Today is a sad day

[Zecryphon]

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

And the "religio-political dogma" in this case would be, what?
​

Protestant Christian fundamentalism, usually.

Which has what to do with me, exactly?

Um yes they do. You guys are always the first to complain about social injustices and make grand speeches about how you're gonna fix things, but you rarely ever do.
​

Ever heard the expression "When you're up to your --- in alligators it's easy to forget the original objective was to drain the swamp"? Look at Clinton-impeached over a personal pecadillo, no wonder we didn't get universal health care.

Do you really think Clinton was impeached over one personal indiscretion? Please. He wasn't getting busy with just Miss Lewinsky. There were others as well. The only universal healthcare package I was ever aware of, was put together by Hillary and as I recall it was so bad nobody wanted it as a reality. Are you sure you're in the right forum? This is a theology forum, not a political debate forum.

When you play defense too much there's not much of an opening for offense. I suppose the same could be said of the Gingrichites' ineffectiveness as well.

Gingrichites? You're talking politics again. Theology forum here. We discuss theology.

No, ma'am. That is a question and it was probably based upon John Kerry's stance on abortion, if I had to venture a guess. By the way, do you know what the young man's answer was?
​

The brave lad said, "Um, well, I gotta go," and never came to that church again.

Why do you call him brave? He was so scared by one question he never went to that church again. That's hardly brave.

Actually that behavior can be seen on both sides. Don't try and act like it's only conservatives who do this. Liberals do this too. In fact, your posts demonstrate this behavior beautifully. You want the right to say that homosexual sex is okay, but denounce anyone who says it's not. Your posts paint you as someone who thinks that all conservative Christians are just waiting for the opportunity to beat and kill homosexuals.
​

The sturm und drang of debate is not for everyone. You have a right to say what you want to say but you do not have a right to say it free from criticism.

No debate is not for everyone. It can get heated at times, but it never needs to get personal. Debates are not about winning arguments or tearing your opponent to shreds with verbal insults. They're about testing the validity of a posed assertion. You're free to criticize ideas and statements, you are not free to criticize people as you see fit.

Actually, what right-wing Christian groups are doing by opposing antibullying programs and hate crime legislation is seeking plausible deniability when their words spoken from pulpits result in such attacks;

You don't need hate crime laws. You really don't. If a homosexual is murdered, you go after the person who committed the crime by charging them with murder. Those laws are still perfectly good and quite effective.

just as Southern segregationist politicians did when the Ku Klux Klan did such things against civil rights workers in the 1950s-1960s.

Right and they went after the Klan using the existing laws they didn't need to create a a new category of laws before they could punish people.

 

[Zecryphon]

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

How is getting married a civil right?
​

They said the same thing to interracial couples prior to Loving v. Virginia.

Which answers my question, how?

No conservative Christian would ever call their senator to do away with hate crime laws
​

Since right wing Christian groups are active in this issue this is paterntly false, but efforts are not concentrated on repealing hate crime laws, but on instituting them, and this is what they fight tooth and nail.

Sorry not false. Right wing groups may be active in hate crime legislation, but are probably only active because they don't want to see these new laws used against them when they attend church. The hate crime laws have to allow that people will not be put in jail for practicing freedom of religion.

and two because conservative Christians hold the written word of God as the authority on how to treat others. Since hate crimes violate the command to love others as you love yourself, no Christian, conservative or otherwise, would want to do away with any law that protects people from harm. Try again. All you're doing with this accusation is insulting a group that you disagree with. So why are you resorting to such unChristian behavior? Because someone disagrees with your position on gay marriage? Yeah, that's a good reason. NOT!
​

Sounds like you need to be speaking to Focus on the Family, Christian Coalition, etc., because that's exactly what they're doing.

Why? James Dobson and his ilk have nothing to do with me. They don't represent me and they don't speak for me and they're too politically motivated for my taste.

You have an 'us vs. them' mentality too.
​

When you're fighting to survive that's called being realistic.

If you're so afraid for your life and do actually believe you could perish at the hands of your enemies at any second, get a gun. Better yet get two.

Your cohort gave us Reagan, the Bushes, Gingrich, et al and we're down at your ten yard line on your goal set to score on the marriage thing and all your side does is whine about it.

My cohort? Who's that? Plus, the only person whining around here is you. I'm just countering your points.

Stop the horrible things your side is doing to your LGBT brothers and sisters and then there's room for photo ops.

