Gay Marriage

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

That doesn't make them a hypocrite.

If you're argument is "the Bible says so", it absolutely makes you a hypocrite.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by molson

Rights are just codification of ethics too. You, me, and everyone else picks and chooses what to base their ethics on and to what extent to codify them in the law.

But if the homosexual lifestyle is 'unethical', why try to deny only the logical endpoint of those relationships? Why not continue to try and deny these folks the right to practice the lifestyle?

Seems to be ethically wrong to allow such an immoral practice to go on unchallenged...

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If you're argument is "the Bible says so", it absolutely makes you a hypocrite.

It depends on what part of the bible your belief is based on, that's why I asked him that. If you're basing it on Leviticus but don't follow any other old Jewish law other than that one thing, that's pretty suspect. But no, it's not hypocritical to follow Christianity and not also old Jewish law. That's like saying if have any Christian beliefs you're a hypocrite unless you also follow the rules of Hinduism and Buddhism. It's not all the same thing. It's literally two different religions (among which, there are many sub-religions).

[BillJasper]

Last I checked, the Old Testament and New Testament are all in one giant book called 'The Bible'.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

So why single out marriage?

Fundamental misunderstanding about marriage laws here. You aren't punished under law for not marrying.

Government grants the marriage status to include certain legal privileges and tax breaks, presumably because the government believes it is in its best interest to sanction or legally affirm it as an institution (whether it should do that at all is a related debate, but not one I care to get into).

It's not just a matter of legal or illegal, it's a matter of punishably illegal or not and sanctioned legal or not sanctioned at all. Punishment and sanctioning are two different things.

As for the discussion about contracts, I agree people should be able to enter contracts, but marriage is more than a contract - again the status confers certain privileges and benefits. If two or more homosexuals want to enter legal contracts, financial contracts, power of attorney, want the ability to visit one another in the hospital (that's a bad one that needs correction), I support that. Some parts of the civil union initiatives are well-motivated.

But by creating the "married" status, the government has sanctioned and approved the man-woman-child unit as a positive institution the government is willing to commend and financially support (yes, I know not all marrieds have children - don't go there). Whether the government should do that or not, I don't support the same sanctioning of homosexual relationships.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

But if the homosexual lifestyle is 'unethical', why try to deny only the logical endpoint of those relationships? Why not continue to try and deny these folks the right to practice the lifestyle?

Seems to be ethically wrong to allow such an immoral practice to go on unchallenged...

I don't know, I don't think either is unethical, so I could only speculate. Maybe it has something to do with the government's recognizing of it, the "stamp of approval."

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by revrew

But by creating the "married" status, the government has sanctioned and approved the man-woman-child unit as a positive institution the government is willing to commend and financially support (yes, I know not all marrieds have children - don't go there). Whether the government should do that or not, I don't support the same sanctioning of homosexual relationships.

But what does that have to do with religion?

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by revrew

But by creating the "married" status, the government has sanctioned and approved the man-woman-child unit as a positive institution the government is willing to commend and financially support (yes, I know not all marrieds have children - don't go there). Whether the government should do that or not, I don't support the same sanctioning of homosexual relationships.

But why should the government be sanctioning only a man-woman union, when no data exists that says a man-man/woman-woman union somehow erodes its status as a positive institution?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by revrew

(yes, I know not all marrieds have children - don't go there).

Please don't bring up the point that makes my argument look bad.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Last I checked, the Old Testament and New Testament are all in one giant book called 'The Bible'.

But for Christians, Christianity replaced the old Jewish law. That was kind of the point. That's why Christians can eat pork. There is no one religion that the bible definitively speaks for. Edit: I mean, you can't understate what a game changer Christianity was. People can debate what a sin and what isn't based on this or that text, and what the punishment should be, but the new testament swept most of that away. Jesus was more into, "we're all sinners, so don't be an asshole and think you're better than some other sinner." He certainly wasn't preaching against homosexuality and gay marriage.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If you're argument is "the Bible says so", it absolutely makes you a hypocrite.

If you think an in-depth discussion of understanding how a Christian handles Old Testament law is a worthy discussion, perhaps we should move that to another thread. It would thread-jack this one pretty badly.

