Proposition 8 overturned in California

[nolongerhome]

There sure is a lot of intolerance being demonstrated by a group that advocates and demands tolerance.

I think we need to make a distinction between disagreeing with someone and demonstrating intolerance to someone.

As far as I have seen, both sides have engaged in disagreement, but only one has engaged in intolerant behaviour.

It is not, in my opinion, intolerant towards Christians to point out that the Christian definition of marriage should not necessarily be the legal definition of marriage in the United States of America (or indeed any state which explicitly separates church and state).

It is not intolerant towards Christians to demand that the state recognise as marriages relationships which Christians would not consider to be marriages.

Those advocating for change clearly disagree with Christians, but they are not forcing their views on Christians. Christians can continue to think what they think, to speak about what they think, and to engage in marriages which they think live up to the standard God intended. All that is being done is removing the obligation to live up to the standards of a Christian God from those who do not believe in him.

What intolerance comes down to is more than just disagreement - it is about refusing to respect the legitimate positions which other people take. I, and I think most if not all of the participants in this discussion, respect the rights of Christians to consider marriage as between a man and a woman. What we want is for people to respect the rights of people to hold a differing view.

 

[Supernaut]

I never said it was one sided (or even said I wasn't part of it), I just find it sad that you consider some people taking offense to being called abominations and fornicators as being the intolerant party.

Are you really that surprised though??

 

[Supernaut]

It is not, in my opinion, intolerant towards Christians to point out that the Christian definition of marriage should not necessarily be the legal definition of marriage in the United States of America (or indeed any state which explicitly separates church and state).

Of course it is! When has a complex of the christian persecution nature, it is natural to fall back when the ungodly point out your mistakes.

It is not intolerant towards Christians to demand that the state recognise as marriages relationships which Christians would not consider to be marriages.

It is because they say it is. They don't need evidence for these claims...they are being persecuted after all.

Those advocating for change clearly disagree with Christians, but they are not forcing their views on Christians. Christians can continue to think what they think, to speak about what they think, and to engage in marriages which they think live up to the standard God intended. All that is being done is removing the obligation to live up to the standards of a Christian God from those who do not believe in him.

It is the job of every True Christian to force their godly morals upon the ungodly. Those who refuse to turn from their wicked ways will be dispatched!

What intolerance comes down to is more than just disagreement - it is about refusing to respect the legitimate positions which other people take. I, and I think most if not all of the participants in this discussion, respect the rights of Christians to consider marriage as between a man and a woman. What we want is for people to respect the rights of people to hold a differing view.

*bolded* to emphasize my agreement with this.

 

[Maren]

And let me guess? You don't use Rent Boys while in Europe either?

No, I believe those rent boys are all reserved for people who work for NARTH and other anti-gay groups.

 

[Archer93]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7488284-32/#post55395325

The gods? Plural?
Oh dearie dearie me....
​

Have you never heard, that they were called 'gods', sons of the most high? ​

Nope. Who are these 'sons of the most high' who are called gods?

And you would know this how? Personal experience? No? Then how can you presume to know how other people feel?

LOVE transcends so many boundaries. LOVE is one and the same. I know what is in us that drives us. If the LOVE that lives in us dwells in you, then you would be re-positioned towards the path of LOVE.

But not, according to you, the boundry of genitalia. Ho hum.
Whatever is in you that drives you is re-positioning me towards the path of EXTREME ANNOYANCE.

Christianity does not own the concept of marriage, nor the concept of love.

True, but HE who owns it has defined it in unambiguous terms

You might beleive that God 'owns' marraige, but I've seen less ambiguity in Sir Humphrey Appleby's speeches.

Posts like yours give those who also display Christian icons a bad name

.
How can you speak, when you have refused to hear.

Right back atcha.

As ever, big

s to all Christians on here who demonstrate that this individual does not speak for them al

l.

I do not speak for anybody, but for the truth.
Learn to walk in the light while you can.

You speak for yourself, and your 'truth' is nothing more than a spoon-fed opinion.

 

[Archer93]

Excellent points, just want to comment on this bit-

And, by the way, once and for all, Gays are not recruiting. Sexual orientation is most likely something people are born with, if you would pay attention to science at all. The "recruiting" that gays do when speaking to LGBTQ youth is an effort to help them to accept themselves as they are and live productive lives. Rather than end up wasting thousands of dollars trying to become something they're not - or worse, committing suicide because they think that being dead is worse than who they are.

Anyone have additional thoughts on what I just said?

