Gay Marriage

[liars_paradox]

I was but I'll give you an example and one that doesn't have to do with me.

I know a guy who's schizophrenic. I've told the story before and people got bent out of shape because I compared gay guys to this schitzo guy.
But then I got to thinking about that. The schitzo guy only talks to himself. The only thing that impairs his social and professional life and makes it different from everyone else' is that he talks to himself. Nothing he does effects anyone else
And I was told on these forums that that guy is worse them a gay man.
My question is why?

He just talks to himself, he isn't enjoying another mans penis in his mouth, he's "talking" to himself. So what makes him worse then a gay guy?
Why should "his" rights be decided for him and not the gay guys?

The schitzo was born that way, he can't help but be who he is.

And if this argument seems ridiculous to you, I understand.

For one thing, schizophrenia is different from homosexuality. To not help this man is the same as ignoring the pleas for help from some who's about to fall off a cliff, or is getting mugged, or is drowning, etc.

On the other hand, homosexuality is only something we discussed because suppossedly God has forbid us from doing it. Not that I say we should (I'm not gay), but I don't think we have enough evidence from our own Bible to conclude that God views homosexuality to be any different from going to the barber or eating non-Kosher food.

If the word we use in English (abomination) comes from the same word which we have as "unclean" in Hebrew, then perhaps God only handed this law to the Israellites for health reasons only? Or, to prevent them from worshipping foreign gods?

Since, homosexuality doesn't present the threat of worshipping Baal Molech and the health concerns one might have be no different from straight sex, then I don't see where you or I come off criticizing anyone for being gay.

 

[KingCrimson250]

What's wrong with this picture (your post position) is to think
that Christians can't do 2 things at the same time, or need to
ignore one fire to put out a different building fire elsehwere as if
this 1 fire isn't as bad or threatening.

I have news for you, there will ALWAYS be the poor - always.
It will never end and it won't end just with Christians doing
the job either.

I say, let's fight all the fires we can.

You might want to put some blame onto Govt. who eats us up in
taxes to pay for everyone else already (expect it to get much worse).
An average Christian who tithes 10% of their income to the church already, plus pays state & fed. taxes is already strapped.
And many churches are involved in helping the needy in their local
communities AND support missionaries who go to other countries
and help there too.
My own church is HEAVILY into missions and local aid and that's where
our charity goes until God sees fit to give us more $$.

Sorry, but I think a Christian can write a check & mail it, as well
as have time and energy to go to a voting booth and vote
against gay marriage - we managed to do both.

Christians are and have already been helping the poor - but
when yet another evil encroaches on society, it's time to act.
Christians didn't act when prayer was removed from schools,
or did little when abortion came into the picture - but we see
the damaging effects from inaction....

Perhaps Christians have learned that laying down and being
passive isn't what God called us to be and are finally fighting
against a great evil and threat to the family unit that will change
the face of society for decades to come.
That's what democracy is all about.

BOTH are vitally important - and both are being acted upon by Christians.
That's the right approach. I don't buy into this "we have to let
this go so that we can do that instead".
Says who?

That's not what I'm saying, though. As I had attempted to say in my second post, it's not a matter of just throwing the issue of gay marriage out the window, it's an issue of coverage, it's an issue of priorities, it's an issue of what gets our collective blood boiling more. Yes you can write a cheque and vote against gay marriage, but that's not the point here. In fact, I feel that I poorly worded the OP because the thrust of my post wasn't really so much having to do with gay marriage, but rather having to do with apathy towards other important issues, and how there is so much more awareness raised towards gay marriage. I mean, in my second post, I referenced Joseph Kony and the LRA. Raise your hands if you know what I'm talking about. The fact that I've barely seen anything about that in the media but that any issue related to gay marriage gets tons of coverage is insane, and it's influencing our churches.

Honestly, the fact that we can be so blase about thousands of people dying and millions more in terrible conditions and shrug it off as just "one of those strange things that foreigners do" but then get all burnt up because two guys want to get married makes me sick. Yes, gay marriage is an issue that needs to be addressed, absolutely. But it's overemphasized.

And to be honest, I don't think throwing a cheque in the offering plate is enough. For some people, it's all they can do, and I understand that. Not everyone is called to get right down into the trenches in this matter. But I think we could be doing a lot more than we are. I really do. And to be honest, I hear a lot more exhortation to put a stop to gay marriage than to fight poverty, which again, strikes me as strange.