Suffice it to say that the claim, "A Christian condemns homosexuality but he eats lobster! He doesn't stone adulterers. It's all nonsense," is in itself nonsense. There are certain orthodox rules of scriptural interpretation and theology that resolve these issues pretty simply, and I'm perfectly comfortable defending the difference between shelfish and pork on one hand and idolatry and sexual immorality on the other.

As for the hypocrisy charge, I believe we all profess certain ethics, but fail to live up to them, thus making us all hypocrites. I do, however, endeavor to improve in areas where my hypocrisy is legitimately pointed out.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

But for Christians, Christianity replaced the old Jewish law. That was kind of the point. That's why Christians can eat pork. There is no one religion that the bible definitively speaks for.

'Tis true. A lot of Christians believe the Bible is a progression in the understanding of God and the Law was superceeded by the perfect revelation of God in the form of Jesus the Christ and His message of Grace (ie, the Law was not a completely understanding of the nature of God - there is also the argument that the Law was put in place because the people were not ready yet for the teaching of Grace).

[revrew]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

But why should the government be sanctioning only a man-woman union, when no data exists that says a man-man/woman-woman union somehow erodes its status as a positive institution?

Be careful about making fact claims that you haven't actually researched.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by revrew

Be careful about making fact claims that you haven't actually researched.

The irony of you pointing this out to others when your claims have NO basis in fact surely isn't lost on you, is it?

[JPhillips]

Just to add a little spice...

Looks like the Boy Scouts are going to allow individual chapters to determine whether gays can be members/masters.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Just to add a little spice...

Looks like the Boy Scouts are going to allow individual chapters to determine whether gays can be members/masters.

This one usually falls into the "gay is not the same thing as pedophile" bucket of logic, but there's another issue with this that gets overshadowed by that. Isn't sending a 16-year old boy, who may very well be gay, on a camping trip with a 24 year old gay man kind of like sending a 16-year old girl on a camping trip with a 24 year old straight man? I don't think most parents would be OK with the latter, so is it homophobic not to be OK with the former? Or is different because 16-year old girls are more attractive to adult straight males with questionable morals than 16-year old boys are to adult gay males with questionable morals?

[JPhillips]

When I was a scout there was never a case of one master and one scout camping together.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

This one usually falls into the "gay is not the same thing as pedophile" bucket of logic, but there's another issue with this that gets overshadowed by that. Isn't sending a 16-year old boy, who may very well be gay, on a camping trip with a 24 year old gay man kind of like sending a 16-year old girl on a camping trip with a 24 year old straight man? I don't think most parents would be OK with the latter, so is it homophobic not to be OK with the former? Or is different because 16-year old girls are more attractive to adult straight males with questionable morals than 16-year old boys are to adult gay males with questionable morals?

It doesn't take a camping trip though. All it takes is like...driving the babysitter home...or...allowing a straight man to coach a HS girls sports team...or...any number of other things.

Or for that matter a gay person to do any of those.

Homosexuality is not an "on switch" for predatory behavior. Sexual predators are sexual predators, regardless of orientation.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by revrew

Be careful about making fact claims that you haven't actually researched.

There is no way gay marriage can be anymore damaging to the institution than the fifty percent divorce rate among hetero couples.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

When I was a scout there was never a case of one master and one scout camping together.

True, but they might end up in the same tent in smaller numbers. If it was a co-ed trip the living arrangements would certainly be segregated. Nobody would want their 16-year old daughter bunking with the 22-year old male guide.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

The irony of you pointing this out to others when your claims have NO basis in fact surely isn't lost on you, is it?

Whether or not Christianity has any basis in fact is another topic for another thread. I would argue it at least has the person of Jesus of Nazareth and is in fact a world religion and so forth. And I have not made wild claims about it without researching it thoroughly.

But the previous poster made an assertion that nothing exists where I believe it does exist and I suspect he hasn't done the research. I don't, however, have the data on hand, so I can't specifically refute the poster.

As for irony, I can't help but make this little dig: The irony of all this righteous indignation in defense of the unrighteous, from (many) people who even reject the notion of righteousness; the moral pronouncements coming from (many) people who reject that which is moral (yes, now I'm sounding like a preacher. Stop that) is equally ironic.

