SCOTUS Gay Marriage Thread

[bob]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Congratulations Obama .... hopefully with Obamacare no longer a distraction, you can refocus on foreign policy. I think your domestic policy is in the history books but your 2nd term foreign policy needs more work and could tarnish your overall rating.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politi...nge/index.html

Why does Obama get credit for gay marriage rights? He didn't do anything to bring it about, and if I recall correctly, in 2008 candidate Obama was against gay marriage.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by bob

Why does Obama get credit for gay marriage rights? He didn't do anything to bring it about, and if I recall correctly, in 2008 candidate Obama was against gay marriage.

Two supreme court appointments. Maybe not direct credit but certainly some credit.

I think you are right though about him being against gay marriage. But I think it was one of those had-to-say political message to win the presidency.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Two supreme court appointments. Maybe not direct credit but certainly some credit.

I think you are right though about him being against gay marriage. But I think it was one of those had-to-say political message to win the presidency.

Yes even less reason for him to be applauded. Huge win yesterday for gay rights in spite of politicians like Obama saying whatever it takes to be elected. (Believe me he is part of a HUGE group of politicians who deserve scorn for prolonging the opposition to this but I find that somehow he is being credited a lot of places by people whose memories can't even go back several years)

[bob]

Yeah, it just bugs me for him to be getting credit or Hillary to be trying to use this in her campaign when they both were against it in 2008.

Hell, Cheney was for it back in 2004.

[Kodos]

He did mention that his thoughts on gay marriage were evolving a number of years ago.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by panerd

Yes even less reason for him to be applauded. Huge win yesterday for gay rights in spite of politicians like Obama saying whatever it takes to be elected. (Believe me he is part of a HUGE group of politicians who deserve scorn for prolonging the opposition to this but I find that somehow he is being credited a lot of places by people whose memories can't even go back several years)

I think it worked out for the cause that he said what he had to say to be elected. Although not as open or as fast as you may have liked, would the alternative have gotten the gay community here any quicker or at all?

I think likely not. So I'm willing to give Obama credit for this.

[Edward64]

FWIW ... yup for political reasons

David Axelrod: Barack Obama Misled Nation On Gay Marriage In 2008

Barack Obama misled Americans for his own political benefit when he claimed in the 2008 election to oppose same sex marriage for religious reasons, his former political strategist David Axelrod writes in a new book, Believer: My Forty Years in Politics.

“I’m just not very good at bullshitting,” Obama told Axelrod, after an event where he stated his opposition to same-sex marriage, according to the book.

Axelrod writes that he knew Obama was in favor of same-sex marriages during the first presidential campaign, even as Obama publicly said he only supported civil unions, not full marriages. Axelrod also admits to counseling Obama to conceal that position for political reasons. “Opposition to gay marriage was particularly strong in the black church, and as he ran for higher office, he grudgingly accepted the counsel of more pragmatic folks like me, and modified his position to support civil unions rather than marriage, which he would term a ‘sacred union,’ ” Axelrod writes.

[larrymcg421]

Well the congratulations are clearly in order considering Obama's administration took part in the case and their side won.

I said for a long time that Obama was lying about his opposition to gay marriage so he could get elected. There is evidence of this from position statements he filled out while in the Illinois legislature. And I have no problem with him doing that. Would the gay cause have been better served by him proclaiming support in 2008 and potentially losing the election? Today's decision almost certainly would've been different had that happened. Gays still wouldn't be serving in the military. DOMA would still be alive.

When Obama announced his support for gay marriage, 30 consecutive states had enacted bans without a single state either rejecting a ban or approving same sex marriage. His announcement had a strong effect on the African-American community. He was fought stringently on Don't Ask Don't Tell and DOMA. If you want to criticize him for playing politics or waiting too long, that's fine, but if you're arguing that Obama deserves no credit for where we are today, then you're making a ridiculous argument that has no basis in reality.

[Brian Swartz]

A few things that are worth responding to here I think:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I said for a long time that Obama was lying about his opposition to gay marriage so he could get elected. There is evidence of this from position statements he filled out while in the Illinois legislature. And I have no problem with him doing that.

