Supreme Court Strikes Down Key DOMA Provisions

[FAST6191]

Quick question on "Christians"

Popular history has the term as a politically expedient grouping (one that possibly even arose/rose up in the last 100 years) and as such something of a non term -- there are quite a few denominations that do not hold the interpretations of the others in any great esteem (the transubstantiation thing in Catholicism being routinely laughed at/dismissed as foolishness by others). Indeed such a thing is a source of conflict and quite a large component of US history.

 

[BORTZ]

I really wish that that my fellow "Christians" would stop being such close minded bigots.

We were called to be whiteness. Have a whitened the gays being send to hell? Have I personally seen that? NO.

Someone who is gay is a human, just like me. Humans are sinners just like me (whether being or acting on gay impulses is a sin, who cares). I HIGHLY doubt the the Jesus that I worship would be making such a big deal about this. What would he have done? He would have greeted them with open arms, shared a meal, and told them God loves them just the way they are.

I dont understand the hate. I dont understand hiding behind the scriptures because you might be a bit homophobic. And its making me feel ashamed to call myself a Christian anymore.

On a personal level, all the displays and demonstrations are kinda annoying, but other than that, i dont really care about it.

Im just going to start using Mr. Rodgers as a role model.

 

[Foxchild]

Quick question on "Christians"

Not sure exactly what the question is here but I'll try: Generic definition of a Christian is "someone who follows Christ". Unfortunately, as you note, many "Christian" groups cannot agree on how exactly to do that. Now, the Bible warns multiple times about false teachers and false Christians, even Jesus said, "Not everyone who calls me Lord will enter the kingdom of Heaven", so just because you say you're a Christian doesn't mean you are. I've already expressed my distaste for the current political arm of Christianity. Some involved may well be genuine Christians, just misguided - as I posted before they truly believe this is a battle God wants them to fight. But, the Church has been political for centuries - look at the Roman Catholic church through the Middle Ages. This is something it was never meant to be. The Pharisees tried to trip Jesus up by getting Him to take a political stance, but He always wisely avoided doing so - that wasn't why He was here, and it is not why Christians are still here today (at least it shouldn't be).

Someone who is gay is a human, just like me. Humans are sinners just like me (whether being or acting on gay impulses is a sin, who cares). I HIGHLY doubt the the Jesus that I worship would be making such a big deal about this. What would he have done? He would have greeted them with open arms, shared a meal, and told them God loves them just the way they are.

This. The only people Jesus judged/condemned during His time on earth were not "sinners" (or gays), but the religious leaders who thought they were righteous. He hung out with the sinners.

The question, for the Christian, is "how should I deal with/react to sin?" For many things, Christians and the rest of the world are on the same page - murder, rape, etc. are wrong and should be punished. "Sins" that don't hurt anyone, (like homosexuality, fornication, pornography, piracy , etc.) society says you should tolerate these things - live and let live. Christians realize that you shouldn't just shrug your shoulders and ignore sin, it needs to be dealt with. So the answer they came up with is "love the sinner, hate the sin", so now, instead of offering tolerance, the Christians offer hate, and wonder why everyone thinks they're bigots.

An analogy: Sin is said to be like a cancer. If you were diagnosed with cancer and your Dr said, "Well, it is really no big deal, we'll just let it go," and tolerated/ignored it, that might be more comfortable in the short term, but it doesn't deal with the thing that will kill you. So you go to the Christian Dr. and he berates you for having cancer in the first place, tries to convince you that cancer isn't natural, hands you a knife and says, "I'm not helping you until you cut that evil cancer out of your body." Which would you choose? We need a third choice. How did Jesus deal with sin? When they brought a paralyzed man to Jesus to be healed, Jesus said to him, "My son, I hate your sin." Wait... no He didn't! He said "Your sins are forgiven" To the woman who committed adultery, did Jesus say, "Well, I've never sinned" and wing a stone at her? No, He said "Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more" Jesus didn't offer tolerance or hatred for sin, He offered forgiveness - He healed the cancer. Then He died to pay for that forgiveness. If the church really wants to "bring people to Jesus" they need to ditch the hate and start offering forgiveness.

According to the Bible, being gay doesn't send you to Hell. Neither does murder, lying, hypocrisy, or general selfishness. Jesus very clearly explained what does condemn you - y'all know John 3:16? (if not look it up)... right after that Jesus says that He "did not come into the world to condemn the world but that the world through Him would be saved." He goes on to identify those who are condemned - is it the gay community? No - "he that believes not is condemned already... because they love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil." It is those who don't believe - period - who are condemned. This is echoed in 2nd Thessalonians chpt. 1 where Paul describes a wrathful Jesus at His Second Coming "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them who" who what? are gay? no..."who do not know God, who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." Again, judgment/condemnation based on belief not sin. EVERYONE has sinned, it just depends on whether you'd rather stay as you are, or be cured.

