Gays and Christians

a couple interesting websites for your arguments: here and here ... enjoy. i KNOW i did. maybe now i can ward off that bitchy, homophobic "friend" of mine. offended by the "hate is not a family value" sticker -- REALLY?



ugh.

Ooh, I have a researcher! Thanks for the info. I was trying to get away from the damn discussion long enough to refresh myself on Sodom and Gomorrah, but I ended up using the free time to shower and eat instead. This holding my own thing has worn me down!

i'll bet. i sort of wanted to jump in, but although i consider myself christian, i'm technically non-practicing, and definitely not a bible-thumper. i mean -- there are some sects that take the whole thing literally ... jonah was swallowed by a FISH *not* a whale ... stuff like that. i've always taken the bible as a parable, just like the ones jesus always was talking about (man, especially the old testament, which is where they get most of their "ooo, sodomy is evil" fodder anyway -- from ONE story). i mean, here we have a book written thousands of years ago, when women were property and barely more. of COURSE i can save myself until i'm married if you're going to marry me off at 13, right? i mean, seriously.

btw, could i BE saying "i mean" more in that paragraph? i mean, seriously. it must be the beer i've drank. by myself. friday night oaktown solitary PARTY!!! woohoo!

I'm getting pretty frustrated with it. I don't really have anything more to say, but some folks are taking some digs at me that I couldn't let go. I'm obviously not as well-versed in the Bible as everyone else is. I'm obviously not quite as articulate as everyone else is. I made a spelling mistake or two. *gasp* I attributed a quote to the wrong person. *gasp* I'm trying not to be thin-skinned about it, but hell, I'm the only one on my side.



I'm much better at responding than at presenting my case. I don't have all the legal details worked out. The Christians don't even completely agree amongst themselves on what exactly the Bible says about sex. I'm not real good at "okay we've nitpicked over this bit, now let's recap where we are." I haven't thought this hard since school. Hell, I sat here and pondered and rewrote this comment several times.



I'm not whining. I am not whining. I mean, seriously.

For me, the real issue is that most christians seem to want to stick their noses into everyone's life.



I'm tired of them flaunting their lifestyle in public. If they want to do it in private, that's fine, but why do they need to shove it down everyone's throats?

Is it just me or do the christians on that thread seem really shrilly and nasty?

Hey, Little E-



Just posted to Dean's discussion and followed your trail of breadcrumbs back here. Nice ta meetcha.



I would like to list you on my blog as a link.



Don't let the bastards get you down by the way. People will take their digs, but you have to understand that they are acting out of fear. Well, REacting.



Me, I'm not sure what they are so afraid of. Probably their own potential, cos that seems to be the thrust of those types' message, that each human is a being that if left unchecked by God's Laws will run amok like a beast to gorge his senses and make wretched his destiny.



I think Pee Wee Herman said it best, "I know you are, but what am I?"



D

cub4bear: Yes, some of them do.



David: Link away! And thanks for leaving a comment.



I don't want to bash folks over there. There were some that made sense and were actually nice. Some others spent so much time trying to convince me that they were justified in their belief that homosexuality is wrong that they wouldn't even say whether or not they thought gay civil marriages were reasonable. I have no idea how my bringing up Santorum all of a sudden made me intolerant. And then it went into the "destruction of the family" business and I decided I didn't have any more to say. But thanks to you guys for commenting.

"I have no idea how my bringing up Santorum all of a sudden made me intolerant."





Because you blamed his religious beliefs on the fact that he was unwilling to allow the Supreme Court to legislate from the bench.



Anyway, that isn't why I decided to post here. I wanted to say that my mind HAS been changed based on what you said and a few others. Not the militant I hate christians people or Christianity is the cause of murder people. But I do believe that gay marriage should be legal based on the reasonable debate that occurred there.



I believe now that it is unfair that you can't marry the person you love and enjoy the same benefits I do from marrying Dean.



I don't feel that it is a privilege - I feel that it is a basic right that gays are being denied. I have been awakened. Thank you.



