Why do ya even care?!

*Sets up soap box, steps up onto it, and clears throat for attention*

This last Wednesday, The Christian Campus Club, a club for Christians at my school, had a meeting where anyone could come and discuss God and various other stuff. I went to that meeting. Ha! How stupid of me!

When we walked in, we were given a strip of paper, and we were asked to write down a question and give them the paper. Then throughout the meeting, they would draw strips and talk about the question that was written on it.

The question I wrote was "Why do Christians care if homosexuals marry?".

Well, my strip was the second to be drawn. One of the youth pastors there put in his input.

He said that he has a family member (I think it was a cousin) who was married to some woman. However, he was living a homosexual lifestyle for most of that marriage. Now he has AIDS, and his wife and kids could possibly have it as well. He concluded by saying that, from a medical standpoint, homosexuals shouldn't marry kuz ya will catch a disease if ya live a homosexual lifestyle.

I raised my hand and informed him that that was a stereotype. I said that a lot of heterosexuals have AIDS too. He responded by saying that there's "data" (or something along the lines of that), and that was pretty much the end of that.

I decided to just drop the subject and let them go on to another one. I decided to leave after they concluded that God is okay with us killing people in wars. Ha!

I don't really care about whether or not ye'r personally opposed to homosexual marriage. What I wanna know is why you Christians (or anyone else for that matter) even care enough about gay marriage to adamantly try to stop it! Honestly, tell me!

Are you being personally harmed by a homosexual couple if they marry? I haven't been harmed by my aunt marrying a woman! I just don't see how I, or anyone else, possibly could be harmed!

And as far as you Christians are concerned, isn't God going to punish them for marrying, and not you? They're the ones that are sinning, so why does it even concern you? Let His will be done!

Shouldn't they be allowed to do what they wish to do with their life as long as they aren't hurting anyone? Don't they have free will? And for you Christians, God doesn't prevent sin, but He punishes the sinner for it later. Why do you feel like you have to do it differently?

Don't you all realize that denying rights isn't right?!

Tell me!

*Steps down from soap box*

- Peace, Love, Health, and Happiness to all! Âðelwulf.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The explanation why someone likes/dislikes homosexuals is eventually as arbitrary as the explanation why someone likes/dislikes green.
That is, while we can come up with explanations of human values and preferences, this does not mean that these explanations are obligatory. Eventually, humans simply have values and preferences, and it is meaningless to discuss why they have them.

Some people simply don't like homosexuals.
Some people simply don't like blacks.
And so on.

We could come up with biological, anthropological, sociological etc. etc. explanations for these dislikes, but none of these explanations is sufficient, nor is it obligatory. we could always find counterarguments.

People simply have values and preferences, and they make their choices based on their values and preferences.

The modern strive for tolerance though, is opposing choice. The modern strive for tolerance says, "Tolerate, even though you don't like it." But this means allowing others to be what they are at the cost of you having to give up what you are. Which is not fair.

The modern solution to this is overly tolerant people with underdefined/undefined identities.


As for "Don't you all realize that denying rights isn't right?!" People have the right to belong to a religion etc. If you go against, in this case, Christians, then you are denying their rights.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

At the heart of the issue lies the institution of "marriage". In the Christian context, marriage was established by God as the union of a man and a woman. So it becomes very important to establish whether God approves of that union, and so we ask the question: was this what God meant with "and they will become one flesh"? Can two men or two women really complete each other, when "completion" means family, and possibly children?

So it's really more of a question about how we used to understand marriage, and how we should define it if the understanding has changed (and indeed, whether it can change, given the original intention). This battle has been fought in the courts as well, as I'm sure you're aware.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Tell me where I said that people don't have a right to belong to a religion.

I'm not denying their rights. Do they have a right to impose their religious doctrine on people that don't share that doctrine? No.

I'm just curious . . . Is there a passage in the Bible that directly addresses this? Does it say specifically that a union can only be made between a man and a woman?

If He doesn't approve of this type of union, let Him deal with the people that enter such a union.

