Church learns Vet was gay, cancels memorial

[NeciFiX]

This country was built on Christian Principles and Freedom and EQUAL RIGHTS. Christian Principles state Homosexuality is a sin. However, we have freedom of religion, not everyone is a Christian. By not allowing Homosexuals equal rights, we are denying the very ground our Founding Fathers set in place, all because of segregation.

 

[Clint]

This country was NOT built on Christian principals! I believe one of the FF's was an agnostic or atheist or something. In fact, a few of them (my memory is rusty) were probably Diests, which aren't the same as Christians.

This country was founded on religious freedom, NOT religion. You'll find not all Christians think it's sinful, too. At least not the good ones

 

[NeciFiX]

This country was NOT built on Christian principals! I believe one of the FF's was an agnostic or atheist or something. In fact, a few of them (my memory is rusty) were probably Diests, which aren't the same as Christians.

This country was founded on religious freedom, NOT religion. You'll find not all Christians think it's sinful, too. At least not the good ones

Yes, but they refused an Atheist to become part of the Supreme Court or something along those lines because he was an Atheist. Not sure if he got the job.

I'm Christian but I find everyone should be equal regardless of who you are (unless you're a murderer, criminal, etc.)

Excuse me if I'm wrong, my US History is rusty. That or I just slept too much in class.

 

[zappafan]

Okay, I do not believe Good Christians condone marrying homosexuals in a church. I think you know that Jlap. I do not believe laws can change a heart, so I say we should preach what God calls sin and the good news of His Son. That is true separation of church and state. However, I don't want to see people with political agendas twisting scriptures and liberalizing the churches(by possibly infiltrating or starting liberal churches) to further a political agenda using God as a tool, just like I don't want to see Christians thinking they can change hearts with laws apart from the Gospel. I believe same sex is still sin and wrong, but everything will go "left" eventually and that is prophecy, so Christians should still preach that these things are sin in order to perhaps save some. Laws cannot do that, and Christians being taught that politics is the means to that end are being misled.

 

[Outsiders71]

Excuse you. Where have I said we do not want equal rights? I said equal rights weren't enough because, if you'll think about it, we won't have them until we can marry. Then we'll be equal. We have the SAME rights, not EQUAL rights.

Once again if Civil Unions were given the same United States legal rights as a marriage it would be equal. What would prevent you from getting a civil union? Nothing. What would prevent you from having the same legal rights as a marriage? Nothing because you'd have the same rights as a marriage.

It does segregate love. Civil unions are NOT equal to marriage. They won't be until it's called the same thing.

You keep repeating this over and over, how wouldn't your RIGHTS be equal?

And we can debate about how to interpret sin, too. To me, no, homosexuality is not a sin. It's innate. If God didn't want there to be gay people, there wouldn't be. It's in our nature. You can say it's innate in a pedophile to be... a pedophile. That's a mental illness. It's sad, and needs treatment. If you say "well homosexuality IS a mental illness" I'll say the science doesn't say so at all, and in the real world, science trumps an old archaic book.

How can you debate that homosexuality isn't a sin? If God didn't make us able to be gay then how would we have free will? It's the same with being a murder, or pedophile or anything... you can choose to do it. If I wanted to go out right now and start a homosexual relationship with some buff guy I could but I choose not to. Science is a great tool but it trumps nothing when it comes to the big questions, the ones that really matter.

If "it's just a word" and "your freedom won't be limited", why don't we call marriage something else? Why don't we do away with it and have Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships for everyone, if you say freedom wouldn't be limited? Then we'd all be equal. OR, let's get rid of the government's role in marriage and leave it ENTIRELY up to the churches, where it should be, what with separation of church and state. Then I'd be quite happy because if one church wouldn't do it, the next one would.

Maybe because the word marriage has a bigger meaning that you can't seem to grasp.

 

[Outsiders71]

This country was built on Christian Principles and Freedom and EQUAL RIGHTS. Christian Principles state Homosexuality is a sin. However, we have freedom of religion, not everyone is a Christian. By not allowing Homosexuals equal rights, we are denying the very ground our Founding Fathers set in place, all because of segregation.