Yes, I would vote for it and adoption too.

I think this is where Christians are suppose to post their opinion, right? I couldn't find another link so forgive me if it isn't.



To be honest, I never looked at the Sodom and Gomorrah argurment because I never knew it was there. Well, I know of the events that transpired there and how they address the homosexual "topic" but I never thought of using that in any kind of debate. Nevertheless, I feel it would be pointless as there seems to be a ready defense ignoring the thier obvious "bias".



My study into the Biblical stance on homosexuality began with a co-worker. He is gay and I over heard him in a conversation at work where he stated that the Bible translation Christians use now is wrong and it actually supports the homosexual lifestyle. I took this with a grain of salt. It seems that everyone with a belief contrary to the Bible must make thier beliefs harmonious with the Bible and says "the translation is wrong" is the easiest. I've had multiple people come up to me with different religious and lifestyle beliefs telling me thier intrepretation of the Bible was correct and here's reasons 1,2 and 3 why. And they call me biased?



Anyway, back to the topic. I began looking into the "topic" and also what the original text said. I have a Greek-English New Testament and a Greek concordance. I began looking for verses in the New Testament that talked about this topic. Here's what I found, do with it what you will.



First, although I said I'm going to talk about the New Testament I want to bring up two verses in the Old Testament:



Lev. 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."



Lev. 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."



I don't have access to the original texts the Old Testament was written in, Hebrew and Aramaic, but I'm sure what is stated in English has the same meaning in the original texts.



As for the New Testament I have two verses:



Rom. 1:26 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even thier women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones."



Rom. 1:27 "In the same way ther men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflammed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."



All quotes are from the NIV. As for the context of the Romans verses I leave it to you took look up but encourage you to do so. I despise verses taken out of context to fulfill some agenda. If you do not have a Bible I suggest going here:



http://bible.gospelcom.net



It's the online Bible I use and it makes searching our specific verses really easy.



The NIV translation is in line with the Greek text. As I don't have greek font or any such thing I cannot provide the text, however, I encourage you to seek out earnes

The above message got cut. Here's the rest:



As I don't have the greek font or any such thing I cannot provide the text, however, I encourage you to seek out earnestly a translation. They're a bit tricky to find because most people are happy with their English translation and rightly so.



Now as for "gay rights" I oppose them because they are contrary to my beliefs. This is a stance I am allowed to express by law and in law. Just as homosexuals are allowed to do. I will abide by the laws setup by our government and will defend homosexual rights just as veraciously as I would my own. However, do not think I have set aside my beliefs in favor of your. I may defend laws but that doesn't mean I will not seek to change them. That is my right just as it is yours.



Do not hate the Christian seeking to repeal laws or setup laws contrary to what you want. It's their right as an American. Just as it is your right do to what you feel you need to, under law, even if this means creating new laws or changing existing ones. We're both doing what we feel is best for ourselves and our country. How can either of us be at blame for doing that?



I guess I'm trying to say this: I may not agree with the homosexual lifestyle and feel opposed to any laws supporting that lifestyle. But it's the lifestyle and not the person I'm opposed to. And it's my right as an American to express these beliefs in public and in government. Just as it is yours. It's a two-way street and many people on both sides of the arguement forget that.



You do what you feel you need to do and I'll do the same. And as long as we're obeying the law in doing so, what's the problem?

Kevin,



I may not agree with the homosexual lifestyle and feel opposed to any laws supporting that lifestyle. But it's the lifestyle and not the person I'm opposed to.



Yes, it's your right to express your beliefs. Yes, you are entitled to vote accordingly. I don't expect any Christians to change their religious beliefs on my account.



What I hope is that Christians can recognize that allowing gay people to legally marry (in the eyes of the law, not the church) does not infringe upon straight people's status and existence in society, but denying gay people the right to legally marry does infringe upon gay people's status and existence in society. Allow me the right to choose, even if you would not choose it for yourself.