Again, I say that no one is harmed by two men or two women entering this sort of union. I say that you aren't gonna be punished. I say that they have the right to do what they wish if they're not harming anyone.

Do you disagree?

 

Athelwulf,

To give you an idea of why this debate is so complicated, let me ask you this: is homosexuality natural? Disregarding any religious or philosophical prejudices, and answer the question purely from your observation of nature. Take note of the different contexts you touch on while trying to answer it; pay attention every time you have to change a perspective, broaden a paradigm, stretch a definition. Consider related consequences, like children, survival or evolution, or society -- and consider the responisibility, knowing that your answer will apply to these areas as well. Does the distinction 'mom' and 'dad' matter, or does it not?

Genesis 2:18-25
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air ... But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones ['self of myself']
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'ishah,' [woman]
for she was taken out of 'ish' [man]."

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.​

 

Homosexuality in the animal Kingdom is commonplace to the extent of 10% in many species. That makes it a minority stance, but certainly quite natural.
I agree with Athelwulf - simplistically put, 'it's not harming anyone.'
Marriage, as Jenyar, suggests may be the case, has changed in character over the centuries, and has many diverse characteristics today. Extending it to single sex marriages for practical reasons and to permit the public confirmation of an existing love, seems sensible.

 

Homosexuality in the animal kingdom never crosses the borders between 'mom' and 'dad'. There are no homosexual lions and heterosexual lions. While we may measure ourselves against it, we do not model our behaviour on the animal kingdom.

 

Wow! Do I detect backpeddling faster than a speeding bullet?
You ask is homosexuality natural - I note that it is. You say, 'well actually so what?'
Come on! Some animals are homosexual, ergo it is natural. If some humans are also homosexual it pretty much looks like that must be natural too.

I don't understand what you mean.
Do you mean that no lion is bisexual? If so, two points:
1. What has that go to do with anything?
2. It's not true of other species, so I doubt it is true of lions.

Your posts have been well argued till now, but you seem to have lost the plot.

 

Maybe I have... Let me regroup. Can certain animal species be classified as 'homosexual' in the sense that we would understand a human homosexual marriage (i.e. not as just as sex for the pleasure of it -- which Christianity regards as immoral and outside the boundaries of love and responsibility)?

 

Yes.

The Bible is not proof.

*Laughs at overt contradiction*

Answer me honestly: Do you believe humans are "above" animals?

If ya do, that invalidates ye'r argument about homosexuality being unnatural.

I'm a bit confused by this question. But I will comment about ye'r comment in parentheses.

Homosexuals don't start relationships with each other just to have sex just for the pleasure of it any more than heterosexuals do. Homosexuals long for the committed, loving relationships that heterosexuals also long for.

Would you look down upon two people having sex if they were doing it because they truly love each other?

Love knows no boundries, and no one has the right to set any.

 

in the words of the destiny church(a political party that opposed the civil unuin bill):

"giving homosexuals the right to marry is a statement that homosexuals are doing as god intended, which they are not, if we allow this to pass then we are undermining the very concept of marriage, how can we say that this act of same sex marriage is in any way compared to the great act of marriage like god intended"

so basically, they think that god did not intend for people to be gay, so allowing them to marry would destoy the concept of marriage.

but ha, the civil union bill got passed, despite their establishmentarian claims

 

If God didn't intend for people to be gay, He shouldn't've made them that way!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yet He did make them that way, so what do ya suppose that means? Hmm?!

(Religion-based logic is so fun to attack!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

("I'll be in the gazebo, since you're already on the cross")

I was thinking of posting this earlier, but did not because I came to it backwards, through the conservative responses.

That's from a pre-election (Oct. 23) column by Nicholas Kristof for the New York Times.