Your right but where does marriage come from? That's the problem. Explain to me how homosexuals cannot have equal rights if their unions are called Civil Unions instead of Gay marriages? That is if they have word for word, the same written legal laws as heterosexual marriages do.

 

[Outsiders71]

This country was NOT built on Christian principals! I believe one of the FF's was an agnostic or atheist or something. In fact, a few of them (my memory is rusty) were probably Diests, which aren't the same as Christians.

We've had this discussion already in the past. This country was built on Christian/Judea principals.

You'll find not all Christians think it's sinful, too. At least not the good ones

Find me a Christian that denies homosexuality as a sin. I'd say all Christians love homosexuals the same as heterosexuals, just as we are commanded to love the murders, the thieves, the rapists etc. We love everyone as our neighbor but that does not mean homosexuality, murdering, stealing and raping isn't a sin.

 

[ktulu]

This country was started with the influences of John Locke, whos political theory in all practicality requires there to be an omnipitant diety who guides nations. Being as the Near Easts totallitarian agriculture (and its religions) dominated both Europe and the English colonies the foundation of our country would be based in the traditions of Aberham. Therefore as much as it doesnt support the ideal of seperation of church and state our country was started with religious principals in mind.

As for the word marriage should refer to unions done under religious guidelines and all unions not performed by a religous figure head (Priest, Pastor, Imam, etc) should be called a civil union.

 

[Outsiders71]

This country was started with the influences of John Locke, whos political theory in all practicality requires there to be an omnipitant diety who guides nations. Being as the Near Easts totallitarian agriculture (and its religions) dominated both Europe and the English colonies the foundation of our country would be based in the traditions of Aberham. Therefore as much as it doesnt support the ideal of seperation of church and state our country was started with religious principals in mind.

As for the word marriage should refer to unions done under religious guidelines and all unions not performed by a religous figure head (Priest, Pastor, Imam, etc) should be called a civil union.

I think you hit the nail on the head Ktulu. In fact the biggest problem against the sanctity of marriage is that any Joe or Jane can go to Vegas and get "married" (remember the Brittany Spears accidental marriage?). I think that this is just as big as a problem as homosexuals wanting to use the term "marriage".

 

[xvart]

How can you debate that homosexuality isn't a sin? If God didn't make us able to be gay then how would we have free will? It's the same with being a murder, or pedophile or anything... you can choose to do it. If I wanted to go out right now and start a homosexual relationship with some buff guy I could but I choose not to. Science is a great tool but it trumps nothing when it comes to the big questions, the ones that really matter.

You are right that we do have a choice; except that it's not the choice you describe. The choice that humans have is the choice to lead lives that make them satisfied and happy or lead lives that make them unsatisfied and unhappy. Most choose to be happy and despite what some believe this choice that god has granted us occasionally means that a man might be happier and more satisfied engaged in a romantic and sexual relationship with a man. Whoop-ed-ee-doo.

xvart.

 

[RamPuppy]

hmmm.. leave it to a conversation like this to drag me out of the woodworks.

First, let me commend you all for staying fairly civil.
Second, lets remember that a broad brush rarely if ever, paints a suitable picture.

I grew up in a Southern Baptist household, and we were raised to take the Bible at face value. I have always been a skeptic when it comes to fantastic things (though I want to believe).

I have several friends who are homosexuals, and I can tell you w/o a doubt in my mind that I care for them all equally, or at the very least, equally to how much i did before i knew they were gay.

That does not however mean that I find their lifestyle appropriate, or condone it. I neither accept it, reassure it, or give it any manner of positive re-enforcement. My friends know where I stand, they accept me for who I am and love me, just as I love them. There is something about them i don't particularly care for, and my dislike of it, is something about me they don't particularly care for either.. kind of balances out.. it's.. equal i gues.

Marriage - was setup in Judeo Christian Culture to be between a man and a woman. I still believe this, and while i have no problem w/ gay couples getting together in whatever type of relationship they want, I don't think it has to be called marriage.