If you haven't gone over to Dean's and read the 80+ comments on the issue, I urge you to do so. It's a good read.

I know of Dean's page and I also work with him too. I often find 80+ comments on an issue a pointless debate and something not worth my time. I came here because you specifically asked for a Christian view point.



Now, for your issue... I have to disagree but I'm sure you knew that was coming.



Allowing gays to marry and adopt does infringe upon my beliefs. As I see homosexuality a sin anything that would serve to enforce that lifestyle i.e. legal marrage and/or couples adopting children only furthers that sin and attepmts to make is acceptable in society.



It's not a gay/straight issue and I think you're missing that. It's a religious and belief based issue and you need to see that. Just as firmly you "believe" that gays should be allowed to marry by law, I "believe" against it. You see it as an infringement upon your rights, nowhere in the Costitution or the Bill of Rights have I seen this "right" listed. Point it out to me and I will back off in a heartbeat.



But as it's not there no right is being infringed. However, the gay community is trying to create this "right", which is legally thier right. But as it's not a law or right yet, I, feeling as it is morally and ethically wrong, may stand opposed to it. Which I do.



You said, "Allow me the right to choose..." America has. Being gay is not illegal. You can live that lifestyle but you cannot expect people who disagree with that lifstyle to accept an expansion of that right without a fight. Especially if it's a slap-in-the-face to their religious convictions.



As a note: I want to make it clear, in case it comes off differently, I mean no insult to how you live or what you believe. I'm here for a mature discussion of differening beliefs. I'm not gonna cram what I believe down anyone's throat and I expect the same, not that this has happened yet.



I will also disengage from the discussion if I'm "ganged up on." I'm sure you can understand why. Erica, if you like, I'd me more than happy to talk about this through e-mail, just the two of us. Up to you.

I'd like to keep this in the comments for others to read, as long as it remains civil. Sorry 'bout the character limit, though.



Allowing gays to marry and adopt does infringe upon my beliefs.



You can probably guess how I feel about gay adoption, but let's leave that out for a second. Allowing gays to marry may infringe upon your beliefs, but it does not infringe upon your rights or your ability to go about your daily business.



It's a religious and belief based issue....



As such it is not the government's place to disallow this right for one group and allow it for another using religious beliefs as the reason.



To continue to allow marriage for heterosexuals but to disallow it for gay people is discrimination. It's a violation of homosexuals "unalienable right" to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." By "allow me the right to choose" I meant that (in my opinion), it's only fair to allow me the option to choose marriage (an individual personal decision) - just like straight people can choose to be married or not - because I don't currently have that option.



As for homosexuality being a "lifestyle," lifestyles are defined by the decisions you make. Being homosexual is not a choice.



Suppose 2 gay people decide to settle down in a monogamous, child-free, celibate, long-term relationship. What's the harm in having your life partner be able to visit you in the hospital and make decisions for them if they're incapacitated, tax a tax break, or have spousal access to your employer-provided health benefits? The day-to-day social aspects of this kind of relationship are going to exist regardless of their legal status.



I wholeheartedly agree that you are entitled to not vote in favor of gay marriage. I would then ask you how do you feel about passing such proactive legislation like the DOMA, taking an active stance against gay marriage.

I am unfamiliar with DOMA, what is it?



As for, "Life, Liberty and the persuit of Happiness..." the founding fathers also understood limits. Just because you want to do something, even if you feel it hurts no one else, doesn't mean it should be done. That's why suicide is still illegal. Your decisions always effect someone else. It's unavoidable.



Consider these words from George Washington, the Father of our Nation, in his farewell speech on September 19, 1796: “It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”



Our founding father's understood that this nation was created a Christian nation. The seperation of church and state was to protect the church from government influence not the other way around.



I bring this up for a simple reason, you say:



"As such it is not the government's place to disallow this right for one group and allow it for another using religious beliefs as the reason."



At it's core, a core that is being slowly eroded, this nation is a nation founded upon Christian morality. While you may disagree with this observation I kindly point your to any American currency in your wallet/purse.



