Article: Real vs Fake Persecution CC

[marbel]

We were discussing a pastor who specifically told a man who had just said his partner was dying of cancer and 5 other ministers wouldn't even take the time to pray with him that the man wouldn't be welcome at that particular church because he was gay. This is not "individual people" not being welcoming (though that would likely be true in this instance), but a member of the staff actually warning him off.

 

I mean that I cannot honestly see a pastor looking at a woman who said she was hurting and looking for a church, "Well, maybe you could try, but really, in all honesty I have to tell you that you're so fat a lot of people here probably won't want to have anything to do with you because they aren't fat and that's uncomfortable for them. I'd be glad to pray with you here privately, though, because I realize even fat people can be God's children although they commit the deadly sin of gluttony." Maybe I'm wrong and it's standard practice for your minister to warn off people who look like they may not be on time, don't shop at the right stores, or otherwise meet the standards of the congregation.

 

Ah, no, and I am truly sorry if I gave that impression.   I was speaking more generally and hypothetically.  And, as noted, rethought the whole thing and changed my mind anyway.  

 

 

 

[poppy]

I think it bears repeating that views towards lgbti people have changed and will continue to change at a very fast pace. Very recently, the general view in the public sphere was that lgbti (edited to add lgbti people) should be invisible and ashamed. They were viewed as deviant and undesirable. Religious views against them were not really challenged because it was generally agreed that same sex lovers threatened social stability. With some exceptions, most religions in the US and most non-religious people were generally on the same page regarding the undesirability of the existence of gay people. If most of us who are pro-gay rights now had been born earlier, we probably would not be nearly so pro-gay.

 

Thanks to many things, this anti-gay view has changed for a majority of people in a few short years. Those who still hold those views have gone from having their views seen as moral and upright by general society, to immoral and mean by general society. They have gone from being supported as upholders of virtue to undesirable themselves.

 

Change is hard for those not liking the changes. Believers who are anti-gay are going to struggle with what it means to be heavily criticized for views that were lauded up until recently. This is affected as well by the theology held by some that emphasizes persecution for their beliefs. I grew up in a denomination like that, so I understand how those views can make change even more difficult.

 

Another thing to note is that there have always been gay people, all throughout the world. Always. Sometimes acknowledged, sometimes not.  And that acceptance ebbs and flows.   I think some anti-gay folks think we're just on a continual course from forbidden-to-accepted but that's just not the case. There were gay communities in Europe in the Middle Ages.  Homosexuality became forbidden  during the Renaissance by the Church.  It was decriminalized in France in 1791.  And so on.

 

[marbel]

Another thing to note is that there have always been gay people, all throughout the world. Always. Sometimes acknowledged, sometimes not.  And that acceptance ebbs and flows.   I think some anti-gay folks think we're just on a continual course from forbidden-to-accepted but that's just not the case. There were gay communities in Europe in the Middle Ages.  Homosexuality became forbidden  during the Renaissance by the Church.  It was decriminalized in France in 1791.  And so on.

 

 

That is true.

 

It might also be useful to note that to many people in the US, "the gay lifestyle" conjures up images of the Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco and other events that seem outrageous.    This is so often what the media shows.  Of course that is changing. 

 

I happened to spend some time in a laundromat yesterday.  I made two trips so saw snips of two tv shows: 

 

1.  Jerry Springer had two women on, apparently they had been in a lesbian relationship and one wanted to end it; they were assaulting each other physically and had to be kept apart by security guards. 

 

2. A show called Cheaters, I think, that had a story about a lesbian relationship in which one woman suspected the other of cheating.  I left during a confrontation between the 3 women, facilitated by the private detective (I guess that's what he was) who provided evidence of the infidelity.  It looked like they were going to get into a physical fight but I admit I did not stick around to watch. 

 

It was all so distasteful and ugly.   I couldn't imagine anyone wanting to be on those shows. I also couldn't imagine anyone actually choosing to watch them.  If I could have turned off the tv, I would have.

 

But, not to derail.  Obviously I know that these shows are not representative of any group of people. For all I know, it's all fake.  But it is presented as reality, and if that is all some people see, and they think it's real, it's going to affect how they think of people.     I am not saying it's right or accurate. 

 

I really hope I am making sense this time.  

[KarenNC]

That is true.

 

It might also be useful to note that to many people in the US, "the gay lifestyle" conjures up images of the Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco and other events that seem outrageous.    This is so often what the media shows.  Of course that is changing. 

 

I happened to spend some time in a laundromat yesterday.  I made two trips so saw snips of two tv shows: 

 

1.  Jerry Springer had two women on, apparently they had been in a lesbian relationship and one wanted to end it; they were assaulting each other physically and had to be kept apart by security guards. 

 

2. A show called Cheaters, I think, that had a story about a lesbian relationship in which one woman suspected the other of cheating.  I left during a confrontation between the 3 women, facilitated by the private detective (I guess that's what he was) who provided evidence of the infidelity.  It looked like they were going to get into a physical fight but I admit I did not stick around to watch. 

 

It was all so distasteful and ugly.   I couldn't imagine anyone wanting to be on those shows. I also couldn't imagine anyone actually choosing to watch them.  If I could have turned off the tv, I would have.