Also, for you bizarre people who think I'm lying about the Facebook group:
Login | Facebook

 

[Inviolable]

For one thing, schizophrenia is different from homosexuality. To not help this man is the same as ignoring the pleas for help from some who's about to fall off a cliff, or is getting mugged, or is drowning, etc.

I agree that schizophrenia "can" be troublesome for some people. But the word "schizophrenia" doesn't automatically mean a person is going to be a danger to themselves or anyone else.
You put the same judgmental tone to the word schizophrenia all by itself that you claim people put on homosexuality.
You automatically made the assumption that "anyone" who has schizophrenia "has" to be helped.
Why?
I'm not saying that you are a schitzophobe, but that kind of talk is the same thing someone prejudice of schizophrenics would say.

 

[Nadiine]

That's not what I'm saying, though. As I had attempted to say in my second post, it's not a matter of just throwing the issue of gay marriage out the window, it's an issue of coverage, it's an issue of priorities, it's an issue of what gets our collective blood boiling more.

I keep seeing this CK, but who is it making all these gay threads?
If you want the topic to stop being focused on, don't make more
focus to homosexuality - I see more posts by people telling us
Christians that we're obsessed w/ this topic, yet it's gays making
the threads, or people wanting to stop the obsession of it that
brings more focus on it. =)~

I disagree that it's over emphasized or focused on - no more than
it should be as a current issue. The homosexual community is more
focused on it than we are in my opinion.

Yes you can write a cheque and vote against gay marriage, but that's not the point here. In fact, I feel that I poorly worded the OP because the thrust of my post wasn't really so much having to do with gay marriage, but rather having to do with apathy towards other important issues, and how there is so much more awareness raised towards gay marriage.

Ok, apathy towards other issues has nothing to do w/ homosexuality
then. It's a very valid threat to society and Christians NEED to
be on top of this one.

I wasn't old enough when Roe V. Wade & prayer in school was fought,
but my mom was & she told me Christians dropped the ball on those
fights.
She now wants to fight issues that come up becuz of what has
been lost thru complacency. IT IS an issue that must not get
swept under the carpet & go under our radar like the other
issues that were lost - even including pornography.
Granted, some things aren't our fault, they will get defeated
becuz of majority votes of people who support things we don't.

I mean, in my second post, I referenced Joseph Kony and the LRA. Raise your hands if you know what I'm talking about. The fact that I've barely seen anything about that in the media but that any issue related to gay marriage gets tons of coverage is insane, and it's influencing our churches.

Don't expect the media to cover anything except what they want
to include in their bubble for us to know. I have a very low regard
for our media and rant about it every chance I get.
We're extremely isolated in what we're fed by our lazy, biased,
agenda driven media.

Honestly, the fact that we can be so blase about thousands of people dying and millions more in terrible conditions and shrug it off as just "one of those strange things that foreigners do" but then get all burnt up because two guys want to get married makes me sick. Yes, gay marriage is an issue that needs to be addressed, absolutely. But it's overemphasized.

I disagree that it's overemphasized, it's very important. Taking this off
our radar could cause us to lose that battle. We SHOULD be
burnt up about it.
The issue is as you say, that the other things are important too.

The only way you'll know anything is to watch Christian news -
like CBN or Christian programs which give us information we need
& charities they support.

And to be honest, I don't think throwing a cheque in the offering plate is enough. For some people, it's all they can do, and I understand that. Not everyone is called to get right down into the trenches in this matter. But I think we could be doing a lot more than we are. I really do. And to be honest, I hear a lot more exhortation to put a stop to gay marriage than to fight poverty, which again, strikes me as strange.

Actually, if more people WENT to church and gave to the local
churches, alot more could be done here and abroad.
There are people in need and suffering everywhere - here in the
USA and other countries - the need is SO great anymore, that
we cannot possibly fix it all.
And with the economy crashing, expect to see alot more need
that we cannot fulfill.

For those who CAN help more but don't - THAT is where the main
problem lies (imho). GREED.
People who can give but use it on self instead, who won't go to
church or support a local church that helps the needy locally -
my church is completely charity based and gives a higher percentage
to missions & the needy. Some (or even alot of) Christians
still tithe - take another 10% out of your income and see how much
left there is to go save the world with.
So that's where our $ goes - right now our church has an influx of
families who lost their homes to foreclosures & job loss.