Darn tootin' gay people are not recruiting. It's generally accepted by gay people and allies that one can't deliberatly change one's orientation- it might change over time, but not by a conscious decision.
One can changes one's actions, but not the basic attraction.

From reading some of the testemonies on ex-gay sites it seems that most of the 'ex-gays' are celibate, not straight.
Not the same thing.

There are some groups out there, though, who are trying to recruit people into a sexuality- the ex-gay groups themselves.
It's kind of logical- if sexuality can't be consciously changed then their programs are worthless. They believe, however, that their programs are effective, so sexuality must therefore be changeable.
Since it is changable, it must worth both ways, which would mean that exposure to the fact of homosexuality can make otherwise straight people gay.
Therefore, homosexuality must be kept quiet lest it 'turns' young people.

The logic isn't great, and the premises are faulty, but I think that's the reasoning.

 

[Archer93]

Or chatting on internet forums.

Yep.

Didn't Jesus tell his followers to go and talk to people directly to spread the word? With face-to-face contact?
But he didn't tell them to write them letters. Would that mean that long-distance contact is wrong?
Which would put Paul in a rather awkward position.
And by extention, everyone who spreads the word on-line.

Unless, of course, Jesus didn't mean 'ONLY spread the word face-to-face'. At the time, given that literacy wasn't particularly wide-spread, going and talking to people was the best way to spread the word.
Letterwriting is fine, when the intended audience can read or have the letter read to them.

Just because A is mentioned and B isn't, doesn't mean that B is actively wrong. It can simply mean that B wasn't relevant at the time.

 

[selfinflikted]

That's good at least. I would have figured you'd deal with more discrimination down there.

Well, as a whole, yea I probably do. I mean, I've had my run-ins with folks... But, like I said, most people just don't care.

 

[SithDoughnut]

There sure is a lot of intolerance being demonstrated by a group that advocates and demands tolerance.

Could you give examples of this intolerance?

 

[Ayersy]

Judge Walker is Gay.

Talk about walking into the Lions den for the defendants.

If he was a "Born Again" Christian and decided to uphold the will of the majority in California, there would be a mass demonstration of such anger as has not been seen since Prop 8 passed.

The Gay Agenda once again has its foundation in reality.

True Alinskyite Judge Walker. By any means necessary.

Christians have no chance against such devious people.

Again.

Giving other people freedom doesn't take away from yours.

 

[Old Catholic Man]

Which constitution? That of man or divinity? The last time i checked, this was supposed to be a CHRISTIAN FORUM, not a law school forum.

This is a Christian Forum but the discussion is about a U.S. Law and the U.S. is not a Christian Nation. The U.S. Constitution is the highest law in the land and therefore quite pertinent to a discussion about the overturning of an unconstitutional State Amendment.

T

 

[pgp_protector]

Which constitution? That of man or divinity? The last time i checked, this was supposed to be a CHRISTIAN FORUM, not a law school forum.

We're not talking about the site rules though, but about California's Laws.

 

[Sojourner1]

I think we need to make a distinction between disagreeing with someone and demonstrating intolerance to someone.

As far as I have seen, both sides have engaged in disagreement, but only one has engaged in intolerant behaviour.

It is not, in my opinion, intolerant towards Christians to point out that the Christian definition of marriage should not necessarily be the legal definition of marriage in the United States of America (or indeed any state which explicitly separates church and state).

It is not intolerant towards Christians to demand that the state recognise as marriages relationships which Christians would not consider to be marriages.

Those advocating for change clearly disagree with Christians, but they are not forcing their views on Christians. Christians can continue to think what they think, to speak about what they think, and to engage in marriages which they think live up to the standard God intended. All that is being done is removing the obligation to live up to the standards of a Christian God from those who do not believe in him.

What intolerance comes down to is more than just disagreement - it is about refusing to respect the legitimate positions which other people take. I, and I think most if not all of the participants in this discussion, respect the rights of Christians to consider marriage as between a man and a woman. What we want is for people to respect the rights of people to hold a differing view.

I think this is a calm, respectful and well thought-out response. Thank you for taking the time to clearly explain your position. Well I agree with the majority of what you have said, I don't agree that most of the participants in this thread really do respect the rights of Christians to consider marriage as between a man and a woman. I also think most participants really are forcing their views on Christians and they get really annoyed if Christians support their viewpoint with Scripture.