I'm not convinced that "my side" is doing anything horrible to anybody. All they're doing is speaking their mind and you can't deal with it. I just have brothers and sisters in Christ. I'm not so hung up on their sexual preferences that I have to label them as LGBT's. That's your issue.

 

[Zecryphon]

Marriage is a right. The Supreme Court of the United States has said so. To deny same-sex couples the right to marry is to deny gay people a human right. States can deny people rights if they have a good reason, if they have in some cases a compelling state interest or in other cases merely a rational basis for denying the right. Religious belief is neither a compelling state interest nor a rational basis, as civil laws should never reflect any particular group's religious beliefs. Civil law governs people of all faiths and no faith, and civil laws should not be based on any particular group's religious doctrines or dogmas.

If folks in your church don't want to perform same-sex marriages or recognize same-sex marriages, that's fine. But don't force your religious beliefs on everyone else through civil laws that discriminate against gay people or against anyone else. Civil marriage is not the same as religious marriage.

How am I forcing my beliefs upon you? By typing them on a Christian message board? The fact is, I'm not forcing my beliefs upon anybody. If you want to see gay marriage become a reality, fight for it, just as you're doing. And if the other side doesn't want it to become a reality, they will fight for that. This is a government of the people, by the people, for the people. It's the people who are going to decide this issue. If enough people want it, it will happen. If enough people don't want it, it won't happen. You can't make the goverment give you what you want if the majority of the people don't want it.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Yeah and these same people [those who go to Gay Pride parades or events and protest] likely become violent at other events too, like sports.

And they are supported in this by right-wing parachurch organizations. Not Fred Phelps. But Michael Marcavage is just as hateful and offensive as Phelps bu the religious right loves him.

Yeah and I find the people who say that, often times have a problem with any display of public affection regardless of the orientation of the people publicly displaying the affection.

In rare cases. But heterosexual handholders are not subjected to the outpourings of hatred which are directed at LGBT handholders.

it seems to be that when anybody speaks out against gay-anything, for any reason they are automatically called a homophobe. It's a knee-jerk reaction the gay defenders have.

To minimize this is to deny those who disagree with you the dignity that you expect. When they speak out as you say, they express homophobia and heterosexism. It's not that hard to see.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Do you really think Clinton was impeached over one personal indiscretion? Please. He wasn't getting busy with just Miss Lewinsky. There were others as well.

Finally, a right winger who admits it was all about the sex! Hallelujah!

The only universal healthcare package I was ever aware of, was put together by Hillary and as I recall it was so bad nobody wanted it as a reality.

It was a corporate plan and its' presentation ruined Ira magaziner's career, rightfully. But he was blindsided by Republicans engaging in scorched earth politics.

Are you sure you're in the right forum? This is a theology forum, not a political debate forum.

These days when paranoids circulate rumors that Obama's a Muslim so we should all be skeered, there's a broad intersection.

Gingrichites? You're talking politics again. Theology forum here. We discuss theology.

Religious Right groups were an essential element of the Gingrich coalition.

Why do you call him brave? He was so scared by one question he never went to that church again. That's hardly brave.

Not scared...offended that some would misuse Christian faith in that reprehensible manner. He found a church where that doesn't happen. It's brave in contrast to staying with a church like that.
​

they went after the Klan using the existing laws they didn't need to create a a new category of laws before they could punish people.

Sometimes 50 years later but more often Klan and local prosecutors were in bed with one another.

 

[Texas Lynn]

How is getting married a civil right?

when it's denied for discriminatory reasons.

they don't want to see these new laws used against them when they attend church. The hate crime laws have to allow that people will not be put in jail for practicing freedom of religion.

Hate crimes refer to crimes committed on the basis of hate, not public speech. That's a red herring the right wing promotes to fool the gullible.

Why? James Dobson and his ilk have nothing to do with me. They don't represent me and they don't speak for me and they're too politically motivated for my taste.

We sure do get a lot of "Me No Alamos" in response to these things but Dobson et al are still raking in the money.

If you're so afraid for your life and do actually believe you could perish at the hands of your enemies at any second, get a gun. Better yet get two.

Already have six.

My cohort? Who's that?

I used the term cohort meaning a demographic, not a companion.

I'm not convinced that "my side" is doing anything horrible to anybody. All they're doing is speaking their mind and you can't deal with it. I just have brothers and sisters in Christ. I'm not so hung up on their sexual preferences that I have to label them as LGBT's. That's your issue.