The truth is always better. Always. I don't think we could disagree more on this. I also think justifying the lies our politicians tell is a great way to ensure such things continue and multiply, something I will always oppose.

Originally Posted by Dutch

I fully support gay people modifying religion to meet their needs. We've all done it.

They should certainly express their religion with full authenticity and genuineness(is that even a word?) as should everyone. Having said that, people who modify their religion to meet their needs ought to reexamine the purpose of religion -- they're doing it wrong. To the degree that it is true that 'we've all done it' -- we ought to be ashamed of ourselves.

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

I hope that those who are of Christian belief remember that commandment and the fact that God is Love. Be happy for those who now have the right to marry the one they Love, do not judge, and in return we just ask for those who don't agree with our beliefs to have the same tolerance that they expect from us. With all the hate going on in the world, having more love can't hurt.

I must object partially to your definition of what it means to be a 'true Christian'. God is love, but as He defined it. We certainly ought to, and I intend to, spread that love as much as possible. Among the thing it includes is conflict where necessary, and love cannot be happy for destructive things.

"it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth"(I Corinthians 13:6).

As for me, there were casualties in some relationships yesterday. As a result of my previously posted facebook message, I am no longer on speaking terms with my brother's significant other, and he felt it necessary to publicly label me and all others who share my view as being without humanity or sympathy, pitiful, brainwashed/fear-driven, empty, and joyless. I hope these wounds will heal with time, and that other similar or more severe divides between people caused by this issue will eventually result in both sides being able to see that strongly held differing opinions are not necessarily the result of nefarious or evil motives: they are just that: differing opinions.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I must object partially to your definition of what it means to be a 'true Christian'.

There are, what, about a billion Christians in the world. I see your objection, but I'd expect there are about a billion other objections and definitions. No one thinks of himself or herself as an untrue Christian. Faith is deeply personal and by definition impossible to define.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

As for me, there were casualties in some relationships yesterday. As a result of my previously posted facebook message, I am no longer on speaking terms with my brother's significant other, and he felt it necessary to publicly label me and all others who share my view as being without humanity or sympathy, pitiful, brainwashed/fear-driven, empty, and joyless. I hope these wounds will heal with time, and that other similar or more severe divides between people caused by this issue will eventually result in both sides being able to see that strongly held differing opinions are not necessarily the result of nefarious or evil motives: they are just that: differing opinions.

If religion divides family in this manner, one should question religion, right? On one hand, you may have deeply insulted someone your own brother may make his spouse. On the other hand, he is taking this insult as a potentially permanent barrier between you, while it sounds like you aren't. Is faith worth this cost? Could you ask whether your God would create someone who felt a deep attraction to someone of the same sex if he felt homosexuality was so evil as to be worthy of damnation?

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Publicly label me and all others who share my view as being without humanity or sympathy, pitiful, brainwashed/fear-driven, empty, and joyless.

+1.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

No one thinks of himself or herself as an untrue Christian. Faith is deeply personal and by definition impossible to define.

Faith might be difficult to define, but I don't agree that Christianity is. By basic logic and definition, it can be defined as those who follow the teachings of Christ. It can either be accepted or rejected that the Bible contains those teachings, but in the latter case the term loses all meanings.

Of course anyone can call themselves a Christian, but that's not the same thing. I can call myself a grapefruit too, but it will readily be apparent that I'm not one .

As to family, yes my faith is worth that cost and far more. If you haven't read what I posted earlier in the thread, I think it's fair to say that it was gracious and not at all heavy-handed(all I stated was 'this is a day to mourn' before moving on to emphasize love and grace). There was no attack on anyone.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Could you ask whether your God would create someone who felt a deep attraction to someone of the same sex if he felt homosexuality was so evil as to be worthy of damnation?

I have heard this argument many times, and I respect where it comes from. I also think it simply isn't logical. As a society we know that people have deep desires for many things. We still pass laws against many of them when we believe it to be in the common interest. This isn't a concept unique to Christianity.

In previous conversations with my brother on the larger question of God in general, it eventually came down to the same thing it almost always does for people I discuss this stuff with who are atheist/agnostic. They are offended that we believe humans are guilty of anything to the degree that Jesus dying on the cross is required. At that point, their argument is not with me, it's with God.