When Christians explain their reasoning for believing as they do they get flamed, mocked and ridiculed, and called names such as bigots, racists and fundies. If we as Christians point out a verse that says homosexuality (man with man, woman with woman) is an abomination in the eyes of God, we are accused of calling homosexuals abominations. If we quote a verse about the actions that lead to condemnation and hell, then we are accused of saying all homosexuals are going to hell.

 

[Gishin]

I think this is a calm, respectful and well thought-out response. Thank you for taking the time to clearly explain your position. Well I agree with the majority of what you have said, I don't agree that most of the participants in this thread really do respect the rights of Christians to consider marriage as between a man and a woman.

When Christians explain their reasoning for believing as they do they get flamed, mocked and ridiculed, and called names such as bigots, racists and fundies. If we as Christians point out a verse that says homosexuality (man with man, woman with woman) is an abomination in the eyes of God, we are accused of calling homosexuals abominations. If we quote a verse about the actions that lead to condemnation and hell, then we are accused of saying all homosexuals are going to hell.

You see, I DO respect your right to consider marriage as between one man and one woman. Consider it all you like, shout it from the mountain tops, and live your life accordingly. However, I do not respect you trying to make others abide by that consideration. You consider it between one man, one woman, I don't, and just because you have a book doesn't mean you get to override me. The only fair thing to do is to let each party abide by their own principals.

 

[Old Catholic Man]

Cheese and Crackers! I hope this happens soon! I honestly thought I'd never be able to marry (I'm in Alabama), but there's hope!

Wow I'd take a trip home simply to witness that. (wouldn't turn my back to the crowd though)

 

[Belk]

I think this is a calm, respectful and well thought-out response. Thank you for taking the time to clearly explain your position. Well I agree with the majority of what you have said, I don't agree that most of the participants in this thread really do respect the rights of Christians to consider marriage as between a man and a woman. I also think most participants really are forcing their views on Christians and they get really annoyed if Christians support their viewpoint with Scripture.


]When Christians explain their reasoning for believing as they do they get flamed, mocked and ridiculed, and called names such as bigots, racists and fundies. If we as Christians point out a verse that says homosexuality (man with man, woman with woman) is an abomination in the eyes of God, we are accused of calling homosexuals abominations. If we quote a verse about the actions that lead to condemnation and hell, then we are accused of saying all homosexuals are going to hell.

Can you give us some examples of others forcing their views on Christians? Because I honestly do not see it.

 

[Old Catholic Man]

Implying? Recuse should have been the only moral decision this man made in the case. But morality is not the issue. Gay Rights are.



To redefine marriage for same gender couples, there should have never been a chalenge to that. It is absurd to equate same gender couples to a husband and a wife.

Mommies, where's my daddy?

It's horricfic. But its fascinating watching this abomination take shape as described in the Bible.

How would a heterosexual judge be any less of an issue? This case was decided upon it's merits.

As for the definition of marriage it has been changed many times, this is not a religious issue it is a Constitutional one. We do not live in a Christian nation we live in a secular nation. Our laws should not be based upon a religious definition.

T

 

[PreachersWife2004]

How would a heterosexual judge be any less of an issue? This case was decided upon it's merits.

As for the definition of marriage it has been changed many times, this is not a religious issue it is a Constitutional one. We do not live in a Christian nation we live in a secular nation. Our laws should not be based upon a religious definition.

T

well, ideally, yes we would want laws based on Christianity. It's society that has determined that religious values have no place in government, not God. God certainly tells us to respect the authority placed over us, but God never said that law was supposed to be secular law.

For Christians it is certainly a religious issue. Our beliefs and values are not based on what society thinks is right, but what our God tells us is right.

 

[Sojourner1]

Can you give us some examples of others forcing their views on Christians? Because I honestly do not see it.

I honestly don't have the time it would take to go through this thread and find all the examples of forcing a viewpoint or intolerance. From what I have read in multiple threads in E&M right now (since Prop 8 was overturned) I have noticed quite a bit of intolerance toward Christians who don't believe in gay marriage and I have also noticed a lot of comments directed at Christians challenging their beliefs in a disrespectful way. It's difficult to try to have a respectful discussion when people resort to calling you a religious nutjob, conservative fundie wacko, or a racist bigot.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

For Christians it is certainly a religious issue. Our beliefs and values are not based on what society thinks is right, but what our God tells us is right.

I have to say really. I doubt that. If what you say is true that all christians would have the same opinion on these issues but they clearly do not. Thus it seems far more likely that their values are based on something else such as their parents. or if they actually investigate the issues they might change beliefs and values based on what they learn.

My point being, these beliefs and values come from the society in the first place. Weither they are believed to be god given or not.