I equate this to be SIMILAR to that young lady who forced her way into the CITADEL a while back, why did a woman feel a need to force her way into an all male institution? just because a 'boys' club exists doesn't mean it's wrong or sexist, discriminatory or hateful. there are good reasons for these seperations, and i don't think i ever recall a guy forcing his way into a womans school.. (he'd probably be labled as a perv).

Lets also face it, a man/man woman/woman relationship won't ever be equal to a man/woman relationship for the simple reason that call it what you will, as intimate as you may be capable of being, it will not produce a biological child, a component of both mother and father, which when you get right down to the metaphysical mumbo jumbo is the fusion of two people into one. You can perhaps adopt, and that in itself is a noble and honorable thing, and it will produce much the same result, but that child would be brought into your lives by a court system, compassion, and many other things, but not between that ultimate union that a man and woman can share. (Please note, I am not knocking adoption or minimizing the love and relationships created by it, there are 5 adopted kids in my family.)

point, until we can put a uterous in you, it's not equal. Why can't the heterosexual world have something of it's own? why must an institution that we hold sacred be shared in that way. because you want it? really? I want stuff too, but my wants arent right becuase they exist.

It's strange to me that a culture that is all about celebrating it's differences from the rest of us desires so much for this 'word' to be theirs too, it really is a matter of acceptance over law.

I think the homosexual community has made great strives in the last 50 years. Since the fall of the Roman Empire, homosexuality has been repressed, reviled, and shunned, and in the last 50 it has become so accepted that a vast portion of society doesn't care. that's a lot of progress, it's frankly quite amazing. not saying you should be happy w/ it. or even to slow down, but pointing out that just because many attitudes can be changed and conventions altered so rapidly, does not mean you should expect everything to fall before you like you were Alexander marching on persia.

oh...
and a few key points.

1) there is quite a bit of evidence for a global flood, not only is it mentioned by nealry every culture on earth, but there is physical evidence itself, Mt. Arrarat for instance has ball lava formations on top of it (not as old as the mt), ball lava only forms under water. Also, it has been scientifically proven that every race on the planet could have risen from one common race within 5 generations.

2) Um, the exedous did happen. it is not a disputed fact, it is documented not only in non-religious texts of the hebrew nation, but by the egyptians as well. Historians have established links, such as egyptian documents that not only recount the drowning of a pharonic army, but references to the plauges of egypt as well. Also, the ancient Hebrew people were a nomadic warrior society, it is now commonly heald in academia that the hebrew people originally arrived in egypt as hired mercenaries and maintained a strong discipline throughout their 'enslavement'. they have even found ridges of land in several seas that could be exposed easily by wind in years of drought allowing save passage across them (not the red sea however if i remember correctly.)

As for a young earth, well, that is hard to swallow, but there is a significant amount of evidence that does, if nothing else, shoot holes all through the structure that supports evolution. data can be read many ways by many people, interpretation of data is more of an art i think than a science.

The most interesting thing about this topic, is where it went, and so fast... originally it was about the ethics of a church denying a memorial service to a serviceman who was gay. I personally think the church made a comittment, and should have stuck w/ it no matter how they felt. now this young man will not be remembered for what he did in life, or how he died, but for the controversy surrounding his death. how sad.

I know this, I won't think of him as gay, or a controversy, the highest honor he can be given, is to remember that he served his nation loyally and dutifully, and put himself in harms way for the rights of others, some of which, he himself did not even enjoy.

salute.

 

[ktulu]

I think you hit the nail on the head Ktulu. In fact the biggest problem against the sanctity of marriage is that any Joe or Jane can go to Vegas and get "married" (remember the Brittany Spears accidental marriage?). I think that this is just as big as a problem as homosexuals wanting to use the term "marriage".

I think I need to clarify that I do not believe the religious union should be legally binding in the eyes of the state. I believe for a "marriage" to be legally binding it must be done by a gov't agency over seen by a gov't offical.

Also as a side note it seems quite conceded to me that christianity is trying to claim they have the only correct definition for a word that exists in the english language. The word does not orgininate from Hebrew, Latin, or Greek, the logical orgins of a word that christians invented to signal something. That said and recognizing the fluidity and dynamic nature of language the common usage does refer to a man and a woman hence the reason I believe that homosexuals want to get "married" also to help bring about a more equal footing with heterosexual unions.