I do see your point, I just think beating the drum AGAINST
focus on homosexuality isn't the right approach becuz it's
an important battleground for Christians (and many non
Christians too - it isn't only a Christian focus).

But you would be accurate in using it as an example of
what we aren't given by media - media negligence has to be
taken to task and changed.

 

[Nadiine]

For one thing, schizophrenia is different from homosexuality. To not help this man is the same as ignoring the pleas for help from some who's about to fall off a cliff, or is getting mugged, or is drowning, etc.

On the other hand, homosexuality is only something we discussed because suppossedly God has forbid us from doing it. Not that I say we should (I'm not gay), but I don't think we have enough evidence from our own Bible to conclude that God views homosexuality to be any different from going to the barber or eating non-Kosher food.

If the word we use in English (abomination) comes from the same word which we have as "unclean" in Hebrew, then perhaps God only handed this law to the Israellites for health reasons only? Or, to prevent them from worshipping foreign gods?

Since, homosexuality doesn't present the threat of worshipping Baal Molech and the health concerns one might have be no different from straight sex, then I don't see where you or I come off criticizing anyone for being gay.

Moral laws continue from OT to NT -
apparently you don't have a NT to read Romans 1:18-32, 1 Cor 6:9-10,
1 Tim 1:8-11, Matt. 19:3-9, or Jude7?

Jesus defined the marriage unit/covenant, and it is predicated
upon GENDER at the creation (& He should know about why they
were created FOR one another, He made them Himself).
If God had any other combination, He would have included it in
the explanation of lawful marriage.

It was a death penalty in the OT, I hardly think God's morally ok
with it today just becuz He transferred to a grace covenant;
any more than adultery stopped being sin in a new covenant.

An unclean moral act is still an unclean moral act - since Christians
are STILL under the 2 highest laws of the OT (love of God and
neighbor - which all the laws hang on; obeying those 2 is to
obey His law since it wasn't abolished by Jesus),
then it's STILL morally wrong to pervert God's created order for
male and female who are created for one another by design.

And right below the homosexual law is bestiality - did that one
stop being morally sinful too? Or incest? I don't recall God
changing those either (and you won't find either of those specifically
condemned in the NT like you do homosexuality).

 

[LightHorseman]

I agree that schizophrenia "can" be troublesome for some people. But the word "schizophrenia" doesn't automatically mean a person is going to be a danger to themselves or anyone else.
You put the same judgmental tone to the word schizophrenia all by itself that you claim people put on homosexuality.
You automatically made the assumption that "anyone" who has schizophrenia "has" to be helped.
Why?
I'm not saying that you are a schitzophobe, but that kind of talk is the same thing someone prejudice of schizophrenics would say.

While I aplaud your defence of mentally ill persons, I feel it would be remiss of me not to point out that it is a poor comprison, since homosexuality is not a mental illness.

 

[LightHorseman]

The problem here is with "...lukewarm conceptually confused theology born out of the desire for some to want to live under the umbrella of Grace but judge everyone else through a Levitical Lens." RealDealNeverstop

 

[Inviolable]

While I aplaud your defence of mentally ill persons, I feel it would be remiss of me not to point out that it is a poor comprison, since homosexuality is not a mental illness.

So maybe taking what you've said into consideration, that homosexuality isn't a mental illness. Can you tell me why the schitzo guy is worse off then a gay guy?
If all he's doing is talking to himself.
How should that make him worse off then a gay person?

 

[LightHorseman]

So maybe taking what you've said into consideration, that homosexuality isn't a mental illness. Can you tell me why the schitzo guy is worse off then a gay guy?
If all he's doing is talking to himself.
How should that make him worse off then a gay person?

Who says he is? Not me. Not without a case study of both of them.

If the schizophrenic WANTS help, he should get it... but (assuming he isn't a risk to others or himself) if he doesn't want help, if he prefers life with his delusion to life without it, then I'm certainly not going to try to medicate him against his will.

 

[Nadiine]

The problem here is with "...lukewarm conceptually confused theology born out of the desire for some to want to live under the umbrella of Grace but judge everyone else through a Levitical Lens." RealDealNeverstop

the real problem is with people who reject the obvious becuz they
simply dislike it.

 

[Inviolable]

The problem here is with "...lukewarm conceptually confused theology born out of the desire for some to want to live under the umbrella of Grace but judge everyone else through a Levitical Lens." RealDealNeverstop

Cops do it.
MP's do it...
Some moron some where decides to give an imbecile with a social complex a gun and suddenly the guy with a social complex thinks he knows everything.
When in fact he's only surrounded by other people with a social complex and guns who tell him he's right.