Read the news reports on 365gay.com among other places and you will see hardly a day goes by without an example of 'man's inhumanity to man' where the oppressor is a right-wing fundamentalist Christian and the victim is an LGBT. Things like teenagers forced into "therapeutic" camps where they're threatened with hell for not changing their sexual orientation, LGBTs losing child custody, etc.

 

[Texas Lynn]

How am I forcing my beliefs upon you? By typing them on a Christian message board? The fact is, I'm not forcing my beliefs upon anybody. If you want to see gay marriage become a reality, fight for it, just as you're doing. And if the other side doesn't want it to become a reality, they will fight for that. This is a government of the people, by the people, for the people. It's the people who are going to decide this issue. If enough people want it, it will happen. If enough people don't want it, it won't happen. You can't make the goverment give you what you want if the majority of the people don't want it.

"Little man'll whup a big man ever' time as long as the little man's in the right and keeps on commin'." (Terry Southern)

That alone tells why same gender marriage is soon going to be a reality everywhere.

 

[Zecryphon]

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Yeah and these same people [those who go to Gay Pride parades or events and protest] likely become violent at other events too, like sports.
​

And they are supported in this by right-wing parachurch organizations. Not Fred Phelps. But Michael Marcavage is just as hateful and offensive as Phelps bu the religious right loves him.

Why did you alter my quote? That is incredibly dishonest. If you're going to quote me, quote what I say, not what you think I should have said.

I've never heard of him. I listen to quite a few Christian podcasts and have never heard this guy mentioned. So who, specifically, in the Christian right loves him?

Yeah and I find the people who say that, often times have a problem with any display of public affection regardless of the orientation of the people publicly displaying the affection.
​

In rare cases. But heterosexual handholders are not subjected to the outpourings of hatred which are directed at LGBT handholders.

Such as? You, always say the same thing over and over, about all this violence and death that is foisted upon the homosexual community, but for all your rhetoric you have presented no proof that shows the reality of the situation is anywhere close to as bad as you say it is.

it seems to be that when anybody speaks out against gay-anything, for any reason they are automatically called a homophobe. It's a knee-jerk reaction the gay defenders have.
​

To minimize this is to deny those who disagree with you the dignity that you expect. When they speak out as you say, they express homophobia and heterosexism. It's not that hard to see.

More baseless accusations. I'm not minimizing this. I don't expect dignity, I have it. I expect respect from other people. I give them respect because I don't call them names simply because I disagree with their view on a particular subject. I mean how would you like it, if the debate ceased altogether and we just flung insults back and forth at each other? People on your side of this debate could now be called "anti-heterosexual" and "heterophobes". Would that really solve anything? Would that lead people who are currently opposed to gay marriage to suddenly have compassion and sympathy for homosexuals? No, it wouldn't. So how does flinging an insult at someone change their mind on an issue? I try my best not to do it, because it is a behavior that does not honor God.

1Pe 3:8 Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind. 1Pe 3:9 Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing. 1Pe 3:10 For "Whoever desires to love life and see good days, let him keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking deceit; 1Pe 3:11 let him turn away from evil and do good; let him seek peace and pursue it. 1Pe 3:12 For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer. But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil."

People who say they disagree with gay marriage or anything gay are recipients of verbal assaults they do not deserve. Now the same is true for people who are for gay marriage and gay rights. So the question I think we have to consider is, why do we even attempt to debate this issue, when we have proven we can't do so civilly? In your first response to me you told me to go burn the Puerto Rican flag in Central Park at the Puerto Rican Day Parade. Did you really think that was gonna "change my mind" on this issue? Probably not, but I'll bet it felt really good to say didn't it?

When people speak out against gay marriage they are neither exhibiting homophobia, because they are not scared of homosexuals and they are not exhibiting heterosexism because I don't think anyone really feels superior to anybody else simply because they're married to a woman. There is just a difference of opinion. Here you go again with your labelling of other people. Why is that neccessary? Can you only deal with people after you have assigned them a label?

 

[Zecryphon]

Are you sure you're in the right forum? This is a theology forum, not a political debate forum.
​

These days when paranoids circulate rumors that Obama's a Muslim so we should all be skeered, there's a broad intersection.

That interesection ain't too broad. That rumor was laid to rest many months ago. Move on.

