". Don't you see that how you're doing it only pushes them further away? I mean, if I wanted a girl to like me, I wouldn't go beating her with a stick. I'd let her get to know me and show her the benefits of being around me.

How woud you, if you were given the opportunity, try to convince outlaw that he should become a Christian?

I tell you how I'd do it. I'd tell him that it doesn't matter what he's done in the past, or what guilt he has, or sins, or anything that he's done or will do. It only matters if he can accept Jesus Christ as his saviour. I'd tell him, I sin. I'd tell him, I know he sins. And, I'd tell him God knows we all sin.

Pride is a sin. Being overweight is a sin. Lust is a sin. Hate is a sin. Jealousy is a sin. Having a temper is a sin. It's not a matter of if you sin, or how you sin, it's only a matter of if you believe in Him.

I'd tell him, that no matter what they are, his sins are between him and God. And, that God will forgive him. That is His promise. And, I trust Him.

Ugh... I hate being frustrated. I can't fully go into what I think it would take for someone like outlaw to accept Christ. I believe there is a long history of people (Christian or not) who have help build up a wall between religion and himself. It would not be simple or easy to tear that wall down. It would take time.


<FONT SIZE="1">Sorry, if I got a little too personal.</FONT>

 

WOW!!!!

I was raised hard core Southern Baptist was told he felt the same way about actors.

 

You didn't hear that from God.

 

I would think that at least in the Catholic church people could get their doctrine straight. With Protestants there's a lot of static because some denominations believe one thing and others another thing and yet they think of themselves as a group. With Catholics they're supposed to all adhere to the Pope's interpretation. So you'd think the doctine would be clear (homosexuality is merely a sin like any other), but somehow it still doesn't work out that way. When my mother was growing up, the nuns taught her that France was blessed by God and he marked that covenant by the hexagonal shape of the country. Something else I doubt the Pope ever said.

 

But everyone has the same rights. Any man can marry any woman. This is true, isn't it? There is no right in this situation that one person has over another. What you're talking about is making a new right. I'm not stating a position on the subject, just drawing that distinction.

That's just not an argument. A dramatization, not an argument.

Again, all people have equal rights in this case. That cannot be disputed. You're talking about additional, or new rights. Not that I think my neighbors are any less a couple than my wife and I, just saying we both have "equal rights" in this case.

The government gives any man the right to marry any woman. outlaw may not have the right to marry a man, but neither do I. This is called equal rights.

I disagree. Couldn't you say that allowing ANY couple to benefit was discriminatory? What if I don't want to get married to anyone? Is the government discriminating against me by not giving me a tax break? You know, ugly people are discriminated against, too, as are overweight people. The chances of anyone wanting to marry them are less, so therefore they may not be able to get a tax break.

 

Actually, the Constitution doesn't even guarantee the right to heterosexual marriage. What it does guarantee is the right to the pursuit of happiness. Of course this right must be balanced by the needs of society. So the issue is whether the benefits of homosexual marriage outweighs the harm it causes society. If anyone in here can give me a decent argument for why homosexual marriages cause more harm than good (if you need a list of the good, please see my previous post), then you'll be able to argue that outlawing homosexual marriages is constitutional.

 

In actuality, the Catholic church does not consider homosexuality a sin. It is the engaging in a homosexual act that is considered a sin. Any sexual act outside of marriage is considered a sin.

 

Your are distinguishing between "man" and "woman". I am saying, "Any person (consenting adult) should have the right to legally marry any other person (consenting adult)".

So, how can you not see the lack of "equal" rights? Homosexuals cannot marry those who they love, but heterosexuals can. Why is that?

You keep switching words. First you say, "all people have equal rights...", but then you say, "Any man can marry any woman".

Either you're trying to say homosexuals are not people. Or your logic is flawed. If a man is a person, and a woman is a person, and all people have equal rights, then any man should be able to marry any woman or man, and any woman should be able to marry any man or woman.

What you should be saying is "All men have the same right, to marry women. And, all women have the same right, to marry men." But, that is not equality.

What I wrote was a direct reply to chievous minnifield's post:

The South being forced to abolish slavery because the North didn't profit from is on the scale the South did, is a very good comparison to what c. minnifield was saying.

The point I was trying to make was that slavery was obviously wrong. And, not allowing homosexuals to marry is obviously wrong as well.

It's not a dramatization at all....

 

My real concern with this is that we really didn't have any real conversation on it. I don't mean "we" as in the posters on these message boards...but the city as a whole. I have real questions about how you avoid fraud in these situations...but those questions were never validated or answered either way. I have real questions about depriving people of benefits simply because I don't agree with their lifestyle. This issue is sure to be revisited, I think.

While I may say that homosexual acts are sinful..and sin separates man from God...I too am a sinner. But none of that should be relevant. It seems the real question is whether or not we'll acknowledge some type of civil union between people of the same gender. That would make this question of benefits real simple. I think deciding the benefits issue before deciding that issue is putting the cart before the horse.