Are gay rights a civil rights issue?

Marius27 · Sep 3, 2014

conamer said:
Most of the exegetial attack is focused of Paul because he explicitly discusses the subject- and on two passages in particular in 1 Corinthians:6-9.
The word effeminate [malakoi and homosexuals arsenokoitai

Arsenokoites doesn't mean homosexuals and malakois reference to "effeminate" refered to weak morality in the original scripture. Not to gay people.

Then there is Romans 1.

In the context of pagan worship rituals, addressed to heterosexuals, and even Saint Augustine said it was referring to heterosexuals. Romans 2 also disproves it meaning gays, since logically that would mean everyone is gay.

It is not at all shocking, given the widespread abhorrence that Jews expressed of the homosexual practices of the Greeks, that Paul, in his letters, should condemn homosexuality as well.

What widespride abhorrence? Lesbians aren't even mentioned in the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud records no instance of anyone ever being charged with the crime of homosexuality.

Absolutely nothing you've said is accurate. Arguing with you is a waste of time.

morningstar2651 · Sep 4, 2014

ALoveDivine said:
Sin is not freedom, its bondage. Ive wallowed in sin like a pig in the mud, ive had everything this world lusts for. Sex, drugs, money, power, popularity, you name it I had it. Eventually the lust for all of this enslaves you.

I doubt that. For one, not everyone lusts for sex, drugs, money, power, and popularity. Maybe you do...but I doubt you've ever had it ALL. We desire that which we don't have, not that which we already do.

ALoveDivine said:
God created this universe rich with purpose. When your actions are conformed to the created order, there is joy. Marriage and sex were created with purpose, and only in indulging them in conformity to their purpose brings lasting hapiness.

It's not the government's job to determine what kinds of sex people ought to have if they want to be happy. It's certainly not your job, nor is it a priest's job. Asking a chaste man for advice about sex is like asking a bum for advice about the stock market.

ALoveDivine said:
Sin is, in the last analysis, a violation of purpose.

No. It isn't. Sin is disobedience.

ALoveDivine said:
God is not some dictator giving us arbitrary laws.

No. He is THE dictator giving THE arbitrary laws.

ALoveDivine said:
To the Christian he is a loving father instructing us in wise living.

And what is he to the Non-Christian? What is he to the unsaved? Who are you to legislate your religious beliefs and enforce them upon those who do not believe as you do?

ALoveDivine said:
And even when we do fail, nothing will ever separate us from his love.

What does that even mean?

ALoveDivine said:
There is true joy in the Christian life, it is not self-repression or anything like that.

I'm sure that a lot people enjoy that life. It wasn't for me, and there is no lack of repression within Christianity.

conamer · Sep 4, 2014

Belk said:
Boy. It is pretty rare that you see a quote mine that keeps the original context to show it to be incorrect.

I love the quote mine blast, it's impressive.

conamer · Sep 4, 2014

Marius27 said:
Arsenokoites doesn't mean homosexuals and malakois reference to "effeminate" refered to weak morality in the original scripture. Not to gay people.

In the context of pagan worship rituals, addressed to heterosexuals, and even Saint Augustine said it was referring to heterosexuals. Romans 2 also disproves it meaning gays, since logically that would mean everyone is gay.

What widespride abhorrence? Lesbians aren't even mentioned in the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud records no instance of anyone ever being charged with the crime of homosexuality.

Absolutely nothing you've said is accurate. Arguing with you is a waste of time.

It's wasn't what just I posted or what you quoted that I posted, I used references unlike you that just makes your own baseless claims.

TLK Valentine · Sep 4, 2014

BobRyan said:
If civil rights are not derived from Bible morals - then you are right - but your premise can be questioned and here is the proof.

Of course my premise can be questioned... but will the questioning stand up to scrutiny?

If as you say the existings laws against SSM, inappropriate content, incest, pedophilia, polygamy etc are not based on any Bible morals but on secular arguments alone... then what "secular argument" changed to allow some states to permit SSM?

Simple -- the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is most famous for ending racial segregation, but it also prohibits discrimination based on gender.

If Bob can marry Sue but not Joe, based solely on their genders, that's discrimination, and it's illegal now.

What was the old secular argument vs the new one that supposedly changed?

Now we are talking about the language in the laws themselves or the language used to justify the laws both before allowing SSM and after.
When you cast this all as "just secular arguments" -- what are they?

Here I am not asking you to make one up - I am asking about the actual history of the laws themselves that you claim to have been purely secular.

Asked and answered -- see above.

What, did you think this was going to be difficult?

RileyG · Sep 4, 2014

Wow...just wow. I'm out. Some people are so incredibly hateful it's not even funny.

Belk · Sep 4, 2014

RileyG said:
Wow...just wow. I'm out. Some people are so incredibly hateful it's not even funny.

No, that is pretty much all people. That is why we need a savior right?

RileyG · Sep 4, 2014

Belk said:
No, that is pretty much all people. That is why we need a savior right?

Meh. Not all people.

Belk · Sep 4, 2014

RileyG said:
Meh. Not all people.

