Are gay rights a civil rights issue?

Are gay rights a civil rights issue?

  • Yes

  • No

  • On the fence


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

GenetoJean

Veteran
Jun 25, 2012
2,807
140
Delaware
Visit site
✟18,940.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Marius27

Newbie
Feb 16, 2013
3,039
495
✟6,009.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Democrat
Whatever he wants, why should his rights be infringed upon for the rights of another?

Especially considering that the reason the right exists is because of him (err, his faith)?

His rights are not infringed upon. He's not being forced to marry a member of the same-sex.
 
Upvote 0

David Brider

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2004
6,513
700
With the Lord
✟81,010.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Greens
No, I want to separate civil unions and marriage based upon my own moral convictions, the free practice of my religion, and the traditional Western definition of marriage which has existed since the foundation of Christendom.

Thing is - and this really goes out to all the anti-SSM folks out there - I can understand why you personally might not think SSM is a good thing and would therefore not want it for yourself. But why do you want to prevent other people from entering into same-sex marriages? It's not as if it has any effect on you if they do so. You're still free to have your own moral convictions, to practice your religion as you see fit, and to marry someone of the opposite sex if/when you choose to do so. Why do you want to inhibit the freedoms of other people?
 
Upvote 0

David Brider

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2004
6,513
700
With the Lord
✟81,010.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Greens
If LGBT want to identify based upon their gender preference, rather than their humanity, then there is something inherently wrong with their mindset.

LGBT and human aren't mutually exclusive.

I identify as many things. Bisexual and human are two of them, but by no means the only two.
 
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Thing is - and this really goes out to all the anti-SSM folks out there - I can understand why you personally might not think SSM is a good thing and would therefore not want it for yourself. But why do you want to prevent other people from entering into same-sex marriages? It's not as if it has any effect on you if they do so. You're still free to have your own moral convictions, to practice your religion as you see fit, and to marry someone of the opposite sex if/when you choose to do so. Why do you want to inhibit the freedoms of other people?

But won't somebody please think of the poor Christian bakers being forced to convert to the gay by baking evil homosexual cakes?
 
Upvote 0

Zeena

..called to BE a Saint
Jul 30, 2004
5,811
691
✟16,853.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Glad to have you on board! :hug:
*HUGS* back at cha, thanks! :hug:

Couldn't one describe themselves as both being LGBT and humane?
Most certainly, but most don't, at least, it's not my experience, and I've met my fair share of individuals so inclined.

It is almost as if persons so inclined feel compelled to relay their sexual orientation upon mere eye contact! :o
Are they really that desperate for companionship that their eyes might light upon every person they fancy? :blush:

Some have a learned speech, and talk in this manner even when not in the company of others of like-minded, probably even when they are alone! :o

Some who are so inclined even walk a certain way, seeming to flaunt their sexuality in the face of social convention. [I do not say they are in defiance of such, merely that it gives me this impression when I see it].

Then they snap their fingers like the entire world is their go-to! ^_^

I am very curious as to the behavioral psychology behind these compulsions.

I mean no offense by calling out these traits. I only mention them because I feel these people are pretending to be something they are not, and hurting their own psyche in the process.

There is no reason to change the way we talk, or walk, etc., apart from differentiating ourselves from others. So if persons, who are so inclined, feel compelled to change their behavior in order to be recognised as something they are obviously not (as this is not their natural speech or walk, etc.,), wouldn't this count as a mental disorder, if not a religion on it's own merit, for belief regarding ones existence?

Doesn't context dictate which to use?
Again, it should, but it usually doesn't!
Even with children, some who are so inclined seem compelled to explain their sexual preference, as if needful for acceptance (that they are unfortunately not receiving from adult society). Children are so innocent that they are right there to support these people, even though they [hopefully] know nothing of sexuality experientially.

It seems to me, in light of all these compulsions, that there is some schism in the minds of individuals who identify themselves by their sexuality.
I pray they find peace with who they are, apart from what they do. :prayer:
Further, that they, with us, learn to accept one another after the spirit, rather than the flesh. :thumbsup:

Also part of the issue is that the decision to legislate around a sexual orientation has already been made. It's not as if homosexuals have been passing anti-gay legislation.

Actually... I take that back ^_^

Point being, citizens and politicians have been 'identifying' and subsequently subjugating our fellow Americans for decades

In that sense I would agree that there is something wrong with that mindset.
No man should Lord over another, it is morally wrong to elevate oneself on the back of another! :preach:

I do not argue that bad things happened, or are happening.. I can only point to the light and pray for peace. :groupray:

What do you mean by identify based on their gender preference as opposed to their humanity? I have yet to meet an LGBT person who doesnt think they are human.
I mean, introduce themselves as such, at every opportunity. This being, I believe some, so inclined, prefer to think, or think primarily, of themselves as homosexual rather than, or before, or in preference of, being human.