[JPhillips]

“The great leaders of God’s people, like Moses, always left room for doubt. We must always leave room for the Lord and not for our own certainties. We must be humble. Every true discernment includes an element of uncertainty open to receiving spiritual consolation.” -Pope Francis

I've always been suspicious of certainty in religion. God is bigger than me, and hence, I can't know with certainty what God wants.

[JPhillips]

CNN freaks out over ISIS flag at gay pride parade.

The flag was a parody using dildo images instead of Arabic lettering.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I have heard this argument many times, and I respect where it comes from. I also think it simply isn't logical. As a society we know that people have deep desires for many things. We still pass laws against many of them when we believe it to be in the common interest. This isn't a concept unique to Christianity.

In this case, though, you're asking for a law banning two consenting adults from sharing their love for each other. There is no victim of this proposed crime.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

In previous conversations with my brother on the larger question of God in general, it eventually came down to the same thing it almost always does for people I discuss this stuff with who are atheist/agnostic. They are offended that we believe humans are guilty of anything to the degree that Jesus dying on the cross is required. At that point, their argument is not with me, it's with God.

Does your brother represent all agnostics and atheists? I've actually never heard this particular argument. I'm not offended by these beliefs, I just hope that those who have them recognize that they are borne of faith. You cannot expect everyone to share that faith.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

In this case, though, you're asking for a law banning two consenting adults from sharing their love for each other. There is no victim of this proposed crime.

I think we're all victims of it. I don't expect most to agree with that, but I do certainly reject the argument that there is any sort of category difference here. Every citizen worthy of the name supports those things they believe are in humanity's best interest.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Does your brother represent all agnostics and atheists? I've actually never heard this particular argument.

I've heard from around a dozen of them, virtually all of the agnostics/atheists that I've had occasion to have relatively deep discussions with about these things in recent years. My brother of course represents only himself, but he is typical in this respect.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

In this case, though, you're asking for a law banning two consenting adults from sharing their love for each other. There is no victim of this proposed crime.

From a government point-of-view marriage is a legal contract between two adults. I don't see a reason for the government to interfere in that transaction.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think we're all victims of it. I don't expect most to agree with that, but I do certainly reject the argument that there is any sort of category difference here. Every citizen worthy of the name supports those things they believe are in humanity's best interest.

How does allowing two people of the same gender to share their lives conflict with humanity's best interest?

[cuervo72]

It doesn't. But it gets in the way of the thought that a religion's power is through its numbers.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

It doesn't. But it gets in the way of the thought that a religion's power is through its numbers.

To the contrary, I don't believe a religion's power is through its numbers. As a matter of fact, though this is not at all an original thought, I believe that the true church's power will increase through the loss of members as a result of this. I also believe that with this issue becoming less of a hot-button one politically over the next few years -- similar to what's happening with the ACA, it will simply be one on which the church has less need to respond and will eventually not be discussed as much. Historically, the most effective and powerful days for the church have been those in which it was most distinct and different from the surrounding culture(those who view it as a 'religious club' differing little from the Rotary Club or whatever will increasingly stop attending, a trend already in evidence) resulting in the purifying of both those who remain and the message.

I believe there are great days and opportunities ahead for the true church in America, but I certainly wouldn't wish on our nation the cause of it. Light shines more powerfully the darker things are.

Originally Posted by BillJasper

How does allowing two people of the same gender to share their lives conflict with humanity's best interest?

It's an institutionalized normalization of a destructive lifestyle. Whenever a nation endorses something which goes directly against God's design, particularly in something this central, the consequences of that are drastic. Unfortunately we are mirroring the decline described by Paul in Romans 1. The offer of mercy, forgiveness, grace, and love is always there to anyone who will repent -- that never changes. The more we press the line in favor of the mirage of personal autonomy though, the more damage we do to ourselves.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Finally, Finally I can proudly call myself a gay American. Yes I was one of the two people (i think) marked that box we had in that poll here a while back. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor, I feel it was time to come out of the shadows. This issue has caused some strife in my own family, with the person I should be closest to-my twin brother. He is very much a conservative Christian Republican...while I'm not any of those. It's been hard for both of us to put our political/social beliefs behind us at times and remember we are our brothers first. I don't expect this decision to do much to change things between us, but it has and will help many of my gay brethren who have fought for this for so long, and for that I am happy for them.