In fact, Kristof covers a few other points common to the Sciforums discussion, as well:

If you've clicked on the article, though, you may have noticed it's at a site for a guy named Robert Gagnon, PhD. I tend to think the PhD is important because Gagnon is a great example of a dysfunctional doctorate. In his response to Krisof, Gagnon accuses:

That Gagnon's degree is in theology should not suggest anything about theologians in general; I know a theologian with a doctorate who has no such difficulties understanding simple concepts. I reiterate here what I wrote for another topic, largely because this is something I really do wonder why I have to explain to anybody:

Somebody needs to tell me how rendering someone a second-class citizen on the basis of their gender is an act of love. I seriously don't see it. And if I have to explain that hateful acts are not loving acts, and thus Kristof refers not to mere sex, as Gagnon would have it, but rather to a love of one's fellow human being, it strikes me that they're missing the point.

At any rate, I found the Gagnon article through a blog called TitusOneNine, which name refers to a Biblical passage about bishops; the name and address suggest strongly that the site originated in the fray over Bishop Gene Robinson.

Furthermore, Gagnon is a downright hypocrite:

The point is so important to Gagnon that he pretends his God is severely limited, a charge most Christians would reject, for what happens in the Universe without God's say-so?

Moving past that desperation and looking back to hypocrisy, Gagnon asserts,

For the benefit of those who can't figure out what the problem is, no scientific study has even come close to verifying that homosexuality is a developmental shortcoming. Furthermore, for Gagnon's argument to work, he has to make the elementary mistake of presuming that God runs a laissez-faire Universe, something that the Bible makes abundantly clear is not true. Furthermore, for Gagnon's argument to work, he must make the elementary mistake of presuming that God's will in our being ends at conception. Additionally, biblical scholar Jack Blanco goes so far as to assert that God not only knew the fall at Eden was coming, but that the disaster with the tree was part of God's Plan from the outset. (See The Clear Word, Genesis 3)

That two people on opposite sides of an issue (e.g. Tiassa and Dr. Blanco) are willing to acknowledge the same point lends the point some certain credibility. God knows someone is going to be gay; to borrow from the abortion debate, God "blesses" their existence, anyway. And since the names are written or not in the Book of Life at the outset, one cannot assert that God is ignorant of what will come. That gays exist still falls within the range of God's Will. Additionally, since many feel the homosexual influence about them before they even know what sex is, one might be given to wonder why God would "test" somebody who is clearly, and by His Will, unprepared for the temptation.

Gagnon is not alone in any of this. A brief perusal of reader comments at TitusOneNine makes this clear:

Briefly:

• MJD_NV: This response suffers the same problem I noted above in which someone needs to explain to me how ostracism and oppression are loving. Until that explanation is part of the discussion, MJD_NV has no business commenting on the "larger witness of Scripture", since the larger witness of Scripture is too vast for such a narrow cause.

• DJ: Okay, if it doesn't excuse you from loving the homosexual, what's with the hateful ostracism and oppression?

• Mendimtari: The issue raised by this reader's comment looks back to heterosexuals, who more than gays have decoupled marriage from the raising of children. After all, Christians were alarmed a couple years ago when divorce numbers showed born-agains more likely do dissolve a marriage than atheists. The stats have evened out somewhat, but that's still a tall divorce rate. Additionally, author Brian Elroy McKinley notes that Christian churches endorse sin in marrying divorced persons. ​

Now, let's pause for a moment to consider a simple question:

(1) Jesus said nothing about gays.
(2) Jesus specifically stated that divorced persons should not marry another. (Luke 16.18)
(3) Jesus also said:

Thus the question arises: Why do Christians arguing for traditional marriage defy Jesus Christ in order to show hatred and persecute others?

What is so important about shattering the notion of equal protection under the law that it should compel Christians to forego the instruction of their own Savior?

Whatsoever you do to the least of His brethren (Matthew 25.31-ff): How, on Judgment Day, will these alleged faithful explain to Jesus Christ that He does not deserve the simple respect reserved to every member of the society in which one lived? How do they welcome the stranger by pushing him away?

When it's time to take the trip home to God, I recommend packing some marshmallows, some hot dogs, and a sharp stick. Oh, wait ... that's right--as the bumper sticker says, "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven".