With that founding comes freedom and the persuit of happiness... within limits. What is acceptable today doesn't always equate right or good. Progress isn't always good. Just ask a few World War 2 era Jews what thier opinion of Nazi progress is. But don't forget, before WW2 broke out Time magazine made Hitler Man of The Year and the world was singing the praises of Nazism and how it turned the wrecked German economy and people around. "The Wave of the Future," they called Nazism.



Now, I'm not saying the gay movement is comparible to Nazism, far from it. I'm just making an observation about so-called progress. Sometimes progress, no matter how appealing to the masses, is a wolf in sheep-skin.



I believe that, unlike you, homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. I don't believe it's something you're born with. And as for scientists having evidence to the contrary... science often give people what they want. Science is not an exact science. Afterall, there were scores of Nazi scientists that had "irrefutable proof" that Jew were a sub-species of man and inferior to him. Notice how that piece of "fact" has changed.



I believe that homosexuals will be legally allowed to marry and adopt one day. I know this in my heart. The homosexual community will call it progress. I'll call it the moral decay of a nation.



Take it as you will.

Something else just occured to me.



You stated:



"As such it is not the government's place to disallow this right for one group and allow it for another using religious beliefs as the reason."

(I realize I already quoted this.)



Why is there no law stating an opposite sex marrage is legal but there must be one stating a same sex marrage is?



I think it goes to my Christian nation point. It's understood that an opposite sex marrage was going to happen and was natural. It didn't need a law because it was common sense.



So, why must there be a law for same sex marrages? Simple, because of the Christian moral core at the very foundation this nation was built upon. A same sex marrage would violate this core therefore there must now be a law for it to become acceptable. Afterall, if everyone agreed upon an issue why would there be need for a law stating something eveyone already knew to be obvious?



I realize I forgot to address your "day-to-day" question. On the surface, nothing. It's a very common sense request. But you're still missing the point. If I feel that homosexuality is wrong, and same sex marrages are wrong, why would I want to give those unions the same benefits an opposite sex marrage has? It's akin to rewarding a crime or bad behaviour.



But, I'm wondering, what is this discussion about? Is it about the legality of same sex marrages and adoption? I thought you wanted to hear from a Christian on an issue. Particularly why they feel homosexuality is wrong. We're straying away from that. So, where did you want this thing to go because I'll stay as long as I'm welcome providing the enviroment doesn't become hostile. Or a one sided debate as I've seen every discussion like this become.

Just because you want to do something, even if you feel it hurts no one else, doesn't mean it should be done.



True. The question is how do you determine what "should" be done? In this case your guideline is your Christian belief. True, this country was founded on a Christian basis. But the beauty of our government is our ability to, with many checks and balances, change the law to best serve the people. Slavery started out being legal and was later outlawed. Is that a bad thing? By nature of growing up in this country, most people's moral code is at least loosely based on Christian tradition. That doesn't mean that Christian tradition should be the law of the land. And I think it's a little unfair that the church should expect the government to stay out of its business, but expect to have a direct say in the government.



...science often give people what they want.



That is for darn sure. I only have to offer my personal experience as a gay person to the contrary. How do you know you're heterosexual? You just do. You didn't choose to be straight, did you? You just are. It's the same thing for me.



Why is there no law stating an opposite sex marrage is legal...?



As a matter of fact, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996, defines legal marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." It also specifically denies legally married same-sex couples from having the same protections and recognition as opposite-sex couples get. That's from the General Accounting Office Report on the Defense of Marriage Act.



If I feel that homosexuality is wrong, and same sex marrages are wrong, why would I want to give those unions the same benefits an opposite sex marrage has?



I would hope that heterosexual people, even if they think homosexuality is wrong, would find that it's not harmful to themselves to allow gay people to be married. Since you don't feel that way, I wouldn't expect you to vote that way.



Can you give me an example of how my being married to my same-sex partner will affect you?

