Today is a sad day

[MercyBurst]

uhmmm you asked a question, the answer I gave answered that question. He's divorced right? Just because you now feel the need to move the goal posts doesn't change anything.

Actually I think you feel the goal post must be moved. The Bible requirements of a pastor have not changed. If the goal post has indeed moved then we can rightfully conclude the church is no longer fundamentalist because it no longer follows Biblical instruction.

Why not just admit you were wrong and move on?

The original point remains the same: a lifetime commitment is achievable and it is expected out of the fundamentalist pastorate. Why not celebrate those honorable people that have succeeded with their marriage vows instead of looking for an exception to condemn? (it seems a good-hearted person would rejoice in their success) MB sips on his cola

 

[Zecryphon]

Persuasion, debate, presentation of evidence, and dialogue do not involve the use of force. No one is forcing anyone to change his or her mind on anything.

You're hoping to change the minds of religious people on this issue so they will vote in a way that benefits you in legalizing same-sex marriage. The use of force doesn't always have to be physical, it can be intellectual as well.

Some folks have argued that the will of the majority should determine whether we gay people can marry our spouses legally or not. If that is going to be true; if the will of the majority is to determine whether we have equal treatment under the law, then of course we must seek to change people's hearts and minds on this issue.

Didn't you argue earlier that the majority of Christians are only nominally Christian and don't really care one way or the other about this issue? If that's true, go after those people who don't really care, and just need a little nudge in the "right" direction from your side. All I'm saying is leave the people who are convnced that gay marriage is wrong because of their religious beliefs alone. Trying to change their minds about what their faith teaches about this issue, is wrong.

Because then people are not merely practicing their faith in private or in their churches; they are actually going to be voting on what rights other people can have.

People tend to vote their consciences when they go to the polls. It happens. Christianity isn't just a Sunday thing. It's an everyday thing. It sounds like you only want people to be Christians when it is pleasing to you and your needs and desires.

It's a longstanding American tradition to try to sway public opinion when it comes to voting. Once people take their beliefs to the voting booth, they they are fair game for efforts at persuasion, because how they vote affects other people's lives.

But you just said you didn't want people voting their faith at the voting booths. Which is it? Can they vote their faith or not?

What I want is for gay people, and all people, to be treated equally under the law. If it takes changing hearts and minds to achieve that, which I think it will, then yes, I will try to change hearts and minds on the subject of gay people. You don't change hearts and minds by force; you do it by presenting people's real life stories, and by presenting evidence, and by speaking the truth of gay people's lives.

Okay, then you're presnting for the most part, emotional evidence. Emotional evidence might change someone's mind for a day, but for people who live their life according to God's revealed will, emotional evidence is not as convincing as God's revealed word. Now you may get a lot of votes with appeals to emotion, but don't feel bad when people who based their lives on something other than emotion and feeling vote against gay marriage.

The point of discussion forums is, it seems to me, for all of us to listen to and think about different viewpoints, to consider the arguments and the evidence, and to rethink our previously held assumptions in light of new evidence and arguments. That's how we grow in our thinking.

I agree. And sadly, none of that is happening in this forum. Everyone thinks they're right and everyone else is wrong. There seems to be no movement on people's position on this issue. You're either for it or against it. There is no middle ground.

 

[tulc]

Actually I think you feel the goal post must be moved. The Bible requirements of a pastor have not changed. If the goal post has indeed moved then we can rightfully conclude the church is no longer fundamentalist because it no longer follows Biblical instruction.

Gotta love those "No TRUE Scotsman" arguments.

The original point remains the same: a lifetime commitment is achievable and it is expected out of the fundamentalist pastorate. Why not celebrate those honorable people that have succeeded with their marriage vows instead of looking for an exception to condemn? (it seems a good-hearted person would rejoice in their success) MB sips on his cola

Actually, a know hundreds of people who have been faithful to their vows (me being one of them) and I do rejoice with them. It's not an easy thing these days, and I know it's going to be something gay people are going to face when they get married also.
On a side note: You might want to not ask a question or present as fact something that isn't actually true and then have a hard time when the answer isn't what you thought or are shown it isn't in fact true.
tulc(who is ALSO in fact sipping a cola)

 

[Rajni]

You are correct

" 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did hateful things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.”
Ezekiel 16: 49-50



Justifying discrimination against a minority is arrogance and being sad that a state has done away with discrimination is hateful

Amen.