If gays "should not continue living in sin", why should the Christian continue to live in sin?

This homophobia is starting to sound like a mental disorder: Christians hating and oppressing the least of His brethren in order to fulfill His Will?

One of our posters complained the other day that I wasn't concise enough, but how to be concise when the simplest of points requires much explaining? I mean, let's look at that phrase again:

Christians hating and oppressing the least of His brethren in order to fulfill His Will​

Do I really need to explain what's problematic about that result?

I've asked before whether traditionalists truly find gay marriage a good enough reason to attack the Constitution, but we must also consider why homosexuality seems to be a strong enough reason to compel Christians to forfeit the salvation they believe in and work toward.

So help me out, please: What's the problem here? Have the traditionalists lost their minds? Did they have their wits about them to start with?.

The sad thing is that I was researching something else when I came across the TitusOneNine site, which started this whole cascade. Sometimes it just falls into your lap, you know, and unless it bites while it's there, it might actually be a warm fuzzy.

Religiously-derived assertions of logic aren't necessarily fun to attack, although I understand the pleasure derived from stomping on a poisonous bug that threatens you. However, such religious assertions as the traditionalists have lined up to sponsor their crusade against the core of American equality and freedom tend to be easy targets.

It's just a patience game. They'll cut their own wrists for this, and then pretend they're Jesus on the Cross.
____________________

Notes:

Kristof, Nicholas D. "God and Sex". New York Times, October 23, 2004. See http://robgagnon.net/kristoftextgodandsex.htm

Gagnon, Robert A. J. "'God and Sex' or 'Pants on Fire'? Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times on the Bible and Homosexuality". October 28, 2004. See http://robgagnon.net/NicholasKristofGodAndSex.htm

Tiassa. "Untitled". Hate Crimes: Include Sexual Orientation? December 13, 2004. See http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=731861

TitusOneNine. "Robert Gagnon Responds to Nicholas Kristof" October 29, 2004. See http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/index.php?p=3189

Univ. of Virginia. "The Bible, Revised Standard Version". See http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html ​

See Also -

McKinley, Brian Elroy. "When Christ Was Gay". See http://www.elroy.net/ehr/gay.html ​

 

Just to add an informational excerpt:

_______________________

Notes:

Owen, James. "Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate". NationalGeographic.com, July 23, 2004. See http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html ​

 

Athewulf opened the thread with a reasoned illustration of a position adopted by some Christians, and asked, with some puzzlement, why that position was adopted.

Perhaps Athewulf will comfirm what I imagine was his intention in posing that question.

He hoped for a rational explanation that would remove his puzzlement: not one he would necessarily agree with, but one that he could understand.
He suspected he would be greeted with jaded, dogmatic arguments, based upon questionable logic. In his judgement this is what occured.
But he had a back up plan - greeted with such logic he would treat it with humorous disdain.



On the other hand, maybe he just came here for a fight.

 

Are you asserting then that one's Constitutional rights are only fulfilled when another's are denied?

Christians have a right to believe what they want; that's part of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. What they cannot do is make those beliefs into law; that also is part of the First Amendment, and is also spelled out in the Fourteenth Amendment.

How is a Christian in the United States injured if gays are allowed to marry? Answer: the Christian is not.

How is a gay in the United States injured if gays are not allowed to marry? Answer: equal protection under the law is suspended in order to discriminate against gender.

Nobody has yet shown what right of a Christian is violated by allowing gays to marry.

You're kidding, right? Seriously, under what circumstances will homosexuals become a majority? Additionally, watch American society closely. Gays are often stereotyped--and willing to exploit that stereotype--as being "fabulous". Aside from the sex part, many heterosexuals already want to be them. That heterosexuals buy scads of gay pop culture and keep it afloat isn't something gays need to answer for in any political sense.

Yes, it is paranoia.

Gays are asking for equal protection under the law, a Constitutional guarantee. That's all. The idea that equal protection should not be suspended on the basis of gender does not represent a spreading of potential harm.