NOTE: If today's results and my "coming out here" disgusts and angers you, then please block me-I don't want to hear your words anymore than you want to hear mine anymore I'm guessing.

Love wins!

(Missed this post yesterday.)

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

It's an institutionalized normalization of a destructive lifestyle. Whenever a nation endorses something which goes directly against God's design, particularly in something this central, the consequences of that are drastic. Unfortunately we are mirroring the decline described by Paul in Romans 1. The offer of mercy, forgiveness, grace, and love is always there to anyone who will repent -- that never changes. The more we press the line in favor of the mirage of personal autonomy though, the more damage we do to ourselves.

The burden of proof, however, is on you to show this. Faith in any God. Faith that scripture represents Truth. That's just not enough to force those who don't share your faith to embrace it as law.

[Brian Swartz]

Absolutely true. I believe in the republican(small r) process. I think the decision over the weekend was horrid constitutional law, but that's another subject -- the fact of the matter is that it was going to happen anyway, SCOTUS just accelerated the process instead of letting the states eventually get there on their own. The momentum of history is in that direction.

In terms of forcing people to accept it as law, I view it the same as any other law that's passed. If it gets enough support to pass it, that's our process of government. Whether it does or not, citizens must accept the results -- or be willing to pay the price of civil disobedience. We aren't nearly there yet in most areas.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

To the contrary, I don't believe a religion's power is through its numbers. As a matter of fact, though this is not at all an original thought, I believe that the true church's power will increase through the loss of members as a result of this. I also believe that with this issue becoming less of a hot-button one politically over the next few years -- similar to what's happening with the ACA, it will simply be one on which the church has less need to respond and will eventually not be discussed as much. Historically, the most effective and powerful days for the church have been those in which it was most distinct and different from the surrounding culture(those who view it as a 'religious club' differing little from the Rotary Club or whatever will increasingly stop attending, a trend already in evidence) resulting in the purifying of both those who remain and the message.

I believe there are great days and opportunities ahead for the true church in America, but I certainly wouldn't wish on our nation the cause of it. Light shines more powerfully the darker things are.

It's an institutionalized normalization of a destructive lifestyle. Whenever a nation endorses something which goes directly against God's design, particularly in something this central, the consequences of that are drastic. Unfortunately we are mirroring the decline described by Paul in Romans 1. The offer of mercy, forgiveness, grace, and love is always there to anyone who will repent -- that never changes. The more we press the line in favor of the mirage of personal autonomy though, the more damage we do to ourselves.

This post is disturbing to me. Purifying the church by removing those who don't agree with you on the definition of a Christian; drastic consequences for not living as "true Christians". It kinda sounds Pat Robertson-ish.

I could assert that organized religion is a destructive lifestyle. The world has endured countless wars because of it. There are plenty of religious people who do good things in the world, and work to spread love and help others who are in need. I have no issue with those people. The ones who want to force their views onto others I could do without.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

It's an institutionalized normalization of a destructive lifestyle. Whenever a nation endorses something which goes directly against God's design...

Prove that it is a destructive lifestyle.

If there is a God (I truly don't know, one way or the other), I wouldn't dare think to speak as to what his intentions are. Nor would I think myself smart enough to interpret and execute his design.

I find it humorous that religious people go on about how we're suppose to just have faith when bad things happen on one hand but then on the other act like they are on a first name basis with God and know exactly what he would want and what his intentions are.

How about treating gay marriage like a natural disaster and just have faith that God knows what he is doing?

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think we're all victims of it.

That may be the single most ignorant remark I have read here. If you think there is a victim to allowing same sex marriage it is not even worth discussing with you because you seriously don't get it.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

it is not even worth discussing with you because you seriously don't get it.

It's not even possible that I get the other side of argument but simply disagree with it?

Originally Posted by Kodos

This post is disturbing to me.

I'm sorry that you think that.

Originally Posted by Kodos

Purifying the church by removing those who don't agree with you on the definition of a Christian

It's more those who will leave on their own as it becomes less and less popular to associate with those who follow Jesus.