The only threat to traditional marriage is traditional divorce, something heterosexual Christians have gotten quite good at already. If the institution of marriage can survive all the divorces between good, God-fearin', church-attendin', Promise Keepin', Christian heteros, it can survive gay unions.




.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Why? Why can't they live their faith as they see fit? Why do you have to try and change their minds? So you can get what you want? That to me, sounds like forcing your views down their throats and forcing them to believe something they don't believe is right.

For the sake of the children of people mixed up in religious extremism. At least they aren't being denied custody of their kids unlike some LGBT folks.

And how is that different from what fundamentalists do like seeking to disrupt the peace of LGBT community events with Bible-verse-spoutin' fervor?

 

[Zecryphon]

TL, I don't understand your answer. You're saying that the reason you won't let people live their faith is because of the children of people who are engaged in religious extremism? According to you, everyone who is a Christian, is a religious extremist. So what are you doing to remove those kids from such a dangerous environment? You should be able to answer this question. But I'm gonna go ahead and venture a guess. I'm gonna guess that you'd have no problem if the state came in and removed these kids from Christian households, but you'd scream bloody murder if the state tried to take kids away from a gay couple.

 

[MercyBurst]

You are correct

" 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did hateful things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.”
Ezekiel 16: 49-50

OK so the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah has nothing to do with "angle rape" then. We can look at the verses in Jude now. Those say:

6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
kept Gen 6:2, Matt 24:38, Luke 17:27
reserved Matt 8:29, Matt 25:41, 2nd Pet 2:4,
judgment 1st Cor 6:3, 2nd Pet 2:4
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
strange flesh Luke 17:28
vengeance Gen 19:24, Deut 29:23, Psa 11:6, Isa 13:19, Jer 20:16, Jer 50:40, Eze 16:50, Amos 4:11, Zeph 2:9, Luke 17:29, 2nd Pet 2:6

Justifying discrimination against a minority is arrogance and being sad that a state has done away with discrimination is hateful

Maybe "gay Christians" should stop being hostile toward ex-gay Christians and denying they even exist. That's so hateful. BTW, you sound like a new iteration of a couple of retired socks.

 

[MercyBurst]

Amen. The only threat to traditional marriage is traditional divorce, something heterosexual Christians have gotten quite good at already. If the institution of marriage can survive all the divorces between good, God-fearin', church-attendin', Promise Keepin', Christian heteros, it can survive gay unions..

Why has a gay union gotta be "good as " a straight one? This seems homophobic.

 

[MercyBurst]

Gotta love those "No TRUE Scotsman" arguments.

It's one of those definition thingees. Imagine calling someone gay that's only interested in the opposite sex. It just doesn't fit.

A divorced and remarried pastor doesn't belong in a fundie pastorate. A fundamentalist, by definition, believes the scriptures are inerrant. The scriptures say divorce/remarriage is adultery and that a pastor must be the husband of one wife. Hence it is logical to conclude a divorced and remarried pastor can no longer pastor a fundamentalist church. It's a contradiction of definitions. He can still pastor a Christian church however, but not a fundie one.

Actually, a know hundreds of people who have been faithful to their vows (me being one of them) and I do rejoice with them. It's not an easy thing these days, and I know it's going to be something gay people are going to face when they get married also.

Well likewise for me. I could keep my job with a remarriage, but not so for a fundamentalist pastor. There sure are a lot of those fundie pastors around too, and I know some of them.

On a side note: You might want to not ask a question or present as fact something that isn't actually true and then have a hard time when the answer isn't what you thought or are shown it isn't in fact true.
tulc(who is ALSO in fact sipping a cola)

Also, you might try going a little easier on those pastors that are expected to honor their marriage vows or leave the pastorate. This is standard policy for fundies.

I never said divorced and remarried preachers aren't Christians by the way. They just don't belong in the fundie pastorate.

 

[LunarPlexus]

For the sake of the children of people mixed up in religious extremism. At least they aren't being denied custody of their kids unlike some LGBT folks.