 

[GeekyGuy]

If you cannot comment in this thread without insulting someone or their beliefs, please refrain from posting. Otherwise, we'll just have to close this sucker.

 

[FAST6191]

Not sure exactly what the question is here but I'll try: Generic definition of a Christian is "someone who follows Christ". Unfortunately, as you note, many "Christian" groups cannot agree on how exactly to do that. Now, the Bible warns multiple times about false teachers and false Christians, even Jesus said, "Not everyone who calls me Lord will enter the kingdom of Heaven", so just because you say you're a Christian doesn't mean you are. I've already expressed my distaste for the current political arm of Christianity. Some involved may well be genuine Christians, just misguided - as I posted before they truly believe this is a battle God wants them to fight. But, the Church has been political for centuries - look at the Roman Catholic church through the Middle Ages. This is something it was never meant to be. The Pharisees tried to trip Jesus up by getting Him to take a political stance, but He always wisely avoided doing so - that wasn't why He was here, and it is not why Christians are still here today (at least it shouldn't be).
[snip]

Interesting. The obvious glib response is probably to point at Islam (the bible is afforded holy book status within it) but that gets us nowhere. The question was more a jab at the 70% as Christian (leaving aside huge misgivings about the statistic itself) and that then making a "unified front" from which to argue from.

The cancer analogy is interesting, I would warn though that there are serious variations between countries in what approaches are taken -- prostate cancer in the UK is quite often left as the treatment is worse than the disease where I have seen a lot of US doctors stick people under the knife to say nothing of the benign tumours.

"Piracy".... I can not say I have ever found a religion save perhaps Scientology that has anything to say about intellectual property.

"pornography". Another interesting one if only because of things like Pope Paul IV (statues in the 1500's and beyond).

Not sure where I am heading right now so back to my film.

 

[AbyssalMonkey]

If you cannot comment in this thread without insulting someone or their beliefs, please refrain from posting. Otherwise, we'll just have to close this sucker.

I hope to wake up to some more overly stated opinions about this, or to a locked thread

Interesting...

 

[LoganK93]

Why does this debate still exist? Honestly. I will admit to not having read the thread in its entirety, but u have already seen countless refernces to being gay as a choice, a statement that has always pissed me off. I am gay, and as far as i know i never made a conscious choice to suddenly boycott women. I tried having a girlfriend, forced myself to try and have sex with her and couldnt. There was no attraction at all. There never was. There never will be. I will also agree with a post i saw moments ago that said all of the displays are annoying. They are, especially the way they are done. If you dont want to be treated like some gross sex crazed puke, dont march down the street in a nut cup making out with every guy you see. It gives us all a bad image. I will also add that the religuous debate should he moot for many reasons, the most annoying of which are the deliberate ignoring of other "sins" that are in practically the same breath as the "man lies with man" thing such as death for adultery, never wearing two fibers in one garment, or the consumption of shellfiah. But those last ones are ignored. When i ask why they dont matter its "because times have changed". The only reason gay marriage and rights in general are an issues is because, much like every social issue in the past, people dont understand, are stuck in the "old ways" and a certain hate has been established for the minority group in question. Quite honestly the close minded views of the people in this "free" country make me sick. Canada or the uk are looking better every day.

 

[smile72]

Those are your opinions, I feel your views are disgusting and wrong. You may be right be I will still not approve of homosexuality be it legal or not. In some places in the united states I think Sex with a animal is not enforceable, yet I think they are disgusting, do you? The animal did not give consent, be it legal or not.

My god....wow, well bestiality is illegal in the state I live Illinois, and the few states it is legal is because what I have mentioned before, it depends on the state's legislature and governor. I think straight sex is disgusting and wrong, and gay sex is awesome and fun the fact that you tried to compare same sex relation to animal human rape should give you an inkling you are clearly losing the argument, and really just showing that you hate gays, I could name a couple hundred people similar to you, on what they thought of Asians, Hispanics, Blacks, Other Europeans (how they were all wrong and disgusting or abominations)...but I won't and if you believe polls, gay marriage is going forward. And Catholics are becoming Agnostics and Atheists (little by little).