Originally Posted by Kodos

drastic consequences for not living as "true Christians".

This is the 'your argument is with God' point. From a logical point of view though, a God who isn't holy wouldn't be able to be trusted: a God who is can't indefinitely fail to judge evil. So whatever objections there are to holy God, all other alternatives are far worse.

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I find it humorous that religious people go on about how we're suppose to just have faith when bad things happen on one hand but then on the other act like they are on a first name basis with God and know exactly what he would want and what his intentions are.

I try to only be specific where God has been specific. There are many things we don't know. Ask me what heaven's going to be like and I can't tell you much. I don't think it's at all hypocritical to try to be clear where the Bible's clear and say I don't know where we just don't know.

Originally Posted by BillJasper

How about treating gay marriage like a natural disaster and just have faith that God knows what he is doing?

When 'we the people' are the government, we have a responsibility, believers as much as unbelievers. Choosing not to be involved is still making a choice, a wrong one which abdicates responsibility.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

That may be the single most ignorant remark I have read here. If you think there is a victim to allowing same sex marriage it is not even worth discussing with you because you seriously don't get it.

When I hear people like Brian Swartz say stuff like that, it always makes me wonder what's really behind it. I've never cared who someone marries or loves or has sex with (as long as it's a consenting adult). What kind of person is that obsessed with a complete stranger's love life? On whether two people have some minor changes in their tax filing and some other fringe benefits?

On one hand it's ignorant, on the other I feel sort of bad for him. Sometimes this comes from self-hatred of their own sexuality. Maybe he's been repressing feelings himself for a long time and this is how he deals. It's an overcompensation.

[Brian Swartz]

The amount of presumption here is saddening. I'm not obsessed with anyone's love life. That has nothing to do with this.

[Coffee Warlord]

edit: Nope. It's not worth getting sucked into this.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Kodos

This post is disturbing to me. Purifying the church by removing those who don't agree with you on the definition of a Christian; drastic consequences for not living as "true Christians". It kinda sounds Pat Robertson-ish.

It's also a pattern that's been repeated for centuries within the Christian faith. Hell, there was an English sect that called themselves the "Puritans," remember. Nothing new under the sun and all that jazz. Religion in general is prone to schism, but we've seen that a fair bit more with Christianity than we have with Judaism or Islam (or, at least, the sub-schisms beyond Shi'ite/Sunni, as an example, just don't get much attention in the Western world and so I've not heard of them).

I could assert that organized religion is a destructive lifestyle. The world has endured countless wars because of it. There are plenty of religious people who do good things in the world, and work to spread love and help others who are in need. I have no issue with those people. The ones who want to force their views onto others I could do without.

I don't know that organized religion is a "destructive lifestyle" so much as that the gibe about being the "opiate of the masses" takes an ominous tinge in the context of politics. If religion is what grants comfort to and inspires obedience from the general population, then political power devolves to whomever has the ability to best direct that message. That's something else we've seen in Western politics for centuries. It's not religion that's destructive, but rather the attempt to use religion to accrue political power. That's the biggest mistake religious people make in looking for politicians to legislate their beliefs. A politician's first pursuit is power, and a politician will weaponize whatever they have at hand that will aid in that pursuit.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

When I hear people like Brian Swartz say stuff like that, it always makes me wonder what's really behind it. I've never cared who someone marries or loves or has sex with (as long as it's a consenting adult). What kind of person is that obsessed with a complete stranger's love life? On whether two people have some minor changes in their tax filing and some other fringe benefits?

People who took the wrong lesson from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. They fear the wrath of God, but they completely missed the point when it comes to what inspired that wrath.

People who don't want to think for themselves, because it's easier to have someone else tell them "this is the Truth; follow this, and all will be well." That's why prosperity gospel is viable. It twists some parables and outright ignores other warnings, but it gives its adherents warm, fuzzy feelings and they don't have to think too hard.

On one hand it's ignorant, on the other I feel sort of bad for him. Sometimes this comes from self-hatred of their own sexuality.

And sometimes that. If you fear what you are, maybe you see being louder or more strident against that state as a shield that will prevent others from recognizing the monster you see yourself as.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Having said that, people who modify their religion to meet their needs ought to reexamine the purpose of religion -- they're doing it wrong.