 

[phissionkorps]

Whoever first brought up the fact that this nation was founded on Judeochristian principles...that is not the case. A few of the founding fathers were athiest, and they were all, above all secularists. None of them cared whatsoever what your religion was, they cared that it had nothing to do with the government and vice versa.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm
http://www.gayheroes.com/ff.htm
ad nauseum

I think anyone can believe whatever they want, but this is another case of Christians attempting to rewrite history. Believe what you feel, but arguing with hard evidence makes you look stupid.

 

[RamPuppy]

Phission, its the people who want to secularize the past that are mistaken.

"One nation under God"
"In God we Trust"

NO, not all the founding fathers were christians, but you can not take 5, 10, or even 15 of them that were not and say 'this is the all the evidence we need'.

there were 88 Episcopalianss, 30 presbyterians, 27 Congregationalists, 7 quakers, 3 Catholics, there werehugenots, unitarians, methodists, calvanists, etc... the short list i found for reference on the net had over 204 people listed. This list would consist of signers of the decleration, framers of the constitution, members of the first congress, etc...

People tend to think Christianity is a single religion, it is not, it is a framework around which many religions exist w/ major commonality.

You can split hairs all you want, but these men were raised here, and elsewhere in a society that operated on conservitive values for many hundreds of years, their values, whether they realized it or not, were shaped and molded by a societies beliefs from the earliest days of their lives.

Toss all of that aside, did they intentionally leave God out of the constitution? yes, i beleive so, were they for religious freedom? yes, I believe they were, freedom for all religions, these were well educated men. (Far more well educated for their time than we are for ours today i would wager).

Furthermore, we can take this small core of men, and say their intents were completely secular, that they had no religious background, and turn them into secular athiestic automotans (for the sake of argument) and examine their creation of this nation in it's context. Context? oh, just the hundreds of thousands of christians who let them do it. who acted on their behalf, embraced this new country... if it wasn't founded on principles that they agreed with, i don't think that would have happened, especially in a time when religion meant so much more to people than it generally does now.

you see, unbeknownst ot many people who don't like christians (indeed it seems there are many out there who outright hate us and lump us all in the same boat) we are capable of rational and independent thought. the founding fathers were founding a nation, not a church, they had experienced religious persecution, they intentionlally founded a religiously vauge nation for protection of its citizenry. just because they don't mention their god, or anyone elses for that matter in the documents that frame our nation doesn't mean their principles, pounded into them as children, refined and edited as adults, are not present.

you may have very different principles from your parents, but i would be willing to bet, more than a few of your parents principles survive in you. I have not done a serious study of it, but i would be willing to bet that even looking at the deists of the founding fathers that i would find few, if any principles that contradicted christianity.

take all that aside, and say that every single founding father intended this nation to be 100% secular, and well, it doesnt matter. the people didn't. it's a living document that holds our laws, it took on a life of it's own, the people, from a point early on believed it was judeo christian, and well, that may be what it has become.

 

[Outsiders71]

Whoever first brought up the fact that this nation was founded on Judeochristian principles...that is not the case. A few of the founding fathers were athiest, and they were all, above all secularists. None of them cared whatsoever what your religion was, they cared that it had nothing to do with the government and vice versa.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm
http://www.gayheroes.com/ff.htm
ad nauseum

I think anyone can believe whatever they want, but this is another case of Christians attempting to rewrite history. Believe what you feel, but arguing with hard evidence makes you look stupid.

I think before you accuse someone of rewriting history it might be a good idea to actually know the history which you speak of. Secondly this "hard evidence" you posted is nothing but bias propaganda. On top of what Rampuppy said, what book is sworn on by congressmen, federal officials and the President? You know the one where they say "So help me God", started by George Washington, the first President of the United States.

 

[Mokele]

Yes, but they refused an Atheist to become part of the Supreme Court or something along those lines because he was an Atheist. Not sure if he got the job.

I don't recall that one, but we've had Presidents who didn't believe in Jesus's divinity. Taft, IIRC, was Unitarian and stated that much about his beliefs.