Granted not every cop or MP is like this. However the personal patterns that lead a person to be overly confident are the same thing you're talking about.

Personal bias is just a way of life. Some people just can't deal with it.

 

[Inviolable]

Who says he is? Not me. Not without a case study of both of them.

If the schizophrenic WANTS help, he should get it... but (assuming he isn't a risk to others or himself) if he doesn't want help, if he prefers life with his delusion to life without it, then I'm certainly not going to try to medicate him against his will.

So your only argument is, that the only difference is that one is labeled mentally disabled and one isn't.

Otherwise they're the same?

 

[LightHorseman]

Cops do it.
MP's do it...
Some moron some where decides to give an imbecile with a social complex a gun and suddenly the guy with a social complex thinks he knows everything.
When in fact he's only surrounded by other people with a social complex and guns who tell him he's right.

Granted not every cop or MP is like this. However the personal patterns that lead a person to be overly confident are the same thing you're talking about.

Personal bias is just a way of life. Some people just can't deal with it.

Um, OK (fail to see the relevence, but, if thats what you genuinely think, good luck with that )

 

[LightHorseman]

So your only argument is, that the only difference is that one is labeled mentally disabled and one isn't.

Otherwise they're the same?

No, I don't think thats what I said at all.

One is a clinical form of disability, an ACTUAL disability, if you will, while the other is not a disability, its only negative aspect to the individual is a continuing social stigma, but that is no more the homosexual's fault than the social stigma attached to being mentally ill is the schizophrenics's fault. The other big difference is that most schizophrenics, in their lucid state, want to control and overcome their condition. Most homosexuals do not. Thats quite a bit more significant than mere labelling.

 

[Inviolable]

Um, OK (fail to see the relevence, but, if thats what you genuinely think, good luck with that )

I thought you would. But that doesn't matter.

The social patterns that lead us all to be who we are as individuals blind us of our own personal bias. The understanding that brings you to the conclusion, such as a lukewarm relationship are based on a kind of blind bias that's been built up from the perspective you've rationalized through social patterns.

In otherwords, had you lived a different life you might think differently.
There is a reason for everything and the fact that you don't see the reason doesn't make it a problem and if it does, you're ill equipped to deal with it.

 

[LightHorseman]

I thought you would. But that doesn't matter.

The social patterns that lead us all to be who we are as individuals blind us of our own personal bias. The understanding that brings you to the conclusion, such as a lukewarm relationship are based on a kind of blind bias that's been built up from the perspective you've rationalized through social patterns.

In otherwords, had you lived a different life you might think differently.
There is a reason for everything and the fact that you don't see the reason doesn't make it a problem and if it does, you're ill equipped to deal with it.

I agree that we are all the product of our experiences, largely regardless of our own actions.

 

[Inviolable]

Huh?

I don't know about where you live, but where I live, the state cannot stop someone getting married whatever their mental state and compliance with treatment... and quite rightly so.

It is, of course, possible for someone to claim that a marriage is null because they were not in a fit state to give consent at the time of the marriage, after the fact, and again, this is right and proper. However, schizophrenics are not restricted from being married whether they want to control their condition or not.

Yeah, I kinda figured that'd be your response. Given that I asked you once what makes homosexuals a minority and you said, numbers.
By the way that's like asking whats for dinner? and getting "food" for the answer.
What's for dinner? Food!
What makes a car go? Gas!
What makes a rainbow? Colors!
What makes homosexuals a minority? Numbers!

So lets re-examine the post.

No, I don't think thats what I said at all.

One is a clinical form of disability, an ACTUAL disability, if you will, while the other is not a disability, its only negative aspect to the individual is a continuing social stigma,

So essentially, you're saying that being homosexual doesn't change a persons life?

but that is no more the homosexual's fault than the social stigma attached to being mentally ill is the schizophrenics's fault. The other big difference is that most schizophrenics, in their lucid state, want to control and overcome their condition.

Most want to do this because it's socially unacceptable to be a schitzo
Which is the same reason homosexuals give for not "choosing" to be a homosexual.

Most homosexuals do not. Thats quite a bit more significant than mere labelling.

Then why do they use the above explanation for not choosing to be homosexual?

 

[LightHorseman]

So essentially, you're saying that being homosexual doesn't change a persons life?