I think this is starting to sound like an eye for an eye situation.
And it seems silly to me, because really, the reason for us not wanting extremists to have children is the same as THEIR reason for not wanting us homosexuals to have children. We don't agree with their ideals and views, and they don't agree with ours.

And how is that different from what fundamentalists do like seeking to disrupt the peace of LGBT community events with Bible-verse-spoutin' fervor?

Yet you and I disrupt the peace on a board that is rife with fundamentalists?

For the record, I agree with you, but my reasoning is a little different.

 

[Rajni]

Why has a gay union gotta be "good as " a straight one? This seems homophobic.

The cynical side of me figures the homophobic aversion to gay marriage is based on a fear that the gay unions might be "better than" the straight ones, given that the track-record of the straight ones leaves much to be desired.

 

[Ohioprof]

You're hoping to change the minds of religious people on this issue so they will vote in a way that benefits you in legalizing same-sex marriage. The use of force doesn't always have to be physical, it can be intellectual as well.



Didn't you argue earlier that the majority of Christians are only nominally Christian and don't really care one way or the other about this issue? If that's true, go after those people who don't really care, and just need a little nudge in the "right" direction from your side. All I'm saying is leave the people who are convnced that gay marriage is wrong because of their religious beliefs alone. Trying to change their minds about what their faith teaches about this issue, is wrong.



People tend to vote their consciences when they go to the polls. It happens. Christianity isn't just a Sunday thing. It's an everyday thing. It sounds like you only want people to be Christians when it is pleasing to you and your needs and desires.



But you just said you didn't want people voting their faith at the voting booths. Which is it? Can they vote their faith or not?



Okay, then you're presnting for the most part, emotional evidence. Emotional evidence might change someone's mind for a day, but for people who live their life according to God's revealed will, emotional evidence is not as convincing as God's revealed word. Now you may get a lot of votes with appeals to emotion, but don't feel bad when people who based their lives on something other than emotion and feeling vote against gay marriage.



I agree. And sadly, none of that is happening in this forum. Everyone thinks they're right and everyone else is wrong. There seems to be no movement on people's position on this issue. You're either for it or against it. There is no middle ground.

How is working to persuade people using "force?"

My faith teaches that it's wrong to deny equal marriage rights to same-sex couples. Based on your own argument, it's wrong for you to tell me that I should change my mind. (I actually don't think it's wrong; you can try to change my mind if you want to, but I am pointing out that you do regularly exactly what you criticize your opponents for doing.)

Let me point out also that those who oppose same-sex marriage are the ones who have initiated the ballot measure in California to try to amend the state constitution. Supporters of equality did not do that. The opponents of equality are seeking to change the minds of people who believe that it's wrong to deny equal marriage rights to same-sex couples. Would you tell the anti-gay religious groups to leave the supporters of marriage equality alone? You want people who disagree with you to leave people alone, but you are apparently not willing to tell those who agree with you to leave people alone.

I have not said that people cannot vote based on their religious beliefs. I said that people CAN and DO vote based on their religious beliefs. But if people enact laws that impose a religious doctrine on the whole people, those laws may be struck down as unconstitutional. People can vote in whatever laws they want, but the laws may not be constitutional. It depends on what they vote in. If the laws they vote in are not constitutional, then the courts will strike those laws down.

The evidence that I would present about same-sex marriage would demonstrate how the denial of same-sex marriage rights harms our families. That may be emotional, but it's also true. I find true information about the effect of laws and policies on real people to be more compelling than assertions about what some people believe the Bible says. I do not find the Bible to be convincing evidence at all to support what civil laws should be, as we do not live in a theocracy, and religious doctrine should not dictate what our laws are. Note that people can and do vote on the basis of their religious beliefs, but civil law needs to have a secular purpose to be constitutional, according to the U.S. Supreme Court (Lemon v. Kurtzman).

 

[tulc]

It's one of those definition thingees. Imagine calling someone gay that's only interested in the opposite sex. It just doesn't fit.

A divorced and remarried pastor can still be a Christian, but not a fundamentalist Christian. A fundamentalist, by definition, believes the scriptures are inerrant. The scriptures say divorce/remarriage is adultery and that a pastor must be the husband of one wife. Hence it is logical to conclude a divorced and remarried pastor doesn't believe the Bible is inerrant, and can not be a fundamentalist. Otherwise they would resign from the pastorate.