However, I don't want to see people with political agendas twisting scriptures and liberalizing the churches(by possibly infiltrating or starting liberal churches)

Why not? In spite of religion's claims of static, universal truth, the policies of all faiths have changed drastically over time, with racial policies being a prime example. Many Christian churches (not just a few splinter groups) endorsed slavery, and easily supported it by pointing to passages in the Bible.

The important thing is divesting God's message and love from the messages and rules that were added by those serving as God's imperfect messengers. We've discarded the Biblical sanctions of slavery as mere products of the time it was written, so why should we consider the rules on homosexuality any different?

Once again if Civil Unions were given the same United States legal rights as a marriage it would be equal. What would prevent you from getting a civil union? Nothing. What would prevent you from having the same legal rights as a marriage? Nothing because you'd have the same rights as a marriage.

Separate but equal, eh? If you don't want marriage to be a civil right, then abandon all civil recognition of it. As long as there is a government sanctioned 'marriage', separate cannot and will not be equal. Or have you forgotten the lessons learned via segregation.

How can you debate that homosexuality isn't a sin? If God didn't make us able to be gay then how would we have free will? It's the same with being a murder, or pedophile or anything... you can choose to do it. If I wanted to go out right now and start a homosexual relationship with some buff guy I could but I choose not to. Science is a great tool but it trumps nothing when it comes to the big questions, the ones that really matter.

Wrong. You couldn't start a homosexual relationship, assuming you're not closeted. You'd never be able to get it up, pardon my frankness. It's a purely physiological response, with no inherent moral quantity.

Furthermore, I take offer to you even putting it in the same category as murder or pedophilia, and if you do so again, I will ask that the Mods warn you for it. Homosexuality harms *NOONE*, other than a few bigots who can't pull their heads out of the 14th century.

Maybe because the word marriage has a bigger meaning that you can't seem to grasp.

Why should I be forced to accept your definition of it? How about I force you to accept mine, whether you like it or not.

The day marriage became a legally recognized concept is the day you lost any control over who gets to say what it means. Either remove all legal aspects and make it purely religious, or accept that you cannot dictate to others how to live.

We've had this discussion already in the past. This country was built on Christian/Judea principals.

Wrong. See above. See any sort of history. Read a book that doesn't feature magical cloud-gods. You may learn something.

Find me a Christian that denies homosexuality as a sin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_religious_organizations

Enjoy the reading. Oh, and no "No true Scotsman" fallacy - if they worship Jesus, they're christian, no matter how much you disagree with them.

Lets also face it, a man/man woman/woman relationship won't ever be equal to a man/woman relationship for the simple reason that call it what you will, as intimate as you may be capable of being, it will not produce a biological child, a component of both mother and father, which when you get right down to the metaphysical mumbo jumbo is the fusion of two people into one.

So you think infertile couples shouldn't marry? Or what about seniors who find love in their 70's? Or what about my fiancee and I who simply do not want a child both for personal reasons and because we don't want to contribute to the overpopulation problem?

I equate this to be SIMILAR to that young lady who forced her way into the CITADEL a while back, why did a woman feel a need to force her way into an all male institution? just because a 'boys' club exists doesn't mean it's wrong or sexist, discriminatory or hateful. there are good reasons for these seperations, and i don't think i ever recall a guy forcing his way into a womans school.. (he'd probably be labled as a perv).

Actually, yes, they *are* wrong and sexist. If a woman can pass the entrance requirements, she should be allowed in, regardless of gender. Anything else, no matter how you rationalize it, is sexism.

You can perhaps adopt, and that in itself is a noble and honorable thing, and it will produce much the same result, but that child would be brought into your lives by a court system, compassion, and many other things, but not between that ultimate union that a man and woman can share. (Please note, I am not knocking adoption or minimizing the love and relationships created by it, there are 5 adopted kids in my family.)

Gay people can adopt.

Your claim is just plain stupid. You claim it's about having biological kids, then make an excuse for adoption, but since gays can adopt, you turn around and go back to claiming some magical stuff about kids. You're a hypocrite merely looking for an excuse to justify your own homophobic bigotry.

Why can't the heterosexual world have something of it's own?

I bet if you'd been born 100 years ago, you'd be saying that about giving women the vote.