To differentiate oneself based upon a sexual preference is religiosity in itself, as it pertains to existence.

Some might consider this a form of absurdist or existentialist view, but I would deign not to label.

Should we now differentiate based upon preferences that are non-sexual in nature too? I mean, I LOVE chocolate and peanut butter, together, should I henceforth be known as a Choco-nut? ^_^ :D

By this logic identifying as Christian, or black, or male, or anything else other than "humanity" would also be an identity crisis.
Agreed, with the first two, am at odds with your final statement. Which is why religiosity and race are defined as discriminatory grounds for differentiation, at least here in Canada.

Only certain traits, most especially those which are considered inherent, or inalienable, could qualify as grounds for discrimination against persons. which is why natural affection is so vehemently argued. :wave:
 
Upvote 0

David Brider

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2004
6,513
700
With the Lord
✟81,010.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Greens
He's forced to see the definition marred.. :blush:

Even if that's true (and really, it's rather a subjective statement; I've never been particularly convinced by the notion that expanding the parameters of who is legally allowed to get married constitutes a change in definition of what it means to get married), that hardly counts as an infringement on his rights. His rights continue as they were before.
 
Upvote 0

Zeena

..called to BE a Saint
Jul 30, 2004
5,811
691
✟16,853.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
He's forced to see the definition marred.. :blush:
The term 'marriage' most definitely means little to nothing to those opting for a civil union, or are not of a religious bent, for they (should) enjoy all the benefits that 'marriage' implies, yet it means everything to those who hold it as a religious institution.

Therefore it is an infringement on the rights of those who hold marriage as a religious institution.

It's like saying that you are baptised because you had a bath, and using this publically as a means to announce your cleanliness to the world. It's taking a religious term and using it in a secular manner and seems extremely disrespectful! :blush:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Zeena

..called to BE a Saint
Jul 30, 2004
5,811
691
✟16,853.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Even if that's true (and really, it's rather a subjective statement; I've never been particularly convinced by the notion that expanding the parameters of who is legally allowed to get married constitutes a change in definition of what it means to get married), that hardly counts as an infringement on his rights. His rights continue as they were before.
The institution (of marriage) itself may very well be weakened by the inclusion of extra-Biblical marriages. Do we take this chance at harming those who believe such, over a word? :blush:
 
Upvote 0

David Brider

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2004
6,513
700
With the Lord
✟81,010.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Greens
The term 'marriage' most definitely means little to nothing to those opting for a civil union, or are not of a religious bent, for they (should) enjoy all the benefits that 'marriage' implies, yet it means everything to those who hold it as a religious institution.

I think that's an incredible slur on anyone who gets married in a non-religious context. Regardless of the specific ceremony used or the specific vows said, getting married involves a tremendous commitment on the part of those involved (normally, in some wording or other, a commitment to spend the rest of their natural lives together). You really believe that means "little to nothing" for some people?

Therefore it is an infringement on the rights of those who hold marriage as a religious institution.

Your notion of what constitutes an infringement on someone's rights is really rather skewed. Other people getting married, whatever the context, in no way infringes on your rights. It may offend your sensibilities, but that's not the same thing.

It's like saying that you are baptised because you had a bath, and using this publically as a means to announce your cleanliness to the world. It's taking a religious term and using it in a secular manner and seems extremely disrespectful! :blush:

Even if "marriage" was once a purely religious term, it isn't any longer. It hasn't been exclusively Christian for ages, if ever. Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, atheists and other people get married all the time. Is that "disrespectful" of them?
 
Upvote 0

David Brider

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2004
6,513
700
With the Lord
✟81,010.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Greens
The institution (of marriage) itself may very well be weakened by the inclusion of extra-Biblical marriages. Do we take this chance at harming those who believe such, over a word? :blush:

Even if the institution of marriage may be weakened (and there's no indication of that happening, nor any reason why it might happen), that in no way harms people. I think you need to get a bit of perspective on this one.
 
Upvote 0

Zeena

..called to BE a Saint
Jul 30, 2004
5,811
691
✟16,853.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Even if the institution of marriage may be weakened (and there's no indication of that happening, nor any reason why it might happen), that in no way harms people.
I believe it can be weakened, in the eyes of certain believers and their churches, if it's meaning is marred by the inclusion extra-Biblical marriage.

These believers and churches may become apathetic to the institution in the alteration of it's present meaning; the union of a man and a woman by God.