Gingrichites? You're talking politics again. Theology forum here. We discuss theology.
​

Religious Right groups were an essential element of the Gingrich coalition.

Still talking politics.

Why do you call him brave? He was so scared by one question he never went to that church again. That's hardly brave.
​

Not scared...offended that some would misuse Christian faith in that reprehensible manner. He found a church where that doesn't happen. It's brave in contrast to staying with a church like that.

Didn't take much to offend him did it? That question is not a misuse of Christian faith. It's a question. You're reading into it something that is not there. So this young man is now in a church where they ask no questions? Good for him. He won't have to think about why he believes what he believes.
​

they went after the Klan using the existing laws they didn't need to create a a new category of laws before they could punish people.
​

Sometimes 50 years later but more often Klan and local prosecutors were in bed with one another.

There were plenty of convictions. Do you just overlook those to bring up extreme cases and hope to score points with the other side?

 

[Zecryphon]

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

How is getting married a civil right?
​

when it's denied for discriminatory reasons.

they don't want to see these new laws used against them when they attend church. The hate crime laws have to allow that people will not be put in jail for practicing freedom of religion.
​

Hate crimes refer to crimes committed on the basis of hate, not public speech. That's a red herring the right wing promotes to fool the gullible.

Whatever you need to tell yourself there. You constantly say that crimes are committed against homosexuals based upon what the perpetrators hear coming from the pulpits. Now you're denying that hate speech leads to hate crimes? Which is it? I'm confused by your inconsistency.

Why? James Dobson and his ilk have nothing to do with me. They don't represent me and they don't speak for me and they're too politically motivated for my taste.
​

We sure do get a lot of "Me No Alamos" in response to these things but Dobson et al are still raking in the money.

Joel Osteen is making a boatload of money too, but he too has nothing to do with me as he does not speak for me or represent me.

If you're so afraid for your life and do actually believe you could perish at the hands of your enemies at any second, get a gun. Better yet get two.
​

Already have six.

And you're still this scared? Do you have a bomb shelter you could hide in perhaps?

My cohort? Who's that?
​

I used the term cohort meaning a demographic, not a companion.

Okay, so what's my demographic?

I'm not convinced that "my side" is doing anything horrible to anybody. All they're doing is speaking their mind and you can't deal with it. I just have brothers and sisters in Christ. I'm not so hung up on their sexual preferences that I have to label them as LGBT's. That's your issue.
​

Read the news reports on 365gay.com among other places and you will see hardly a day goes by without an example of 'man's inhumanity to man' where the oppressor is a right-wing fundamentalist Christian and the victim is an LGBT

Do you have an unbiased source perhaps? If the problem were as prevalent as you make it sound, there should be stories from all the major media outlets on this. Does Time have anything on it? Or the New York Times?

Things like teenagers forced into "therapeutic" camps where they're threatened with hell for not changing their sexual orientation, LGBTs losing child custody, etc.

Yeah, cuz heterosexual kids are never ever sent to Bible camp and told they're going to hell for masturbating and/or having sex.

 

[Ohioprof]

How am I forcing my beliefs upon you? By typing them on a Christian message board? The fact is, I'm not forcing my beliefs upon anybody. If you want to see gay marriage become a reality, fight for it, just as you're doing. And if the other side doesn't want it to become a reality, they will fight for that. This is a government of the people, by the people, for the people. It's the people who are going to decide this issue. If enough people want it, it will happen. If enough people don't want it, it won't happen. You can't make the goverment give you what you want if the majority of the people don't want it.

I did not say that you were forcing your beliefs on anyone by posting them on a message board. Posting is not the issue; the issue is what is in civil law. My point is that no religious group should force its beliefs on everyone else by passing laws that reflect only that particular group's religious beliefs. If a group's religious beliefs happen to be consistent with a valid secular purpose, such as preventing murder, that's fine. But if a religious group seeks to impose a point of doctrine on everyone else through civil law that denies people of other faiths their religious freedom, then that's out of bounds. The campaign to deny same-sex couples the right to marry seems to me to be rooted in religious doctrine; it has no valid secular purpose. It denies same-sex couples the right to marry purely because of some people's religious convictions.