I'll make it simple for you: Because it's discrimination based solely on hate.

1) there is quite a bit of evidence for a global flood, not only is it mentioned by nealry every culture on earth, but there is physical evidence itself, Mt. Arrarat for instance has ball lava formations on top of it (not as old as the mt), ball lava only forms under water. Also, it has been scientifically proven that every race on the planet could have risen from one common race within 5 generations

AHAHAHAHA!

Oh, god, you actually believe that? AHAHAHAHA!!

No, there is no evidence for any global flood. No, there is no evidence that the different races could arise in 5 generations, and there's ball lava on top of Mt. Arrarat for the same reason there are seashells in Cincinnati - because it was deposited millions of years ago. Don't believe it? Tough. Reality doesn't change because your little book says so.

Um, the exedous did happen. it is not a disputed fact, it is documented not only in non-religious texts of the hebrew nation, but by the egyptians as well.

Wrong. There is no Egyptian record.

Historians have established links, such as egyptian documents that not only recount the drowning of a pharonic army, but references to the plauges of egypt as well.

Wrong again. Prove it. Show me these documents.

As for a young earth, well, that is hard to swallow, but there is a significant amount of evidence that does, if nothing else, shoot holes all through the structure that supports evolution. data can be read many ways by many people, interpretation of data is more of an art i think than a science.

Wrong again. We've directly observed evolution and speciation, both in the lab and in nature. Read a biology textbook.

Phission, its the people who want to secularize the past that are mistaken.

"One nation under God"
"In God we Trust"

Wrong yet again. Both of those phrases were ADDED in the 1950's in response to scares about the "godless communists".

you see, unbeknownst ot many people who don't like christians (indeed it seems there are many out there who outright hate us and lump us all in the same boat) we are capable of rational and independent thought.

This coming from someone who doesn't acept evolution? Way to prove yourself wrong.

Secondly this "hard evidence" you posted is nothing but bias propaganda.

Um, did you *READ* the second link? That was a phrase in a treaty that Congress ratified. You can find it in any historical register. Go, look it up. And next time, try *thinking* rather than just dismissing things out of hand.

On top of what Rampuppy said, what book is sworn on by congressmen, federal officials and the President? You know the one where they say "So help me God", started by George Washington, the first President of the United States.

Anything you want. A muslim congressman recently swore in on the Quaran. Atheist public officials swear on the Constitution. Just because the majority of the country is Christian does not mean that everyone *must* be, and that we must all follow your rules.



As a final note, if anyone has a problem with my tone, tough. This is hatred and discrimination for no good reason, is absolutely disgraceful, and is one thing I will not stand down on. And no moaning about how I "insulted your beliefs". I'm firmly with Richard Dawkins on this - religion is too often used as merely a pass to let unwarranted and foolish claims go unchallenged. I don't care if something is the deepest part of your faith, I will criticise it as I please, and if you can't handle that, then go live in some safe little theocracy like Iran.

It's bigotry, period. And I will not stand by being 'courteous' while the Religious Reich destroys the freedoms this country was founded on.

Mokele

 

[Clint]

Wow, I go to sleep and I see all this in the morning

You keep repeating this over and over, how wouldn't your RIGHTS be equal?

They would, but we would not be equal. Do I have to go back to the case of racial segregation yet again? Really? Can you still not understand how the world "marriage" is not the same word as "Civil union"? Let's use an analogy, shall we? If a marriage is a high school diploma, a civil union is a GED. Can you see now? Do you get it? Can you not understand how we will not be equal even if we have the same rights, until it's called marriage? I'm talking until I'm blue in the face, yet you just don't seem to get it.

How can you debate that homosexuality isn't a sin? If God didn't make us able to be gay then how would we have free will? It's the same with being a murder, or pedophile or anything... you can choose to do it. If I wanted to go out right now and start a homosexual relationship with some buff guy I could but I choose not to. Science is a great tool but it trumps nothing when it comes to the big questions, the ones that really matter.