Yeah, the "no true Scotsman" argument.

Well likewise for me. I could keep my job with a remarriage, but not so for a fundamentalist pastor. There sure are a lot of those fundie pastors around too, and I know some of them.

Hey! Me too and there's not a one that I've met I don't think of as a good brother in the Lord.

Also, you might try going a little easier on those pastors that are expected to honor their marriage vows or leave the pastorate. This is standard policy for fundies.

uhmmm I'm not the one saying they're no longer worthy of being pastors. I'm one of them liberals, I just expect them to be faithful to their spouses (of which ever sex ), otherwise I'm disappointed.

I never said divorced and remarried preachers aren't Christians by the way.

Never said you did.

They just don't belong in the fundie pastorate.

I know, because they "Aren't True Fundies".
tulc(man it's humid here today, how about there?)

 

[Zecryphon]

I am not telling anyone to change their views on same-sex marriage. I am not here debating against same-ex marriage. The Biblical example of marriage is always one man and one woman. A marriage is never seen in the Bible as being between two people of the same sex. So same-sex marriage to me doesn't exist. Same-sex civil unions do. Plus, you guys vary on why you want to get married. Some gay people say that they want to do it as an expression of their love. But what I most often see has nothing to do with love, but has to do with getting protections from the government. That's not what marriage is about. By making those protections the point of getting married, gay couples dishonor marriage as much as hetero couples do with their pre-nup agreements and their divorcing at the first sign of a problem.I also, am not trying to change anyone's mind with the hope that they will vote my way when they go to the polls. You have already admitted that you want to change people's minds so that they will support same-sex marriage. So when you hear people use the phrase"gay agenda", what you've admitted to doing, can be seen as an agenda. You're not debating with people so they will understand the scriptures better, you're doing it to get something from them in the end. In fact, to show how opposed I am to any government involvement in this issue, my former church urged me to sign a petition to get a heterosexual only marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution in the works. And that's when I really started taking a look at what that church believed. They didn't fare well by the time I was finished with my investigation. I found them to be guilty of teaching contrary to the scriptures in a few key areas and left them for the LCMS.

 

[Crazy Liz]

One can assume that they are not a fundamentalist church then. Just because they have "Baptist" in their name doesn't mean anything.

Fundamentalists take the Bible literally when it says divorce and remarriage is adultery. Jesus and Paul both said it. Paul said a pastor must be "the husband of one wife." If a church does not follow the Bible, then we can conclude it is not fundamentalist -- no women in the pastorate, and no divorce/remarriages in the pastorate period end of sentence.

No True Scotsman

 

[LunarPlexus]

You have already admitted that you want to change people's minds so that they will support same-sex marriage. So when you hear people use the phrase"gay agenda", what you've admitted to doing, can be seen as an agenda. You're not debating with people so they will understand the scriptures better, you're doing it to get something from them in the end. In fact, to show how opposed I am to any government involvement in this issue, my former church urged me to sign a petition to get a heterosexual only marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution in the works. And that's when I really started taking a look at what that church believed. They didn't fare well by the time I was finished with my investigation. I found them to be guilty of teaching contrary to the scriptures in a few key areas and left them for the LCMS.

So THAT'S what the gay agenda is! I finally understand! Damn, I must be pretty lazy.
I must say , I'm more of your way of thinking: I don't believe in trying convince people to vote OR think my way, because I have no evidence that my way is the right way. I think when it comes to your vote, you owe it to yourself and your peers to vote only your concience.
I've also never considered the point of debate to be conversion, or recruitment. I think it's more about trying to get someone to acknowledge your point of view as a valid one. It doesn't seem like a lot to ask, but it's very surprising how many people have cotton wool stuffed in their ears when it comes to their ideals. Holding on to what you believe is important, but being unable to explore them along with others is a shame.