It really comes down to this, going way back to where I began. Many of you and I just have a radically different perception of what is and isn't ethical. I just happen to hold to the ethics common to one of the world's largest religions and the faith that heavily influenced the founding of the country I live in. Why does this surprise and infuriate (many of) you so much? Welcome to America.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

There is no way gay marriage can be anymore damaging to the institution than the fifty percent divorce rate among hetero couples.

Seperation rates for same-sex couples are less than those of hetero couples I believe, right?

At least I know that the states that have legalized gay marriage have lower overall divorce rates then the states that haven't.

Food for thought rev - gay marriage might even make your marriage STRONGER!!! ZOMG!!!!

[revrew]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

There is no way gay marriage can be anymore damaging to the institution than the fifty percent divorce rate among hetero couples.

Oh, I agree with that completely. I think the "no-fault" divorce laws have been - to use some religious language for fun - an "abomination," and furthermore, the lack of marital fidelity has become a social nightmare. Marriage in this country is in a shambles.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by revrew

It really comes down to this, going way back to where I began. Many of you and I just have a radically different perception of what is and isn't ethical. I just happen to hold to the ethics common to one of the world's largest religions and the faith that heavily influenced the founding of the country I live in. Why does this surprise and infuriate (many of) you so much? Welcome to America.

Probably the "all men are created equal" part. All equal unless they're black, gay or non-Christian.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

True, but they might end up in the same tent in smaller numbers. If it was a co-ed trip the living arrangements would certainly be segregated. Nobody would want their 16-year old daughter bunking with the 22-year old male guide.

I never bunked with adults. We were always in tents with other scouts.

Which also caused problems. The alcohol usage in our scout troop was sky high.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by revrew

I just happen to hold to the ethics common to one of the world's largest religions

Welcome to America.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Homosexuality is not an "on switch" for predatory behavior. Sexual predators are sexual predators, regardless of orientation.

Sure, the concern isn't because they're gay, it's because they're men, which is a much bigger risk factor than anything else for criminal sexual behavior (notwithstanding the popular FOFC thread highlighting the much rarer female molester). And I'm not talking about pedophiles here, I'm talking about the younger guy who's looking to bang someone within in the vicinity of his age, but below the age of consent. We're wary of young men targeting older teen girls in that way, and I think there's various societal and cultural ways we limit that risk, so why wouldn't we be wary of young gay men targeting older gay teen boys in the same way? Things like camping trips is where I can see those issues come up.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by revrew

Yes, of course I get my standard of ethics from the Bible.

And I understand that many on this board and in the world reject the Bible as a standard of ethics. I get it. I understand and expect that they will therefore seek different rules for society, vote differently on various issues, and so forth. I also expect that, in time, if it's not already here, my views on ethics will be in the minority, and society and laws in a (somewhat) democratic society will necessarily change to reflect that.

However, there are a pair of fundamental flaws with some of your (collectively) more flippant responses.

First, the government is always in the business of enforcing ethical beliefs. Every law on our books is a reflection of a moral evaluation - is personal property a fundamental right? If so, our laws will be more capitalist in nature. If not, our laws will tend toward communism. Even our taxes are a moral statement that a portion of our personal property is better spent for collective purposes than individual gain. The very existence of a tax is a repudiation of anarchist ethics (and some of Ayn Rand's, but that's a tangent).

So the only real question is whose ethics will be enforced by the sword of government (upon consenting adults), and what basis will be used for determining ethics.

The second flaw is the question of what determines "human rights." Where do our rights come from? Who determines what is and isn't a "right"? (How is marriage for ANYONE, hetero or homosexual a right? Where's the basis for that?)

America's Founding Fathers, in the Dec of Independence, explicitly stated that nature and nature's God were the source of these rights and that we were "endowed by our Creator" with these rights.

Yet you (per my 2nd paragraph above) reject that Creator. Where, then, do rights come from?

I fear your answer would be little more than popular opinion. Yikes. That's scary. Popular opinion in Nazi Germany or the segregationist South was little protection of human rights. Where then, do you get the idea that homosexuals (or heterosexuals, for that matter) have a "right" to marry?

Godwin'd yourself there.