I did not wake up and say "I want to be gay!" In fact, I spent a few years in denial and wishing I was straight. No one in their right mind would choose to have a harder life. A gay person can choose to have sex or not, but he/she can't choose what to feel. You could absolutely go have a relationship with a dude. Of course you can! But nothing in this world would make you attracted to him. This is what it's about, don't you get it yet? It's not about sex.

This country was built on Christian/Judea principals.

And you're still wrong. Many atheists have the same principals as religion such as honesty and not stealing, for example. That doesn't mean squat.

Find me a Christian that denies homosexuality as a sin. I'd say all Christians love homosexuals the same as heterosexuals, just as we are commanded to love the murders, the thieves, the rapists etc. We love everyone as our neighbor but that does not mean homosexuality, murdering, stealing and raping isn't a sin.

Jay Bakker's the first that comes to mind. There are actually forums for gay Chrisians, too.


A deity is not the same as the name "God". Religious principals aren't the same as Christian principals. Religious just means religious, not Christian. Are you proposing you want to make Vegas wedding illegal, too, outsiders? You're kidding, right? As far as marriage being left up to the churches, I'd be happy as a clam if that were to happen. If the government said "we don't want anything to do with this anymore. Let the churches deal with it" I'd happy. The problem is, the state regulates marriage licenses.



Rampuppy, first I'll say I'm sorry you don't support us. Secondly, what's with the uterus talk? Why do people assume it's all about sex? This is a stereotype that homosexuals are overly promiscuous and all we do is have sex all day long. It's NOT about sex! We don't care that we can't have children. Our bodies are different but our LOVE is the SAME love as a man and a woman can share. As far as "one nation under God" , It wasn't there originally I don't believe. And His name should be taken off our currency, too.

I was thinking, if most Christians think the world is going to hell in a hand basket soon, and Jesus is coming back soon, why not vote to speed things up a little? Then we'd all be happy as hell. I also don't understand why everyone can't be secular. Look at me. I have my cake and eat it, too! I get to believe in God and have a relationship with Christ, I just don't like to yap about it unless it's in a conversation like this! Sure, the majority of people are Christian. Guess what? Most of that majority is secular. Even the people I know who go to church, are secular. It's fabulous.

Outsiders, in all seriousness, and I'm not trying to be snarky or anything. I have trouble comprehending how someone as young as you can think the things you do, the way you do. You're a very unique individual, no matter what our differences, and I can say that honestly.






Well, see ya. I have to go meet with my compatriots about the secret gay agenda.

 

[xvart]

RamPuppy, I agree with your analysis of the founding fathers and their ideologies; but,

I have not done a serious study of it, but i would be willing to bet that even looking at the deists of the founding fathers that i would find few, if any principles that contradicted christianity.

(and maybe I'm reading too much into your statement) but just because principles are the same does not mean that they can be labeled as one (christian) or the other (deist). If anything it further establishes that some principles are more fundamental than any religion and just "good practice." Despite my religious views, just because I believe that I shouldn't kill someone does not automatically make me a christian. We just share the same opinion on the subject of murder.

Science is a great tool but it trumps nothing when it comes to the big questions, the ones that really matter.

Science is a great tool, but, it is a tool that usefulness cannot be turned on and off based on the user's personal ideologies.

As for civil unions and marriages: if there are churches that will (and are allowed) to perform marriages to gay couples then what's the big deal? Marriage is fine, but it sounds like the regiously sanctioned marriage should not hold the governmental credence of tax benefits and all the other goodies that I am afforded for being fortunate enough to be born with an attraction to women.

The best course of action would be to remove all the benefits of marriage as associated with marriage and make "civil union" paperwork for everyone gay, straight, or otherwise. I mean, seriously, when I got married I had to go to the courthouse, not the church, to make it official. God and religion didn't officially approve my heterosexual marriage in that courthouse; Bertha behind the counter with her rubber stamp allowed me all the privileges and all the benefits and made it official.

"Marriage" is just a term. If the church or religious organization you belong to does not allow you to get "married" and celebrate your life and your love for another then you are probably belong to the wrong church. I guarantee that there are plenty of churches and religious groups that would allow gay people to get married, must of which will share the exact same ideology as the churches that would not grant a marriage to gay couples. They are just a little more forward thinking. Of course, this presupposes that the government does not interfere and say "gay couples can't get married, period."

xvart.