 

[Ericthegreat]

My god....wow, well bestiality is illegal in the state I live Illinois, and the few states it is legal is because what I have mentioned before, it depends on the state's legislature and governor. I think straight sex is disgusting and wrong, and gay sex is awesome and fun the fact that you tried to compare same sex relation to animal human rape should give you an inkling you are clearly losing the argument, and really just showing that you hate gays, I could name a couple hundred people similar to you, on what they thought of Asians, Hispanics, Blacks, Other Europeans (how they were all wrong and disgusting or abominations)...but I won't and if you believe polls, gay marriage is going forward. And Catholics are becoming Agnostics and Atheists (little by little).

Has nothing to do with "losing the argument" as you seem to feel lol. He asked for my opinion and I gave it.

 

[LoganK93]

Comparing being gay to bestiality is different. It's not like gay people are in it strictly for the sex. We become emotionally attached the same way any straight couple would without any conscious effort on our part. It's not like we woke up one morning and said "HEY! I'd like to be ridiculed and looked down upon in society for the rest of my life because that just sounds like the bees fucking knees!". No. It is an uncontrollable thing, the same as someone who is born colorblind, or with green eyes instead of brown. Just because YOU didn't turn out to be gay doesn't mean it's not "normal". Idk. Fuck this. I can't honestly believe there are STILL this many close minded individuals that we can't see yet how NONE OF THIS MATTERS. Who gives a shit who we marry or live with or fuck? Kim karfuckingdashian can drop millions a like, 3 month marriage, but people who just want to build a family and a life being happy just like all the "normal" straight couples can't because someone's religion, WHICH IS CHOSEN BY THE INDIVIDUAL THEMSELVE'S, say's it's a big no-no. That is not fair. That is not how our country of "freedom" is supposed to work. I challenge you to find some valid reason why gay's marrying is going to send this planet into the gaping maw's of hell, go for it. And don't start throwing religious stuff at me either. I used to go to church, I have read the bible and unlike a lot of people, it seems I understand it for what it is: A several thousand year old story passed down the same way Gilgamesh and other previously orally told campfire fables have been, losing much in translation and gaining much to keep the reader/listener satisfied, while also instilling a fear which turns everyone into sheep. Times have changed, keep your religion, but don't force everyone to live the way you do. If our country suddenly became Muslim run, I bet there'd be a lot of pissed-off Christians who would object to the law of having to keep their wives covered in public at all times because Allah said in his book that make up and ankles are the devil.

 

[Lestworth]

Its kinda funny how people are trying to change someones views, even though thats basically impossible on threads such as this. People believe what they want to believe, its as cut and dry as that.

I have met both sides of "Gays" in my life so far. Ones that are completely in your face, basically rubbing it in, and making you feel uncomfortable as possible simply because they can. Then their are others that act completely normal, in love, and not prancing around like a fairy or attempting to shove it in your face. I think its those that do, that taint what everyone thinks of them.

I'm not religious myself, but marriage to me has a purpose for life, and the development of humans on planet earth. Our bodies were created with 2 core different sets, Men and Women. We developed through sex, and as such populated this planet. For me marriage will always be between a man and a women simply because that is the natural order of life. You cant even question that in-order for life on this planet to maintain, sexual actions must be performed with opposite sexes. I view gay marriage as simply a natural way to manage the population rate on this planet. It is essentially a natural way to nuder humans.

 

[Lacius]

I have met both sides of "Gays" in my life so far. Ones that are completely in your face, basically rubbing it in, and making you feel uncomfortable as possible simply because they can. Then their are others that act completely normal, in love, and not prancing around like a fairy or attempting to shove it in your face. I think its those that do, that taint what everyone thinks of them.

"Normal" to you appears to be arbitrarily defined as what does or doesn't make you feel uncomfortable. Last time I checked, there wasn't anything immoral about flamboyance, nor do I see how this is relevant.

I'm not religious myself, but marriage to me has a purpose for life, and the development of humans on planet earth.

Marriage isn't for the purpose of procreation. One cannot make this argument and be consistent without also advocating that the elderly and otherwise infertile be barred from marriage as well. If this is your argument, then the moment you say "Yeah, old people should be able to get married" is when you also say "Yeah, gay people should be able to get married." If old people are getting married without any intent of having kids, for example, then the purpose of marriage obviously isn't procreation, is it?

Our bodies were created with 2 core different sets, Men and Women.

Not only is sexuality not black and white, but neither is gender or even sex.

We developed through sex, and as such populated this planet. For me marriage will always be between a man and a women simply because that is the natural order of life. You cant even question that in-order for life on this planet to maintain, sexual actions must be performed with opposite sexes.