I think you need to get a bit of perspective on this one.
Here I stand and I would not be so quick to sit when the rights of a people are at stake.
 
Upvote 0

David Brider

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2004
6,513
700
With the Lord
✟81,010.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Greens
I believe it can be weakened, in the eyes of certain believers and their churches, if it's meaning is marred by the inclusion extra-Biblical marriage.

But it's not marred. If a person's idea of marriage is weakened by what you call "extra-Biblical marriage," then maybe it's their idea of marriage that's at fault in the first place?

These believers and churches may become apathetic to the institution in the alteration of it's present meaning; the union of a man and a woman by God.

They might. They might not. Do you have any evidence of that actually happening, though? Because if not, it's purely speculation on your part. And anyway, even before the introduction of laws enabling same-sex couples to be married, the meaning of marriage was never purely " the union of a man and a woman by God".

Here I stand and I would not be so quick to sit when the rights of a people are at stake.

Nobody's rights are at stake.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Zeena

..called to BE a Saint
Jul 30, 2004
5,811
691
✟16,853.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think that's an incredible slur on anyone who gets married in a non-religious context.
And in the oppositions shoes it is not? :angel:

Matt 7:6
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Regardless of the specific ceremony used or the specific vows said, getting married involves a tremendous commitment on the part of those involved (normally, in some wording or other, a commitment to spend the rest of their natural lives together).
I agree, and as someone married for over 15 years I know that a successful marriage is largely commited, which is why I to expounded upon such earlier, even though it fell upon deaf ears at that time.

To me, the vow is the promise, the promise to commit to doing what you have vowed. Be it to love one another, respect, honour or even obey. Marriage is a commitment yes, but it is also greater than our commitment because of God's hand in it, should be believe thus.

Mk 10:9
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

You really believe that means "little to nothing" for some people?
Not at all, and that's not what I said.

While commitment remains a basis for a civil union, the workings of God remain a basis for a religious marriage, at least it was for mine.

Mk 10:9
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

The religious institution of marriage is often determined to be much more than commitment by those who hold such belief that God has, Personally, joined them together.

Your notion of what constitutes an infringement on someone's rights is really rather skewed.
I suppose that depends on your religious bent. Do you not esteem the working of God to be Holy?

Matt 7:6
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Other people getting married, whatever the context, in no way infringes on your rights.{/quote]It infringes upon the rights of those who believe it a religious institution that should remain unstained by the world.

It may offend your sensibilities, but that's not the same thing.
Just as it may offend yours. What it boils down to is which group would incur more harm, if only one can be accommodated to the detriment of the other? I would say the one with much to lose, than the one to gain.. :sorry:

Even if "marriage" was once a purely religious term, it isn't any longer.
It isn't? Even if not, that doesn't make the trampling of the religious politically correct.

It hasn't been exclusively Christian for ages, if ever. Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, atheists and other people get married all the time. Is that "disrespectful" of them?
Not at all, for the only stipulation given in the Scripture is that a man shall marry a woman.

Matt 19:4-5
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

The fact that a "marriage" is extra-Biblical may offend the religious, most especially if it is touted as by God.
 
Upvote 0

Zeena

..called to BE a Saint
Jul 30, 2004
5,811
691
✟16,853.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But it's not marred. If a person's idea of marriage is weakened by what you call "extra-Biblical marriage," then maybe it's their idea of marriage that's at fault in the first place?
Have you ever even considered the opposite to be true?

Is your doctrine conform to, at the very least, the Spirit of Scripture?

Is it man or God who joins man and wife together, for instance?

They might. They might not. Do you have any evidence of that actually happening, though? Because if not, it's purely speculation on your part.
And, again, do you so flippantly deal with such weighty matters on a consistent basis?

And anyway, even before the introduction of laws enabling same-sex couples to be married, the meaning of marriage was never purely " the union of a man and a woman by God".
Laws of man? Surely as a Christian you recognise the Law of Christ? Which is weightier?

Gal 6:2
Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

Rom 14:21
It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

Nobody's rights are at stake.
End of our discourse then?

May the Lord be Gracious to us all, amen!
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I believe it can be weakened, in the eyes of certain believers and their churches, if it's meaning is marred by the inclusion extra-Biblical marriage.

Well, they're just going to have to get over it. Our laws exist to protect the rights of people, not the rights of words.

These believers and churches may become apathetic to the institution in the alteration of it's present meaning; the union of a man and a woman by God.

Well, that's their problem; I'm sure they'll get over it... or not. So what?

Here I stand and I would not be so quick to sit when the rights of a people are at stake.

People have the right to become as apathetic as they wish -- who are you to say they don't?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.