So your definition of faith would be belief regardless of fulfillment?

Also,, modify from whose definition of the Church? Was Martin Luther wrong in his modification of the religion? The history of Christianity (and America) is a history of modification to meet the needs of the people. For example, letters to the Hebrews or Corinthians or Romans, each modified to meet specific cultural needs/paradigms.

Through all of your comments I feel like you are arguing wrongness based on a deviation from a norm. A norm that has been modified to meet your needs.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

When I hear people like Brian Swartz say stuff like that, it always makes me wonder what's really behind it. I've never cared who someone marries or loves or has sex with (as long as it's a consenting adult). What kind of person is that obsessed with a complete stranger's love life? On whether two people have some minor changes in their tax filing and some other fringe benefits?

I think its pretty clear what's behind it ... its his interpretation of the New Testament Bible regarding homosexuality.

I actually agree that if you were to accept the Bible as is, homosexuality is a sin.

I choose to interpret the Bible different from him.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The amount of presumption here is saddening. I'm not obsessed with anyone's love life. That has nothing to do with this.

You seem really concerned whether two people you don't know have the right to file a joint tax return and collect each other's social security when the other dies. We're talking about a legal document after all, not a spiritual doctrine.

That's the part I don't get either. Don't like gay marriage? Don't participate in it. I think marrying before the age of 23 is dumb so I don't do it. I think marrying someone you've only known for a month is dumb so I don't do it either. If some complete strangers want to do that stuff, why should I care? The presumptions come because it's weird that someone would be that emotionally invested in another person's love life.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Rainmaker

We're talking about a legal document after all, not a spiritual doctrine.

That's the part I don't get either. Don't like gay marriage?

I appreciate the fact that this appears to be an earnest question. I'll try my best to answer it.

It's more than a legal document. It has an enormous impact on the culture because it normalizes and endorses those kinds of marriages. To go into a completely different type of arena, take the progression of income taxes, public assistance programs, etc. I'm not railing against these things, I actually favor them as a liberal on most economic issues. But if you go back to the Great Depression, a common saying was 'I'd rather be dead than take relief'. That stigma was in large part gone within a generation. Whether that is a good thing or bad thing is not my point -- the point is that these kinds of things have a profound effect not just on the letter of the law that is changed but on culture as a whole is well. That's why there are always victims or beneficiaries, depending on how you view the issue, as a result of any such change.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I think its pretty clear what's behind it ... its his interpretation of the New Testament Bible regarding homosexuality.

I actually agree that if you were to accept the Bible as is, homosexuality is a sin.

I choose to interpret the Bible different from him.

People can interpret it however they want. If the Bible tells him that homosexuality is evil and all that stuff, I'm fine with it. There are Christians who are against entertainment, sex out of marriage, pornography, and the use of alcohol. We all have our own belief system. Live life how you want to.

My problem is when you force those beliefs on others.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Through all of your comments I feel like you are arguing wrongness based on a deviation from a norm. A norm that has been modified to meet your needs.

Then I have failed horribly to communicate what I mean. I aspire to modify what I believe to meet the 'norm', i.e. the truth of the Bible.

your definition of faith would be belief regardless of fulfillment?

That's a fair reading if I understand you correctly. The value of the faith
depends on it's object.

The history of Christianity (and America) is a history of modification to meet the needs of the people. For example, letters to the Hebrews or Corinthians or Romans, each modified to meet specific cultural needs/paradigms.

I would argue there's a consistent message running through them. The specific points of emphasis change obviously with the needs of each audience, but there are certain points common to all and, more importantly, the core content of the gospel is not 'modified'.

Those humans within Christianity since who have led in various ways such as Luther have to various degrees been right/wrong. I don't think any one person since the writing of the Bible has 'had all the right answers'. Some have claimed to, but I think the hubris of that is immense. Anyone reasonably claiming Christianity has to source their beliefs in what Jesus said. There is room for disagreement on many issues within that, and as mentioned no one is 100% right on everything, but the core issues are things repeated multiple times to the point where willful ignorance is required to miss it. The only people whose 'true Christianity' I question are those who want to throw out/ignore certain aspects of what he taught because they aren't comfortable with them or don't want to believe them. At that point the goal has ceased to become following Christ, and become erecting a God in their own image with his name put on it to make themselves feel better(not at all accusing anyone here, just making a general statement about this very common practice).