 

[Capslock]

Mokele, you saved me at least an hour this morning. It had to be said.

Max

 

[Outsiders71]

I don't recall that one, but we've had Presidents who didn't believe in Jesus's divinity. Taft, IIRC, was Unitarian and stated that much about his beliefs.

Who was making the claim that everyone who was President believed in Jesus? Irrelevant.

Why not? In spite of religion's claims of static, universal truth, the policies of all faiths have changed drastically over time, with racial policies being a prime example. Many Christian churches (not just a few splinter groups) endorsed slavery, and easily supported it by pointing to passages in the Bible.

The important thing is divesting God's message and love from the messages and rules that were added by those serving as God's imperfect messengers. We've discarded the Biblical sanctions of slavery as mere products of the time it was written, so why should we consider the rules on homosexuality any different?

The slavery of the Bible is different than the slavery of the South. Today the slavery of the Bible is related to today's debt (credit cards, loans, etc.).

Separate but equal, eh? If you don't want marriage to be a civil right, then abandon all civil recognition of it. As long as there is a government sanctioned 'marriage', separate cannot and will not be equal. Or have you forgotten the lessons learned via segregation.

No one suggested making seperate water fountains and bathrooms for homosexuals. Linking homosexuality to the AA civil rights movement is weak.

Wrong. You couldn't start a homosexual relationship, assuming you're not closeted. You'd never be able to get it up, pardon my frankness. It's a purely physiological response, with no inherent moral quantity.

Oh really, then your claiming that there has never been a gay man who's been with a woman before? Oh and your claiming that bisexuals don't exist either right? Or transsexuals? Right.

Furthermore, I take offer to you even putting it in the same category as murder or pedophilia, and if you do so again, I will ask that the Mods warn you for it. Homosexuality harms *NOONE*, other than a few bigots who can't pull their heads out of the 14th century.

If your ignorant enough to report me to the mods because I classified homosexuality as a sin, just like murder, rape and stealing then go right ahead, we'll see how far you get with that .

Why should I be forced to accept your definition of it? How about I force you to accept mine, whether you like it or not.

Maybe because the definition has historical and religious meaning that has co-existed longer than the current liberalizing west society of today?

The day marriage became a legally recognized concept is the day you lost any control over who gets to say what it means. Either remove all legal aspects and make it purely religious, or accept that you cannot dictate to others how to live.

I can't dictate to others how to live but they can dictate to me? Sorry that just doesn't make sense.

Wrong. See above. See any sort of history. Read a book that doesn't feature magical cloud-gods. You may learn something.

Oh really. That's interesting, I will ask my professors to quit using those dang cloud god books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_religious_organizations

Enjoy the reading. Oh, and no "No true Scotsman" fallacy - if they worship Jesus, they're christian, no matter how much you disagree with them.

WRONG. Since you obviously lack expertise in this field let me tell you something. To be a Christian is to be a follower of Jesus Christ. Doing anything that doesn't agree with the teachings of Christ is a cult. Look that one up.

So you think infertile couples shouldn't marry? Or what about seniors who find love in their 70's? Or what about my fiancee and I who simply do not want a child both for personal reasons and because we don't want to contribute to the overpopulation problem?

I just wanted to thank you and your fiance for defeating the overpopulation problems of the world. Way to go guys!

Gay people can adopt.

Your claim is just plain stupid. You claim it's about having biological kids, then make an excuse for adoption, but since gays can adopt, you turn around and go back to claiming some magical bull**** about kids. You're a hypocrite merely looking for an excuse to justify your own homophobic bigotry.

Your a bigot for thinking that homosexuality should produce children in the first place. It takes two different accessories last time I checked and there's a good reason for it.

I bet if you'd been born 100 years ago, you'd be saying that about giving women the vote.

I'll make it simple for you: Because it's discrimination based solely on hate.

That's all you hear from the extremist left that we're bigots and haters. Yes we're just so full of hate for everyone. Yeah we discriminate, that's what we're all about. All you can do is point the finger and flame. Come up with something better please it's weak![/QUOTE]