Your point about the majority making decisions is ultimately true, as any laws we pass must ultimately be acceptable to the people as a whole. But here in the U.S., we do not have a system of simple majority rule when it comes to denying civil rights to minorities, including religious minorities. The majority of people in the American South did not want to desegregate their schools, but they were forced to do so because of the 14th amendment to the constitution. Of course, you could make the point that southern whites responded with "massive resistance," and many refused to comply with the ruling, or they sought ways around sending their children to racially integrated schools. In that sense, your broad point is right; it's pretty much impossible to force the majority to accept laws they strongly oppose. And you are right that ultimate victory will depend on making the arguments to the general public and winning their support. In California that appears to be happening, as the two sides in the same-sex marriage debate are making their respective cases about amending the state constitution.

 

[Zecryphon]

I did not say that you were forcing your beliefs on anyone by posting them on a message board. Posting is not the issue; the issue is what is in civil law. My point is that no religious group should force its beliefs on everyone else by passing laws that reflect only that particular group's religious beliefs.

Your post wasn't directed at anyone in particular so I thought I'd take a stab at it. Religious groups are not responsible for passing laws. If the current laws reflect a particular group's position, perhaps that position is shared by the majority of the voting public.

If a group's religious beliefs happen to be consistent with a valid secular purpose, such as preventing murder, that's fine. But if a religious group seeks to impose a point of doctrine on everyone else through civil law that denies people of other faiths their religious freedom, then that's out of bounds.

Which faith is being denied their religious freedom with gay marriage?

The campaign to deny same-sex couples the right to marry seems to me to be rooted in religious doctrine; it has no valid secular purpose. It denies same-sex couples the right to marry purely because of some people's religious convictions.

The majority of the country is religious. I can't think of one religion that teaches that two people of the same sex can enter into a marriage. I have not seen that taught in Judaism. I have not seen it taught in Mormonism. I have not seen it taught in the majority of Christianity, which just happens to be Catholic. So unfortunately, you're going to be battling quite a large group of people who just happen to belong to religions that do not teach that same sex marriage is valid.

Your point about the majority making decisions is ultimately true, as any laws we pass must ultimately be acceptable to the people as a whole. But here in the U.S., we do not have a system of simple majority rule when it comes to denying civil rights to minorities, including religious minorities. The majority of people in the American South did not want to desegregate their schools, but they were forced to do so because of the 14th amendment to the constitution. Of course, you could make the point that southern whites responded with "massive resistance," and many refused to comply with the ruling, or they sought ways around sending their children to racially integrated schools. In that sense, your broad point is right; it's pretty much impossible to force the majority to accept laws they strongly oppose. And you are right that ultimate victory will depend on making the arguments to the general public and winning their support. In California that appears to be happening, as the two sides in the same-sex marriage debate are making their respective cases about amending the state constitution.

Right people in California have decided that gay marriage is acceptable. Now what you should do is see if other states will honor marriages for same sex couples that were performed in California. Just one question, why the push to get married though in California? It seems there are already legal protections in place for homosexuals. So why the big push to get married?

Family Code 297.5 states: Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law... as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

 

[tulc]

Right people in California have decided that gay marriage is acceptable. Now what you should do is see if other states will honor marriages for same sex couples that were performed in California. Just one question, why the push to get married though in California? It seems there are already legal protections in place for homosexuals. So why the big push to get married?

I think a lot of people dream about getting married and now those dreams can come true in California.
tulc(I know I like being married)

 

[Ohioprof]

Your post wasn't directed at anyone in particular so I thought I'd take a stab at it. Religious groups are not responsible for passing laws. If the current laws reflect a particular group's position, perhaps that position is shared by the majority of the voting public.



Which faith is being denied their religious freedom with gay marriage?



The majority of the country is religious. I can't think of one religion that teaches that two people of the same sex can enter into a marriage. I have not seen that taught in Judaism. I have not seen it taught in Mormonism. I have not seen it taught in the majority of Christianity, which just happens to be Catholic. So unfortunately, you're going to be battling quite a large group of people who just happen to belong to religions that do not teach that same sex marriage is valid.



Right people in California have decided that gay marriage is acceptable. Now what you should do is see if other states will honor marriages for same sex couples that were performed in California. Just one question, why the push to get married though in California? It seems there are already legal protections in place for homosexuals. So why the big push to get married?

Family Code 297.5 states: Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law... as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

In reverse order, I cannot answer the question about why gay folks are pushing to marry in California, as I do not live in California. You would probably need to ask this question of someone who lives in California.