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Rainmaker

My problem is when you force those beliefs on others.

Isn't that an essential feature of our form of government?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Isn't that an essential feature of our form of government?

Not in my opinion. Their job should be providing us with equal rights and protecting us from those in and out of the country that would do us harm.

[Brian Swartz]

Let me be more clear. You oppose laws being enacted based upon a worldview you don't share. I can understand that. My point is though, that has to happen for any law to be enacted in a free country. Lots of laws are enacted based on worldviews I don't share as well. The best way I know of to deal with this reality is to 1) Contend for what I believe, 2) Accept that it will not always, or even often, prevail, and 3) Respect the choice of the people as much as possible.

It's imperfect of course, but I think far better than all other possible options. YMMV.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I appreciate the fact that this appears to be an earnest question. I'll try my best to answer it.

It's more than a legal document. It has an enormous impact on the culture because it normalizes and endorses those kinds of marriages. To go into a completely different type of arena, take the progression of income taxes, public assistance programs, etc. I'm not railing against these things, I actually favor them as a liberal on most economic issues. But if you go back to the Great Depression, a common saying was 'I'd rather be dead than take relief'. That stigma was in large part gone within a generation. Whether that is a good thing or bad thing is not my point -- the point is that these kinds of things have a profound effect not just on the letter of the law that is changed but on culture as a whole is well. That's why there are always victims or beneficiaries, depending on how you view the issue, as a result of any such change.

Legal marriage has been normalized for a long time. It just wasn't allowed to a segment of the population. It doesn't change legal marriage anymore than Loving v Virginia changed it. Marriage is the same, just everyone is allowed to partake.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I appreciate the fact that this appears to be an earnest question. I'll try my best to answer it.

It's more than a legal document. It has an enormous impact on the culture because it normalizes and endorses those kinds of marriages. To go into a completely different type of arena, take the progression of income taxes, public assistance programs, etc. I'm not railing against these things, I actually favor them as a liberal on most economic issues. But if you go back to the Great Depression, a common saying was 'I'd rather be dead than take relief'. That stigma was in large part gone within a generation. Whether that is a good thing or bad thing is not my point -- the point is that these kinds of things have a profound effect not just on the letter of the law that is changed but on culture as a whole is well. That's why there are always victims or beneficiaries, depending on how you view the issue, as a result of any such change.

For me, your fear of a new normal is closer to anti-suffrage rhetoric than a welfare one.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Let me be more clear. You oppose laws being enacted based upon a worldview you don't share. I can understand that. My point is though, that has to happen for any law to be enacted in a free country. Lots of laws are enacted based on worldviews I don't share as well. The best way I know of to deal with this reality is to 1) Contend for what I believe, 2) Accept that it will not always, or even often, prevail, and 3) Respect the choice of the people as much as possible.

It's imperfect of course, but I think far better than all other possible options. YMMV.

There is nothing to "deal with" on changes like this. Nothing in this Supreme Court decision forces you to marry another male. Nothing in this decision forces you to attend weddings or even acknowledge their marriage. This will change nothing in your life. It will not change your beliefs. It will not change the lifestyle you choose to live. So why do you care?

Even if it "normalizes" something in culture you don't participate in, I don't get the concern. Vegans are becoming more normal in society, I don't declare their banishment because I prefer meat. The lottery is normalized in society and I find it an enormous waste of money but don't want it to be taken away from those who choose to spend their money in that fashion. Heck, reality TV is a normal part of today's culture despite my disdain but I'm not losing any sleep over it.

What's so terrible about believing what you want, living your life that way, and letting others do the same? Why so invested in what complete strangers do with their lives if it has no impact on yours?

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I would argue there's a consistent message running through them. The specific points of emphasis change obviously with the needs of each audience, but there are certain points common to all and, more importantly, the core content of the gospel is not 'modified'.