But let me engage you on your ground. How do you feel about interracial marriages (Deuteronomy 7:3 - “Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons,”) or marriages between believers and nonbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14, Paul says, “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?”)? These are very clear instances of the Bible telling people not to do something. So do you accept that there should be not interracial marriages or marriages between people of different (or no) faiths? Or are you picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to believe?


Taking it a bit off your ground, why should we, a country with no official religion (the Constitution doesn't even have the word God in it), take the word of your God and apply it to everyone? Why should that apply to everyone rather than just be your own internal moral code?

Because you are wrong about not being married is not a penalty. When we're talking about health insurance, visitation rights, property inheritance, child-rearing and a whole host of other topics, there most certainly is a penalty to those who are not married.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Godwin'd yourself there.

But let me engage you on your ground. How do you feel about interracial marriages (Deuteronomy 7:3 - “Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons,”) or marriages between believers and nonbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14, Paul says, “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?”)? These are very clear instances of the Bible telling people not to do something. So do you accept that there should be not interracial marriages or marriages between people of different (or no) faiths? Or are you picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to believe?

To be fair, Deuteronomy 7:3's admonition is the same as 2 Corinthians 6:14 - it's because those other tribes will lead sons & daughters of Isreal to following other gods.

Slight nitpick.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

To be fair, Deuteronomy 7:3's admonition is the same as 2 Corinthians 6:14 - it's because those other tribes will lead sons & daughters of Isreal to following other gods.

Slight nitpick.

It all depends on the interpretation, doesn't it? D 7:3 was used historically to justify the prevention of interracial marriages.

[ISiddiqui]

People enjoy cherry picking out verses.

If you look at the paragraph it is in (esp 7:4), you'll see the intent.

[revrew]

Blackadar, your argument is garbage. It's a theological straw man/circular argument that begins with the assumption Christians cherry pick, then drums up a host of bad theology to prove that Christians cherry pick.

Sound theology and a few basic rules of Scriptural interpretation can blow all these out of the water with ease. But that's another thread. You want to start it, we can discuss it there.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

Sure, the concern isn't because they're gay, it's because they're men, which is a much bigger risk factor than anything else for criminal sexual behavior (notwithstanding the popular FOFC thread highlighting the much rarer female molester). And I'm not talking about pedophiles here, I'm talking about the younger guy who's looking to bang someone within in the vicinity of his age, but below the age of consent. We're wary of young men targeting older teen girls in that way, and I think there's various societal and cultural ways we limit that risk, so why wouldn't we be wary of young gay men targeting older gay teen boys in the same way? Things like camping trips is where I can see those issues come up.

The danger scenario you envision still exists today. There's nothing stopping a pedophile from doing something, whether the Boy Scouts allow gays or not. Most pedophiles do not identify as gay and social scientists have largely concluded that pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation from homosexuality. If I had a son in the Boy Scouts, I wouldn't trust him any more with a straight scoutmaster than I would a gay one.

[larrymcg421]

Here's what my church has to say:

Scripture, Tradition and Reason - we believe we should make our decisions about our spiritual life based on reconciling what the Bible says, what the Church has said over the years, and what our reason says today. Taking all of these into account we often agree to disagree and still concur and continue to seek God's message. It's not always the easiest path, but we think it's one of the positive ways to express our love and share Jesus' teachings.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by revrew

Oh, I agree with that completely. I think the "no-fault" divorce laws have been - to use some religious language for fun - an "abomination," and furthermore, the lack of marital fidelity has become a social nightmare. Marriage in this country is in a shambles.

And, yet, the focus by the religious right is on preventing gays from marrying and blaming them for the woes besetting the institution of marriage instead of addressing the issues within their own community.

Something about removing the log in your own eye before the mote in your neighbor's, I believe?

[revrew]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Welcome to America.

What's your point, besides trying to be snotty?

I've already admitted that my ethical position is on its way toward being the minority in America, if it isn't there already, and of course, Christianity is a minority in the world as a whole. That doesn't mean it isn't one of the world's major faiths - one of the largest 2 or 3, if I'm not mistaken. Even if it's only top 10, we're talking millions and millions of people. Regardless, it's a significant faith in America, so I ask the question again, why are people surprised and darn near hysterical when one of the nation's most prominent viewpoints is expressed?

Really. (Many of) you do your side in this argument a disservice. (And before you say it, yes I KNOW many on my side do, too. In fact, I blame the decline of Christianity in the U.S. solely on the stupidity of the people who practice it).