My religious faith honors and performs same-sex marriages, and my church body has taken a stand in support of same-sex civil marriage. My faith is Unitarian Universalism. Reform Judaism supports same-sex marriage. The Metropolitan Community Churches support same-sex marriage. So do people within many of the mainstream Christian denominations, though the denominations as a whole have been divided over the question. There are also those who are not religious who support same-sex civil marriage and do not want to be denied that right by groups on the basis of their religion.

You are right that we are trying to change the hearts and minds of people whose faith traditions either do not support same-sex marriage or whose faith traditions are deeply divided over the question. However, many people, especially Catholics, have a long history of simply ignoring tenets of their faiths with which they disagree. Polls in Massachusetts show that a majority of people there now support same-sex marriage. Massachusetts has a large Catholic population. Many American Catholics have no problem with same-sex marriage, and they really don't care whether same-sex couples can marry legally or not. They don't particularly care what the Pope says on this question; they ignore him.

A minority of Americans today supports same-sex marriage, but it is a growing minority of somewhere around 30-35 percent. A higher percentage than that now supports either marriage rights or separate civil unions. One way in which the push for full marriage rights has helped the gay rights cause is by making civil unions seem more acceptable to more people. As gay folks have fought for full marriage rights, people who oppose that have come gradually to accept the alternative of legal civil unions. A decade ago that was not true. And an even more positive change is the extent to which younger people support same-sex marriage more than older people. As Unitarian minister Theodore Parker said, and Martin Luther King, Jr. reiterated, "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

No faith is being denied religious freedom with gay marriage. Gay people are being denied a basic human right by not being allowed to marry the person of their choice.

Religious groups do work to enact legislation, and they have that right. The problem comes when religious groups succeed in enacting laws that reflect a point of purely religious doctrine, with no secular purpose. This can happen when religious groups work together to try to enact laws. It doesn't matter if a majority supports the law in question; if the law violates the establishment clause of the first amendment, then it's unconstitutional. According to the Supreme Court's Lemon test, a law has to have a primarily secular purpose to be constitutional. The Supreme Court has not always applied the Lemon test consistently, of course, but it still does use this test to determine when a law may run afoul of the establishment clause.

Although no one is likely to bring forward a case on this basis, I think the laws barring same-sex marriage violate the establishment clause of the first amendment, because these laws are based purely in religion and have no secular purpose. I also think the laws barring same-sex marriage violate the 14th amendment equal protection clause of the U.S. constitution. However, I am happy at this point to let the voters vote in California on the proposed amendment and see how that turns out. I think we are on stronger ground if we can win over a majority of people rather than relying on courts to strike down laws barring same-sex marriage.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Why did you alter my quote? That is incredibly dishonest. If you're going to quote me, quote what I say, not what you think I should have said.

Those are ellipses. They indicate superfluities were removed and anyone interested can return to the original post.

I've never heard of him [Michael Marcavage]. I listen to quite a few Christian podcasts and have never heard this guy mentioned. So who, specifically, in the Christian right loves him?

The usual suspects---Family Research Council, Focus, TCC, AFA..... He's the Fred Phelps of Philadelphia.

Such as? You, always say the same thing over and over, about all this violence and death that is foisted upon the homosexual community, but for all your rhetoric you have presented no proof that shows the reality of the situation is anywhere close to as bad as you say it is.

You can do research at your leisure. I'm sure GLAAD, NGLTF, GLSEN etc. have stuff.

One source is from an evangelical book, Twenty Hot Potatoes Christians Are Afraid to Touch by Tony Campolo.

Now, certainly every time an African-American is driving alone or only with other African-Americans in mostly white towns and the like, they are not going to be arrested for "driving while black" but they recognize the risk of it. So it is with LGBTs and the risk of being a victim of a hate crime.

You can try to pretend it doesn't exist; most of your faction do.
​

​

​

Would that lead people who are currently opposed to gay marriage to suddenly have compassion and sympathy for homosexuals? No, it wouldn't.

Most of that viewpoint are mired in the thought distortion that they are right. They don't respond to rationality in any case. they want to keep on committing the evil they love to commit.

​

In your first response to me you told me to go burn the Puerto Rican flag in Central Park at the Puerto Rican Day Parade. Did you really think that was gonna "change my mind" on this issue?

Of course not; it just showed the absurdity of your position.

When people speak out against gay marriage they are neither exhibiting homophobia, because they are not scared of homosexuals and they are not exhibiting heterosexism because I don't think anyone really feels superior to anybody else simply because they're married to a woman. There is just a difference of opinion.