There is room for disagreement on many issues within that, and as mentioned no one is 100% right on everything, but the core issues are things repeated multiple times to the point where willful ignorance is required to miss it.

i agree. I just don't see that homosexuality is one of those core issues Jesus and the New Testament emphasized multiple times. If it is under a larger umbrella of lust or pride(common themes) then this particular manifestation should not be so obsessively singled out.

[Brian Swartz]

Well, regarding the obsessively singled out point, that goes back to what I said about how things will change for the true church. There are, sadly, a significant number of people who have opposed homosexuality for all kinds of bad reasons(bigotry against it, wanting to preserve 'their territory' culturally, etc.). But within the group that I have tried my best to be part of, it's been more of a case of simply responding to what is happening in the culture. I.e., the reason it's been talked about so much to considerable degree is that this is the door the culture has been banging on. It was abortion in the 70s. Society will move on to other priorities, which may not but probably will run smack into what biblical Christianity is about and then we'll hear more about those. Homosexuality will still be around as an issue, but it's going to gradually fade away.

As far as it being a clear, repetitive teaching -- I don't know how else to read Romans 1 and the various lists in numerous epistles where various sins are contrasted with righteous behavior. Jesus addresses the created order pretty specifically, to the point of using it as an illustration of the central divine relationship of this age(i.e. the church is the bride of Christ, how the church is to function, etc). May God have the mercy to forgive me if I'm wrong, but I just can't honestly read it any other way.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This will change nothing in your life.

In the sense you mean, that is absolutely correct. I don't believe it is right to approach governing that way. The question is what is the impact on humanity as a whole, not how it will impact me which I have always viewed, for my part, as being a selfish way to look at things.

I regret that I've been unable to make my perspective on this clear in a way that answers your questions.

[EagleFan]

It's sad how close minded some sheep are. People like that show just how far from reality religious zealots are. It's the 21st century, time to give up what was created to control the uneducated masses.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

In the sense you mean, that is absolutely correct. I don't believe it is right to approach governing that way. The question is what is the impact on humanity as a whole, not how it will impact me which I have always viewed, for my part, as being a selfish way to look at things.

I regret that I've been unable to make my perspective on this clear in a way that answers your questions.

There are a lot of things that people who are governing with the idea of "what's best for humanity as a whole" would do that I'm pretty sure would make for some horrible historical events. I can think of several right off the top of my head.

I think Dutch's comment hit it for me. I don't know that there is a single thing that I have changed my mind on as much as gay marriage. WTF do I care? How does it ultimately affect me?

I also think the idea that more people are going to become gay that you are subtly hinting towards is combating basic biology. We're all programmed a certain way when it comes to our sexuality. We don't choose one way or another.

I'll also say if we're going to start picking and choosing things that are affecting humanity, there are a lot of things the Bible mentions that I would start with before homosexuality. It bothers me that people often miss the point of the New Testament. The New Testament is there to essentially stop the kind of thinking where we all go around pointing at each others sins and problems. We're all flawed, something you or I do is hated by others, but they should allow us to do it because it's our choices. God will judge how he wants to. Not us...it's not our job.

[BillyNYC]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I regret that I've been unable to make my perspective on this clear in a way that answers your questions.

As a spectator in this thread, I appreciate how (generally) civil this thread has been about this all. I think the "wait, how do two gays doing anything even remotely affect you personally as a Christian such that you care?" is something that has confused me. Your explanations make some sense to me, even if I don't agree with them.

I think in society at large (and somewhat here), people take their opinions/ideologies as facts and those that have different opinions are some combination of stupid/morally corrupt/ignorant/racist/heathens. And yet each says "i'm right. you're wrong", instead of allowing that people have different upbringings and genetics and view things differently. And so we get ever more divisive and results in "See I'm right, you're wrong. I win, you lose" and even more division, instead of "we all live on this same land mass. How can we make it more livable and a better experience for all of us?"

Kumbaya and all.

Anyway, I appreciate you explaining your fairly unpopular point of view. Understanding where you come and why you believe what you believe is much more productive (and fair) than blindly dismissing it.

[Subby]

Brian - good reading here about letting differences of opinion come between family:

Ask Andrew W.K.: My Dad Is a Right-Wing Asshole | Village Voice