 

[Ohioprof]

I am not telling anyone to change their views on same-sex marriage. I am not here debating against same-ex marriage. The Biblical example of marriage is always one man and one woman. A marriage is never seen in the Bible as being between two people of the same sex. So same-sex marriage to me doesn't exist. Same-sex civil unions do. Plus, you guys vary on why you want to get married. Some gay people say that they want to do it as an expression of their love. But what I most often see has nothing to do with love, but has to do with getting protections from the government. That's not what marriage is about. By making those protections the point of getting married, gay couples dishonor marriage as much as hetero couples do with their pre-nup agreements and their divorcing at the first sign of a problem.I also, am not trying to change anyone's mind with the hope that they will vote my way when they go to the polls. You have already admitted that you want to change people's minds so that they will support same-sex marriage. So when you hear people use the phrase"gay agenda", what you've admitted to doing, can be seen as an agenda. You're not debating with people so they will understand the scriptures better, you're doing it to get something from them in the end. In fact, to show how opposed I am to any government involvement in this issue, my former church urged me to sign a petition to get a heterosexual only marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution in the works. And that's when I really started taking a look at what that church believed. They didn't fare well by the time I was finished with my investigation. I found them to be guilty of teaching contrary to the scriptures in a few key areas and left them for the LCMS.

I am not debating people so they will understand the scriptures better. I am debating people because I want to ensure that all people are treated equally under civil law. What they believe in their churches is none of my business, and I don't concern myself with it. My concern is for gaining equality under the law, in the civil arena. And it's something that I think everyone should care about and want, because it affects all us of when some people are treated as less than equal under the law.

I do have an agenda. I would not call it "the gay agenda;" it's my personal agenda. Part of that personal agenda is working for equal treatment under the law for gay people and for all people.

I applaud you for taking an independent stance in your church and for thinking through whether you agreed with your fellow church members or not.

On the subject of civil marriage, people get married for all kinds of reasons, and that includes heterosexuals as well as gay people. Same-sex couples can already marry for love, and we do. We can marry in some churches and houses of faith. What we cannot do in most states is get the protections for our families that opposite-sex couples can get for their families through civil marriage, recognized by the state.

For me, the main reason to want the protections of civil marriage is to protect our children. I have a daughter. Civil marriage offers protections and benefits for children and families, and I think it's important to do everything we can to protect children and families.

Let me point out also that this thread is about same-sex civil marriage being legalized in California, and so it's entirely on topic to discuss same-sex civil marriage in this thread.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Well I thought it was a good point about gay monogamy sounding homophobic. Often we hear gays comparing their relationships to straights, saying theirs is as good as this and that. It sounds like they really want to be straight instead of gay. It sounds like they are trying to conform to straight behavior.

How on earth did you come to THIS conclusion?

How can gay monogamy possibly be homophobic???

 

[Ohioprof]

So THAT'S what the gay agenda is! I finally understand! Damn, I must be pretty lazy.
I must say , I'm more of your way of thinking: I don't believe in trying convince people to vote OR think my way, because I have no evidence that my way is the right way. I think when it comes to your vote, you owe it to yourself and your peers to vote only your concience.
I've also never considered the point of debate to be conversion, or recruitment. I think it's more about trying to get someone to acknowledge your point of view as a valid one. It doesn't seem like a lot to ask, but it's very surprising how many people have cotton wool stuffed in their ears when it comes to their ideals. Holding on to what you believe is important, but being unable to explore them along with others is a shame.

My reason for wanting to get people to vote for equal treatment under the law for gay people is because it affects my rights and other people's rights directly. It's not just a theoretical issue. It affects whether real people like me can marry their spouses or not under civil law.

If it takes getting out the vote to win equal rights under the law, then I will work to get out the vote.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

I have an aversion to sex outside of my marriage. I must repress my sexual desire for members of the opposite sex. Hence that makes me heterophobic doesn't it? I must flee from this temptation when it stands in front of me. Rather phobic of me.



It happened a long time ago. When I reached puberty I found I had an interest in the opposite sex....



It affects me less than it used to. Part of this is due to my aging. I still find the opposite sex attractive, and I must suppress my desire for them since I am married.

Do you recommend I should stop fearing the consequences of an adulterous relationship? Maybe think more in terms of how to get away with it with your helpful input? (just a thought)

Dude, seriously - now it all becomes clear.

You are doing one major projection!

You have a problem with self-control, and it's easier for you to handle it by shining the light on somebody else who you feel has a problem.

Nothing a little therapy & prayer can't fix. Go get the help now!