The primary purpose of sex is not procreation. Sex evolved to be a method of social bonding as humans evolved to be the social animals they are. 99% of sex does not end in procreation. Humans are specifically evolved for sex to be for social bonding. In many animals, sex is purely for procreation, and an animal might only be able to have sex during its fertility window. Humans have evolved to be able to have sex almost all the time, regardless of fertility, age, pregnancy, etc. It's like you're saying the primary purpose of mouths is to eat, so we shouldn't condone talking.

 

[Lestworth]

your simply attempting to rip apart an opinion, an opinion that is not only my belief. You will fail every time, regardless of how hard you attempt. I could sit here and rip apart your post towards me as well, but it would just simply be one giant circle jerk. Nope, instead you can believe what you want without a stupid mindless post that will fight your OPINIONS.

 

[Lacius]

your simply attempting to rip apart an opinion, an opinion that is not only my belief. You will fail every time, regardless of how hard you attempt. I could sit here and rip apart your post towards me as well, but it would just simply be one giant circle jerk. Nope, instead you can believe what you want without a stupid mindless post that will fight your OPINIONS.

Not all opinions are created equal.
Sometimes there's serious misinformation to correct.

 

[Lestworth]

Not all opinions are created equal.
Sometimes there's serious misinformation to correct.

case and point

 

[FAST6191]

You are simply attempting to rip apart an opinion, an opinion that is also my belief. You will fail every time, regardless of how hard you attempt. I could sit here and rip apart your post towards me as well, but it would just simply be one giant circle jerk. Nope, instead you can believe what you want without a stupid mindless post that will fight your OPINIONS.

By and large if you post an opinion on a public forum and put it forth as a righteous one you can expect to be called on it.

Likewise if you can not or will not defend it then people are generally free to dismiss it and you until such a time as you do.

 

[Haloman800]

If you can, please give me a simple, logical argument as to why the definition of marriage should be changed.

 

[Nathan Drake]

If you can, please give me a simple, logical argument as to why the definition of marriage should be changed.

If you can, please give me a definition of marriage that exclusively labels it as only existing as holy matrimony.

 

[FAST6191]

If you can, please give me a simple, logical argument as to why the definition of marriage should be changed.

First we are going to have to figure out what the definition of marriage being discussed is both in general and in a legal context.

The legal one seems to afford certain tax breaks/options*, automatic inclusion on certain types of insurance, rights like in case of death what goes where, visitations for hospital and prison, what you can do with regards to immigration and so forth. In various contexts this differs from certain civil unions, most of the time you can work around it both if you want to avoid marriage (I can write a will or something) but not always and it is extra work that others do not have to do. There is also the dissolution of marriage to consider -- upon dissolving the marriage the property and children associated with it need to be figured out though this level of commitment also allows for certain legal concepts to arise (loans to those married, the immigration thing again I guess and such like). Variously several of those things get more or less tricky if you are just people living together.
The other is it is a ceremony that binds people (most often than not just two people) together and creates the groundwork for the legal stuff just mentioned, this ceremony is not necessarily religious and the proper religious ones will seek to bind people in a legal sense too. Depending upon where you go this may be limited to a man and a woman (transgender types vary again though it is actually not so bad in a lot of cases assuming the gender of those in the relationship are not the same), given people of the same gender are quite free to sleep together, own property together, start families together and everything else like that then having a difference in the abilities of marriage/civil unions between those for couples of the same gender and those for couples of differing gender would seem to be out of line with the general concepts espoused by US or otherwise equality driven law systems and thus need to be changed (my preferred option of drop the whole concept probably could not happen as it would really trouble the "for certain legal concepts to arise" thing).

*in the UK my accountant would tell me not to get married in most cases nowadays but there are things like capital gains allowances being able to be shared between a married couple. I can not even get my head around things beyond the basics of the US tax system but similar things exist there.

 

[Haloman800]

First we are going to have to figure out what the definition of marriage being discussed is both in general and in a legal context.

Marriage = one man, one woman, (as in the majority of the United States, which is what we're discussing).

The legal one seems to afford certain tax breaks/options....

It could be argued that many non married couples living together in either sexual or non sexual relationships deserve the same advantages as married couples. Why shouldn't a single man receive the same tax advantages as married couples?

rights like in case of death what goes where, visitations for hospital and prison, what you can do with regards to immigration and so forth. In various contexts this differs from certain civil unions, most of the time you can work around it both if you want to avoid marriage (I can write a will or something) but not always and it is extra work that others do not have to do.

If a hotel banned female patrons from entering it wouldn't be the governments job to legally redefine women as men. Likewise, hospitals (not government) should change their policy.