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

It all depends on the interpretation, doesn't it? D 7:3 was used historically to justify the prevention of interracial marriages.

Way too much of a jump to come to that conclusion. If read in context, which to be honest far too many people don't do, the intention of the verse is laid out rather plainly.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

And, yet, the focus by the religious right is on preventing gays from marrying and blaming them for the woes besetting the institution of marriage instead of addressing the issues within their own community.

Something about removing the log in your own eye before the mote in your neighbor's, I believe?

Log in the eye a good point, but your characterization of "the religious right" is an overgeneralization. Besides, the "focus" comes because we're also having a public, political debate about changing laws.

And honestly, if there was a major movement afoot in the church in America to rescue heterosexual marriage from the ills that befall it, independent of homosexuality ... would you even know about it?

It's easy to cast stones at straw men you build yourself.

[BillJasper]

I just think the safest bet is too allow these folks to marry. If God disapproves he can always send them to Hell later.

Though I doubt he really cares...

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by revrew

It really comes down to this, going way back to where I began. Many of you and I just have a radically different perception of what is and isn't ethical. I just happen to hold to the ethics common to one of the world's largest religions and the faith that heavily influenced the founding of the country I live in. Why does this surprise and infuriate (many of) you so much? Welcome to America.

That's not what it comes down to. We all have different perceptions on what is and isn't ethical. You are 100% correct on that. The difference is that you want other consenting adults to be forced to abide by your ethics.

If you are against homosexuality, you don't have to participate in it, you don't have to marry a member of the same-sex, you don't have to be nice to homosexuals, and you don't have to show up to their weddings. Your personal ethics and your religious beliefs are not infringed on in any way. Your life does not change in any way.

But this isn't about your personal ethics. It isn't about what the Bible says. This is about getting off on telling others what they should be allowed to do. The Bible and your religion is just a convenient excuse to express it without blowback. And don't get me wrong, this happens all the time outside religion too. Mayor Bloomberg wants to force his diet on you in New York City. There is a segment of the population who isn't satisfied enough living their own lives, they need to force others to live their lives the way they want to as well. And they'll hide behind religion or faux-concern to make it happen.

When someone says a gay couple is getting married, or someone is buying a 64oz Big Gulp, your answer should be the same, who gives a shit?

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

When someone says a gay couple is getting married, or someone is buying a 64oz Big Gulp, your answer should be the same, who gives a shit?

+1

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by revrew

What's your point, besides trying to be snotty?

I've already admitted that my ethical position is on its way toward being the minority in America, if it isn't there already, and of course, Christianity is a minority in the world as a whole. That doesn't mean it isn't one of the world's major faiths - one of the largest 2 or 3, if I'm not mistaken. Even if it's only top 10, we're talking millions and millions of people. Regardless, it's a significant faith in America, so I ask the question again, why are people surprised and darn near hysterical when one of the nation's most prominent viewpoints is expressed?

Really. (Many of) you do your side in this argument a disservice. (And before you say it, yes I KNOW many on my side do, too. In fact, I blame the decline of Christianity in the U.S. solely on the stupidity of the people who practice it).

I'm merely pointing out that opposition to gay marriage can't be described as the ethical position of Christianity. Your viewpoint isn't the only one.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's not what it comes down to. We all have different perceptions on what is and isn't ethical. You are 100% correct on that. The difference is that you want other consenting adults to be forced to abide by your ethics.

If you are against homosexuality, you don't have to participate in it, you don't have to marry a member of the same-sex, you don't have to be nice to homosexuals, and you don't have to show up to their weddings. Your personal ethics and your religious beliefs are not infringed on in any way. Your life does not change in any way.

But this isn't about your personal ethics. It isn't about what the Bible says. This is about getting off on telling others what they should be allowed to do. The Bible and your religion is just a convenient excuse to express it without blowback. And don't get me wrong, this happens all the time outside religion too. Mayor Bloomberg wants to force his diet on you in New York City. There is a segment of the population who isn't satisfied enough living their own lives, they need to force others to live their lives the way they want to as well. And they'll hide behind religion or faux-concern to make it happen.