The fervor and the interest at all indicates otherwise. Look at it this way: people who don't care about NASCAR don't enter arcane conversations about NASCAR rules and procedures. So it is with those who memorize the supposedly antigay Bible verses. They have made a conscious decision to oppress others; it is for them so much more than a mere Coke versus Pepsi thing.

 

[Texas Lynn]

That interesection ain't too broad. That rumor was laid to rest many months ago. Move on.

It gets repeated on these electronic gossip boards daily.

Gingrichites? You're talking politics again. Theology forum here. We discuss theology.

Politics is not who you vote for, it's how you live your life.

That question is not a misuse of Christian faith.

Sure it is. It's setting up an additional litmus test to be a Christian. As such it's an affront to Christ and to people.

So this young man is now in a church where they ask no questions? Good for him. He won't have to think about why he believes what he believes.

They ask plenty; they just preface it with respect.

​

​

​

There were plenty of convictions. Do you just overlook those to bring up extreme cases and hope to score points with the other side?

Not in state courts; murderers of civil rights workers were repeatedly acquitted. It was only some 20 years later of so that local D.A.s, seeing they now represented Black majority districts, permitted delayed justice to occur.
​

 

[Texas Lynn]

they don't want to see these new laws used against them when they attend church. The hate crime laws have to allow that people will not be put in jail for practicing freedom of religion.

As long as they're not committing murders and assaults there's no danger of that.

Whatever you need to tell yourself there. You constantly say that crimes are committed against homosexuals based upon what the perpetrators hear coming from the pulpits. Now you're denying that hate speech leads to hate crimes? Which is it? I'm confused by your inconsistency.

Not me.

If you're so afraid for your life and do actually believe you could perish at the hands of your enemies at any second, get a gun. Better yet get two.[/QUOTE

Certainly not every time an African-American is driving alone or only with other African-Americans in his/her car in a white area are they going to be arrested for "driving while Black". And not every time LGBTs venture out beyond enclaves are they going to be gay-bashed. But both groups realistically warn their young of such things and take appropriate steps for personal safety. To deny such things occur is to deny reality.

And you're still this scared? Do you have a bomb shelter you could hide in perhaps?

A large part of your schtick appears to be to deny others' feelings and experiences and ridicule them.

Do you have an unbiased source perhaps? If the problem were as prevalent as you make it sound, there should be stories from all the major media outlets on this. Does Time have anything on it? Or the New York Times?

Sure both had plenty about the murders of Billy Jack Gaither, Gwen Aruajo, Brandon Teena, etc.

Yeah, cuz heterosexual kids are never ever sent to Bible camp and told they're going to hell for masturbating and/or having sex.

Nice use of irony but the level of personal attack is not quite the same.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Just one question, why the push to get married though in California? It seems there are already legal protections in place for homosexuals. So why the big push to get married?

Believe it or not, when this was first raised on a widescale basis I felt working toward same gender marriage was a waste of resources. So did the established LGBT civil rights groups. It was from the grassroots the push toward marriage came. It's what the more apolitical, hard-working less affluent LGBTs want. Their reasoing is "our marriages are every bit as holy and sacred as heterosexuals' marriages are" and they are right about that.

 

[Floatingaxe]

None of this applies at all to LGBT Christians who came from conservative-fundamentalist denominations which led them to seek to change their sexual orientation unsuccessfully only to later embrace who and what they are.

Better any day to be a homosexual, even a celibate one, rather than one who wags his fingers at others.

Some years ago Focus of the Family Citizen ran a cover story on an alleged "ex-gay" named John Paulk married to an "Ex-lesbian," Ann Paulk. Well, J. Paulk was given a high profile job with Family Research Council, the more politically blatant spinoff from Focus, with a fancy Washington D.C. office. Well, J. Paulk was identified after work as a patron of a gay bar near Capitol Hill, first by other patrons, then by the media. Focus responded by spiriting off the Paulks to Idaho or some equally remote place. The Paulk saga was rightfully viewed by those in the know as the logical result of attempting to change what one is to fit into a preconceived ideology.

Poor understanding, really, for what they had on their hands was a man deeply affected by a stronghold of homosexuality, a demonic presence, which he needed deliverance for.

 

[Zecryphon]

That question is not a misuse of Christian faith.
​

Sure it is. It's setting up an additional litmus test to be a Christian. As such it's an affront to Christ and to people.

Additional litmus test? What's the first litmus test?