However, what is the trade-off to you? In order to prevent what you see as the spread of potential harm, we ought to allow an existing harm to continue and consume the society?

Since you compare homosexuality to a disease--

--I thought I would first ask you what scientific evidence you have to back the notion that homosexuality is a disease.

If the answer is, as I expect, "none", I must ask you to reconsider the validity of such an argument.

In the meantime, as long as we're comparing things to disease, and looking back to the spread of potential harm, would you recommend against chemotherapy for a cancer patient because it will make them nauseous?

Nausea, death. Nausea, death. I'm sorry, but I just don't see how that's a tough choice.

The issue of free will in religion is contentious in the history of Sciforums. One striking aspect of the issue of Free Will is that it appears to be extra-biblical, something contrived outside the Bible and after the fact in order to shore up institutional authority. The reality is that the "free will" of humans facing divine judgment and punishment is that it's not particularly free. "Free will" in a redemptive theological scheme is about as "free" as a woman's choice to be raped inasmuch as she chose to take the knife seriously and not scream lest she be killed. There are lots of people in jail for "forcible rape", and by the logic of "free will", they ought not be, since the woman should have fought back until she was killed.

As to picking a fight: I don't see it. Perhaps this is because that idea is contrasted against the assertion that one's gender is basis for discrimination. The fight is already afoot.

Gays are compared to child molesters, necrophiles, and as we see in your argument, diseases. Nor are you original in comparing gays to a disease; many have tried that line before. Personally, I've endured this rhetorical poison for over a decade, ever since Christians in Oregon sought to disenfranchise gays. Others have put up with it even longer. In all that time, no advocate of such comparisons has ever been able to justify them. Quite simply, the homophobes have never put up, so they might consider shutting up until they can. They do have freedom of speech, but posing as haters does nothing to reinforce notions of Christ's love. So I'm asking traditionalists to either back those comparisons or else drop them. It's a lot easier to compare Christianity to a mental disorder, since many of the religion's symptoms already match up, and it's only the rhetoric of familiarity that excepts Christian faith from such a qualification.

As such, it's a matter of how dirty the Christians want this fight to be. Compared to the old days of being raided and beaten by police in their homes, gays are well-prepared for mudslinging. And, frankly, they've been rather restrained.

Why is it unacceptable to traditionalists that they should be equal to their neighbors under the law?

 

Water,
to help me understand your position please list the three most important things that make your attitude to homosexuality so negative.
Then tell me how each of these infringes on your rights, causes you harm, or potential harm, or in any other way damages you.
Thank you.

 

Fortunately, we have laws to regulate free will. Free will is not sovereign, especially not in the Bible -- you know this.

The homosexuality issue has uncovered an interesting debate: we now have to decide whether evolution, procreation and survival of the fittest really carry so much weight, or whether "love conquers all". Homosexuality is "cauterized evolution" -- it exists only outside the womb, where life is formed.

 

My words in other words:

Yet scientists say we should be wary of referring to animals when considering what's acceptable in human society. For instance, infanticide, as practiced by lions and many other animals, isn't something people, gay or straight, generally approve of in humans. -- thanks, Tiassa​

Homosexuality is certainly not supernatural. I believe water's point was that, ultimately, everything is "natural". It occurs in nature. But the issue here was marriage, if you care to remember. It is certainly not a ceremony we find in the animal kingdom, and the way we define such a union -- and hold to it (marriage is a promise that defies our natural instincts; "mind over matter") -- is to ensure "something". In the animal kingdom, that "something" used to be called 'survival', maybe even 'family' and 'security'. In the human world, we prefer to call it 'love'. But nothing in nature prompts us to consider fidelity among partners something to be expected.

Sometimes, we simply choose not to behave like animals, and the homosexual debate is evidence that we don't make these decisions arbitrarily. Our preferences have a lot do do with what we keep and what we throw out, and if we take ourselves even a little seriously, we will make certain that we don't throw any babies out with the bathwater.