When someone says a gay couple is getting married, or someone is buying a 64oz Big Gulp, your answer should be the same, who gives a shit?

See now, I can respect this argument (except for that "This is about getting off ... and Bible and your religion is just an excuse" bit. That's a, frankly, bigoted insult, and I would hope you're a big enough man to apologize for such a remark - but back to the point). It's coherent, even if I disagree with it.

I would argue the "You want other adults to be forced to abide by your ethics" is exactly backwards. No, I don't. I don't want to use the power of the government to force people to be straight.

Rather, it is YOU who want to force me to live by your ethics. 1st, I do believe homosexuality advocates are trying to use the power of government to compel Americans to accept homosexuality as ethical. But even if that were not true:

You want me to fund tax benefits and all kinds of other government privileges for the support of homosexual relationships. Right now, I do not. But under your preferred law, I would. And why? Why would I do this? Because you can show its a benefit to society and an institution worth protecting? No, but because YOUR ethics and sense of fairness dictate it.

All in all, however, I consider both arguments -yours and the one I just made - somewhat silly.

Government, as I said before, is run by ethics. All laws are ethics. It's just a matter of whose ethics. And yes, I prefer mine to yours.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm merely pointing out that opposition to gay marriage can't be described as the ethical position of Christianity. Your viewpoint isn't the only one.

Ah, fair enough. Forgive me if I overreacted.

Now we get into the question of what is "actually" Christianity and what is only fake Christianity. I don't really want to go there. I do think it is fair, however, to say that the vast majority of Christianity in the world is made up of Catholicism and the "evangelical" faiths. (The influence of the "mainline" churches around the world has been slipping dramatically - evident in Europe, no?) And Catholicism and evangelical Christianity both stand opposed to homosexuality ethically (even if their members do not).

[revrew]

Sorry, guys, life is calling. Gotta go. The question was asked, "Why do you oppose homosexual marriage?" and I hope I answered clearly enough.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by revrew

Blackadar, your argument is garbage. It's a theological straw man/circular argument that begins with the assumption Christians cherry pick, then drums up a host of bad theology to prove that Christians cherry pick.

Sound theology and a few basic rules of Scriptural interpretation can blow all these out of the water with ease. But that's another thread. You want to start it, we can discuss it there.

To be honest, and I can see where you come to your beliefs, I can easily say that opposition to homosexuality is based on cherry picking and bad theology as well. And it isn't simply liberal theology (in its actual, classic Schleirmacher-esque meaning) that I would be citing.

I think the poster was trying to ask what is your basic rule of interpretation - though admittedly he may have said it in an aggressive posture.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I would love to hear some of the people against it actually provide reason why. I know we have seen a few responses but not many.

After reading two pages of the wolves descending upon rev, I just wonder why.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by revrew

Ah, fair enough. Forgive me if I overreacted.

Now we get into the question of what is "actually" Christianity and what is only fake Christianity. I don't really want to go there. I do think it is fair, however, to say that the vast majority of Christianity in the world is made up of Catholicism and the "evangelical" faiths. (The influence of the "mainline" churches around the world has been slipping dramatically - evident in Europe, no?) And Catholicism and evangelical Christianity both stand opposed to homosexuality ethically (even if their members do not).

Careful. While mainline Protestant attendees may be slipping, they still make up a good amount of worldwide Christianity (at least 300 million). The Catholic Church is by far the largest - of course Evangelical Christianity has a LOT of differences with the Catholic Church (including some who still consider it to be not really Christian).

Also there is evidence that the younger generation of Evangelicals are more open towards homosexuality.

Of course the numbers of a denomination does not in any way equal the truth of its doctrine, no?

[Suburban Rhythm]

I asked this (I think) earlier in the thread, but curious how it would be justified (for lack of a better word)

Originally Posted by Matthew 22:35-40

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Originally Posted by Mark 12:28-31

And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Originally Posted by Luke 10:25-28

And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live

Originally Posted by Hillel the Elder

That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn

I was raised, and still am, a practicing Catholic. I can't wrap my head around "this one line over here, says this is bad" and having that override "here is how you should live: Do unto others as you've have done to you".

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

After reading two pages of the wolves descending upon rev, I just wonder why.

The wolves? In 1960, if you opposed civil rights, I hope you'd be looked upon the same way.