But, I'm wondering, what is this discussion about? Is it about the legality of same sex marrages and adoption? I thought you wanted to hear from a Christian on an issue. Particularly why they feel homosexuality is wrong.



This conversation can be about whatever we want it to be about. Interestingly, most Christians seem to think the topic of "Gays and Christians" is about Christianity while most gays think the topic is about discrimination and civil rights. Just an observation based on what I've read over the last few of days. The way I see it, we're not going to agree on whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong. That only leaves the issue of legalities to discuss.



So far, Kevin, I've heard a lot of people say that they believe homosexuality is wrong and cite all kinds of things from various Catholic and Protestant sources. They have no problems with homosexuals, but acting on it (so, having homosexual sex) is sinful. And they have no problems with gay people and are even friendly with some. You are the first person to come right out and say to me "No, you shouldn't be allowed to marry because it's wrong. Our nation is founded on religious principles and should continue to operate with that in mind because that is the right way." Maybe you're just the first to explicitly connect all those dots.



In the discussion at Dean's, I asked if anyone could give me a non-faith-based reason why gay people should not be allowed to marry, and the only thing that came close was "because sex is for procreation."



Perhaps I am being closed-minded, because I maintain that it violates separation of church and state for someone to use religious doctrine (particularly in the form of, "the bible says...") as a guideline for legislation on the matter.



Your being Christian means you accept on faith the contents of the bible. It's not an absolute. It's something you choose to believe. It's also something that I choose not to believe. It was written by people, not by god, so I would take any translation with a grain of salt also. So where does that leave us? Whose guidelines do we follow where our beliefs differ? That's where the government comes in and why it needs to be removed from religious specifics.

I think the gay rights issue is largely religious one. If you remove that from the equation then yes, other than for the procreation reason, there should be noithing wrong with same sex marrages. But, you can't throw out the religious reasons so, I feel, the point is moot.



You feel that the Bible was written by man and therefore flawed, I disagree but it's a disagreement that's going to get us nowhere.



How will your same-sex marrage effect me? Simply put, I'd find it morally offensive and not something I'd condone and something I'd try to prevent from happening. Plain and simple.



And, just to say it because you brought it up first, I don't think either of us are close minded. We're here having a mature discussion about issues we feel strongly about. I think we both should be applauded for not allowing the conversation to degredate into something offensive. Just because you have strong opinions and are willing to defend them doesn't make you unwilling to listen and judge fairly arguements to the contrary. Not to do that would be close minded in my humble, and sometimes flawed, opinion.



But to now address your last statement:



"So where does that leave us? Whose guidelines do we follow where our beliefs differ? That's where the government comes in and why it needs to be removed from religious specifics."



This is something I strongly disagree with and something I addressed above with the following quote:



"Consider these words from George Washington, the Father of our Nation, in his farewell speech on September 19, 1796: “It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”" (I've yet to master italics.)



I think this answers quite well your last question. But it's an answer you've already stated you're unwilling to accept.

Forgive me if I jump around. I'm very tired and need to stay up for a long while more.

How will your same-sex marrage effect me? Simply put, I'd find it morally offensive and not something I'd condone and something I'd try to prevent from happening.



So, what you're saying is, even if you never came across another gay person in your life, even if the rights of marriage you currently have or have available to you do not change in any way, the fact that this is out there and bothers you would impel you to act against it? At the risk of making you repeat yourself, I just want to make sure I understand you.



Back to George Washington. There are plenty of nations out there with non-Christian traditions that get along just fine. There are plenty of nations out there with Christian traditions that have serious problems. Is it a coincidence that the Western World is largely Christian? Probably not. But the western world in general and the United States in particular are also much more tolerant of the differences amongst society than elsewhere in the world.



I do not disagree that our general sense of morality comes from Christianity. I do not disagree that we use morality in crafting law. In that sense, government can't be removed from religion. But it can be removed from religious specifics. I disagree with using Christian doctrine specifically to dictate or justify legislation.