Would you accept "all people if put in the right circumstances"? People are people and it is a hard thing for us to accept about ourselves. Best to just laugh about it.

ALoveDivine · Sep 4, 2014

No. It isn't. Sin is disobedience.

Yeah, disobedience to God's good purpose woven into the order he created.

No. He is THE dictator giving THE arbitrary laws.

Right, I get it, you hate God. I used to hate him too. I don't expect any other attitude from unsaved people. You can't draw a single breath apart from his grace and mercy and yet you hate him and want nothing to do with him. For that you will be judged.

And what is he to the Non-Christian? What is he to the unsaved?

A fearful judge, who nonetheless gives you breath, the beats of your heart, the days of your life, and all the blessings of living on this planet. You will stand accountable for your hatred of God, who gives you everything you cherish.

Who are you to legislate your religious beliefs and enforce them upon those who do not believe as you do?

I have stated over and over again that I DO NOT support legislating biblical morality. I believe in legislating only to protect life, liberty, and property in accord with the US constitution. My position on SSM is to leave it to the states, I'm a libertarian not a theocrat.

What does that even mean?

It means that I will never be condemned no matter how much I mess up, the question of my sin is completely settled and I am loved by the creator of the universe unconditionally and this will never change. In other words, I am absolutely free and consequently have no fear of death. This goes for all Christians.

Absolute eternal forgiveness and infinite blessing, for bowing down and trusting in the atoning work of Christ. That is what God offers sinful man. And yet, you hate God...truly astounding.

Archaeopteryx · Sep 4, 2014

ALoveDivine said:
Right, I get it, you hate God. I used to hate him too. I don't expect any other attitude from unsaved people. You can't draw a single breath apart from his grace and mercy and yet you hate him and want nothing to do with him. For that you will be judged.

A fearful judge, who nonetheless gives you breath, the beats of your heart, the days of your life, and all the blessings of living on this planet. You will stand accountable for your hatred of God, who gives you everything you cherish.

I have stated over and over again that I DO NOT support legislating biblical morality. I believe in legislating only to protect life, liberty, and property in accord with the US constitution. My position on SSM is to leave it to the states, I'm a libertarian not a theocrat.

It means that I will never be condemned no matter how much I mess up, the question of my sin is completely settled and I am loved by the creator of the universe unconditionally and this will never change. In other words, I am absolutely free and consequently have no fear of death. This goes for all Christians.

Absolute eternal forgiveness and infinite blessing, for bowing down and trusting in the atoning work of Christ. That is what God offers sinful man. And yet, you hate God...truly astounding.

That doesn't make any sense. If he doesn't believe in deities, how can he hate one? Non-belief is not hate; it's non-belief. Why is that so difficult for some Christians to understand?

TLK Valentine · Sep 4, 2014

ALoveDivine said:
I have stated over and over again that I DO NOT support legislating biblical morality. I believe in legislating only to protect life, liberty, and property in accord with the US constitution. My position on SSM is to leave it to the states, I'm a libertarian not a theocrat.

Agreed -- but you also agree that those states must abide by the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court -- they are not totally autonomous.

I respect and on many levels agree with the libertarian view of limited federal authority... but at the same time, it's that federal authority which makes us the United States, and not 50 little fiefdoms...

ALoveDivine · Sep 4, 2014

If he doesn't believe in deities, how can he hate one?

Nonbelievers constantly claim to not believe in God, and yet they routinely pass judgement on him and his character. For not believing in him, they seem to get awfully upset over what they perceive to be his character flaws.

I tend to agree with what's laid out in the book of Romans, mainly that all nonbelievers know deep down that God exists but they psychologically suppress this truth because they hate him and don't want to bow down to him. And remember, this is coming from one who was an atheist for over 11 years.

but you also agree that those states must abide by the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court

Unfortunately the Supreme Court often gets it wrong. The Constitution is pretty simple and straight forward, it doesn't require a complicated hermeneutic. The 10th Amendment doesn't leave much room for interpretation.

Unfortunately, when you get social-democratic, European inspired activist judges on the Supreme Court, they will figure out a way to weasel their pet ideologies into their "interpretation" of the constitution. Just because they say something, doesn't mean they're right.

Marriage is not a right, because rights belong solely to individuals. Marriage is a social institution, as it is a contractual arrangement upon which benefits are bestowed by government, and is thereby subject to state authority, though not federal as such authority is not delegated to the feds by the constitution.

Either let the states handle it, or get government out of marriage completely. I'd prefer the later option but that's not likely to happen, as people have now made an idol out of government rather than viewing it as the founders did; a dangerous though ultimately necessary evil to be constrained by limited and delegated powers.

Archaeopteryx · Sep 4, 2014

This isn't a thread on this topic, so I'm not likely to respond to this any further.

ALoveDivine said:
Nonbelievers constantly claim to not believe in God, and yet they routinely pass judgement on him and his character. For not believing in him, they seem to get awfully upset over what they perceive to be his character flaws.

In the same way that one can judge Sauron as malevolent after reading The Lord of Rings without believing that Sauron is actually a real person as compared to a fictional character.