Change it from what?

Does it change the individual's life? of course not, since that is the way they have always understood themselves to be.

Are they different to heterosexuals? Of course. But merely being different is not a liability. See left handers being different to right handers, brunettes being different to blondes, and Caucasians different to Asians. Different, sure... but that is not an inherently negative thing.

Most want to do this because it's socially unacceptable to be a schitzo

Um, no, most who want to change want to do so because being a schizophenic is, for many, decidedly unpleasant. More want to change because being schizophrenic impedes their ability to do things they want to do. On the list of reasons for being a compliant mental patient, I'd have to say "to increase my social acceptibility" would be pretty far down the list actually.

Which is the same reason homosexuals give for not "choosing" to be a homosexual.

I thought the reason homosexuals give for not "choosing" to be homosexual is that most (all?) of them say that its not a decision, its just the way they are.

Then why do they use the above explanation for not choosing to be homosexual?

Sorry, ya lost me. What reason?

 

[Inviolable]

Change it from what?

Does it change the individual's life? of course not, since that is the way they have always understood themselves to be.

Numbers!

Are they different to heterosexuals? Of course. But merely being different is not a liability. See left handers being different to right handers, brunettes being different to blondes, and Caucasians different to Asians. Different, sure... but that is not an inherently negative thing.

You're honestly comparing these differences to homosexuality?
This is a rational line of an argument for you?
You "are" "honestly" making these comparisons and expecting me to see it as a conversation I'm going to think will be intelligent.
Are you insulting me? Are you trying to tell me that I'm so stupid that the comparisons you've made here are something I simply wouldn't walk away from for the principal of it.
You are insulting me aren't you?
I try and have a civil conversation with you and you insult me outright by making these comparisons that are so monumentally pathetic that a 5 year old would laugh at them.

Um, no, most who want to change want to do so because being a schizophenic is, for many, decidedly unpleasant. More want to change because being schizophrenic impedes their ability to do things they want to do.

I agree that there are schizophrenics who are challenged by their condition.

On the list of reasons for being a compliant mental patient, I'd have to say "to increase my social acceptibility" would be pretty far down the list actually.

I disagree. More people with schizophrenia would be able to overcome their condition had there been less people to abuse them socially.

I thought the reason homosexuals give for not "choosing" to be homosexual is that most (all?) of them say that its not a decision, its just the way they are.Sorry, ya lost me. What reason?

Yes but to instill faith in that statement they often talk about the abuse they suffered socially because of their homosexuality.

Given that you obviously see this conversation as a joke, I'm afraid I'm going to have to conclude the rest of my responses to you and say, fair well and God bless.

 

[LightHorseman]

You're honestly comparing these differences to homosexuality?
This is a rational line of an argument for you?
You "are" "honestly" making these comparisons and expecting me to see it as a conversation I'm going to think will be intelligent.
Are you insulting me? Are you trying to tell me that I'm so stupid that the comparisons you've made here are something I simply wouldn't walk away from for the principal of it.
You are insulting me aren't you?
I try and have a civil conversation with you and you insult me outright by making these comparisons that are so monumentally pathetic that a 5 year old would laugh at them.

Fine. you explain to me why the difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals is any more significant than the difference between left handers and right handers.

I sincerely don't think it is any more significant a difference than that.

I disagree. More people with schizophrenia would be able to overcome their condition had there been less people to abuse them socially.

I'm a nurse. I've worked with schizophrenics. Sufferers of schizophrenia have many problems, usually regardless of what society thinks of them. Thats part of their problem. A schizophrenic in a fugue state is more or less unaware of society around them, whether that society is protecting and constructive, or hateful and condemning.

Yes but to instill faith in that statement they often talk about the abuse they suffered socially because of their homosexuality.

OK, so... you're asking about how homosexuals say "why wpould I chose to be homosexual, given the stigma"?

Well, why would they? Makes sense to me to consider it evidence against homosexuality being a choice.

Given that you obviously see this conversation as a joke, I'm afraid I'm going to have to conclude the rest of my responses to you and say, fair well and God bless.

You seem to expect me to say something, and find the fact that I'm NOT saying what you expect troubling. I suggest one of 2 things... either 1 of us is miscommunicating with the other, and we simply have a misunderstanding,

OR,

I have a genuinely different perspective on this issue to you, that you might even be able to learn from.

In either case, getting all huffy isn't going to help.