I tend to agree with what's laid out in the book of Romans, mainly that all nonbelievers know deep down that God exists but they psychologically suppress this truth because they hate him and don't want to bow down to him.

If they hate him then they believe in him, which makes them theists, not atheists.

And remember, this is coming from one who was an atheist for over 11 years.

I was a Christian for at least 17 years? Do I win?

morningstar2651 · Sep 4, 2014

RileyG said:
Wow...just wow. I'm out. Some people are so incredibly hateful it's not even funny.

The upsetting part is when they conflate their own hatred for the love of Christ.

I was raised Christian (Reformed Church in America to be specific about denomination) and attended Sunday school every week (unless I was sick) from early childhood until I was 18 years old. I studied the Bible in-depth, earned every merit badge available within Cadets (a Christian version of scouting), and studied the Heidelberg Catechism in high school on top of attending Youth Group every Sunday night.

Ultimately, I learned that I do not agree with the teachings of Christianity (it's a great religion, but it's just not for me), but the teachings of Christ make sense to me...and I'm confident that Jesus would be ashamed of some of the behaviors people claim to do in his name.

I always found it lazy and hypocritical to ignore the laws that are difficult to follow, such as dietary restrictions, clothing restrictions, etc. while choosing to follow the laws that are easy to follow, like not having sex with cows or people of the same gender. It's pretty easy to not break the laws against sex with the same gender when you're straight.

Remember that story about pulling the plank out of your own eye before you attempt to pull the splinter out of your brother's eye? This is pretty much what Jesus was talking about with that story. If you condemn your fellow man of violating a Biblical law that's easy for you to adhere to but difficult for them, then they will never take you seriously so long as you violate the ones that are difficult for you to adhere to as well.

bhsmte · Sep 4, 2014

ALoveDivine said:
Nonbelievers constantly claim to not believe in God, and yet they routinely pass judgement on him and his character. For not believing in him, they seem to get awfully upset over what they perceive to be his character flaws.

I tend to agree with what's laid out in the book of Romans, mainly that all nonbelievers know deep down that God exists but they psychologically suppress this truth because they hate him and don't want to bow down to him. And remember, this is coming from one who was an atheist for over 11 years.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court often gets it wrong. The Constitution is pretty simple and straight forward, it doesn't require a complicated hermeneutic. The 10th Amendment doesn't leave much room for interpretation.

Unfortunately, when you get social-democratic, European inspired activist judges on the Supreme Court, they will figure out a way to weasel their pet ideologies into their "interpretation" of the constitution. Just because they say something, doesn't mean they're right.

Marriage is not a right, because rights belong solely to individuals. Marriage is a social institution, as it is a contractual arrangement upon which benefits are bestowed by government, and is thereby subject to state authority, though not federal as such authority is not delegated to the feds by the constitution.

Either let the states handle it, or get government out of marriage completely. I'd prefer the later option but that's not likely to happen, as people have now made an idol out of government rather than viewing it as the founders did; a dangerous though ultimately necessary evil to be constrained by limited and delegated powers.

What non-believers tend to do, is critique the Christian description of what God is and align that description, with the realities of the world we live in. When that is done, some can not reconcile the Christian story, with reality.

That judgment that is being passed, is on how Christians describe God.

whitebeaches · Sep 4, 2014

Mod Hat On

This thread is being closed for staff review

4

Mod Hat Off

GoldenBoy89 · Sep 4, 2014

This whole discussion about God and atheists has little to nothing to do with the Civil rights of gays.

Judging by this poll, on a Christian website no less, and many polls taken across the country, it is safe to say that the people in opposition to SSM are an insignificant minority.

TLK Valentine · Sep 4, 2014

GoldenBoy89 said:
This whole discussion about God and atheists has little to nothing to do with the Civil rights of gays.

Judging by this poll, on a Christian website no less, and many polls taken across the country, it is safe to say that the people in opposition to SSM are an insignificant minority.

Certainly a vocal one... But there's still no legal argument against SSM that stands up to scrutiny -- certainly not one that overrules the Civil Rights Act, from which the arguments in favor of SSM stem from.

BobRyan · Sep 4, 2014

The louisianna thread had a secular argument against SSM

Judge Martin L. C. Feldman of Federal District Court said that the regulation of marriage was left up to the states and the democratic process; that no fundamental right was being violated by the ban; and that Louisiana had a “legitimate interest ... whether obsolete in the opinion of some, or not, in the opinion of others ... in linking children to an intact family formed by their two biological parents.”

But I don't believe that this has been the only argument used historically. I think that all the morality laws are based on Bible based morals and ethics -- historically.

in Christ,

Bob

Are gay rights a civil rights issue?

Are gay rights a civil rights issue?

Yes

No

On the fence

Newbie

Senior Veteran

conamer

Guest

conamer

Guest

I've already read the books you want burned.

Veteran

Senior Member

Veteran

Senior Member

Saved By Grace

Wanderer

I've already read the books you want burned.

Saved By Grace

Wanderer

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Legend

We're Still Here

I've already read the books you want burned.

Junior Member

Similar threads