 

But, not to derail.  Obviously I know that these shows are not representative of any group of people. For all I know, it's all fake.  But it is presented as reality, and if that is all some people see, and they think it's real, it's going to affect how they think of people.     I am not saying it's right or accurate. 

 

I really hope I am making sense this time.  

 

Yes, you're making sense, but you are right that these media representations are no more reflective of the "gay lifestlye" than Honey Boo-boo is of the "Southern lifestlye" (or the heterosexual folks on shows like Jerry Springer and Cheaters are of the "heterosexual lifestyle"). The problem brought up by the fact that we as a society seem to thrive on this kind of "entertainment" is another issue entirely.

[SadieMarie]

That is true.

 

It might also be useful to note that to many people in the US, "the gay lifestyle" conjures up images of the Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco and other events that seem outrageous.    This is so often what the media shows.  Of course that is changing. 

 

I happened to spend some time in a laundromat yesterday.  I made two trips so saw snips of two tv shows: 

 

1.  Jerry Springer had two women on, apparently they had been in a lesbian relationship and one wanted to end it; they were assaulting each other physically and had to be kept apart by security guards. 

 

2. A show called Cheaters, I think, that had a story about a lesbian relationship in which one woman suspected the other of cheating.  I left during a confrontation between the 3 women, facilitated by the private detective (I guess that's what he was) who provided evidence of the infidelity.  It looked like they were going to get into a physical fight but I admit I did not stick around to watch. 

 

It was all so distasteful and ugly.   I couldn't imagine anyone wanting to be on those shows. I also couldn't imagine anyone actually choosing to watch them.  If I could have turned off the tv, I would have.

 

But, not to derail.  Obviously I know that these shows are not representative of any group of people. For all I know, it's all fake.  But it is presented as reality, and if that is all some people see, and they think it's real, it's going to affect how they think of people.     I am not saying it's right or accurate. 

 

I really hope I am making sense this time.  

Jerry Springer has had heterosexual couples doing the same type of stuff for years.  I see that he is branching out and trying to be inclusive now lol.  There are plenty of negative reality type shows that portray less than laudable heterosexual couples.  I don't think any of us assume that they represent all heterosexual couples.  So I am missing your point exactly.  I mean, are you saying that people who see dysfunctional gay couples are unable to stop themselves from generalizing to all gay couples and so we should not judge them too harshly for being anti gay?

[marbel]

Yes, you're making sense, but you are right that these media representations are no more reflective of the "gay lifestlye" than Honey Boo-boo is of the "Southern lifestlye" (or the heterosexual folks on shows like Jerry Springer and Cheaters are of the "heterosexual lifestyle"). The problem brought up by the fact that we as a society seem to thrive on this kind of "entertainment" is another issue entirely.

 

Yes.  I was actually coming back to add that it would be equally distasteful to me if they were heterosexual couples.  So there is no difference, except that it makes people "other."  Most people don't identify positively with the Honey Boo-book folks either.     If all I knew of "the southern lifestyle" was Honey Boo-book, I might have a bad impression of southerners.

 

ETA: After seeing this quoted, I noticed I typed "Boo-book."  Just thought that was funny, that when I type b-o-o, k must follow.

[SadieMarie]

Yes.  I was actually coming back to add that it would be equally distasteful to me if they were heterosexual couples.  So there is no difference, except that it makes people "other."  Most people don't identify positively with the Honey Boo-book folks either.     If all I knew of "the southern lifestyle" was Honey Boo-book, I might have a bad impression of southerners.

 What?! Are you saying Honey Boo-Boo is not representative of Southern people?  Well crap!  Now I have to rethink my whole view of the South.  

[Mrs Mungo]

Marriage was established in the book of Genesis so I'm not sure how you can make this statement.

 

Is this a joke? Even with a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis, by definition, Christianity did not exist until Christ was born and started his ministry.

[TracyP]

Christians have every right to believe that homosexuality falls outside their personal moral code. The same is true with watching R rated movies, getting drunk, or uncovering your head. I will teach my kids according to my moral code and others are able to do the same. The question here is should my moral code be imposed on anybody else. It seems obvious to say the answer is no, but for some reason it isn't.

 

It has not made my children gay to play with the children of gay parents.  It has not made them gay that they have not been taught that being gay is sinful or immoral or whatever.  Not hating gayness does not make your children gay.  Sexual orientation is not something you choose.  Could you change your sexual orientation?  Did you choose it or is it just part of you?  But you think that if people who are gay have the right to get married suddenly everyone, maybe even your kids, will decide there is no longer any reason not to be gay and they will just go for it?  Or is it that if gay people can get married then nobody will want to anymore because, you know, even "those people" can do it so what is the point?  Is that how it is going to destroy marriage?  Because I don't get it.  I guess for people who do have children who are gay, it will be a lot more difficult to convince them that they need to hide it and live a fake life, pretending that they are not gay.  

 

 

I have wanted to post this since Albeto's post on fear in the Christian community. I haven't been sure how to say it, but the above is what the conservative Christians I know are afraid of. I am part of a conservative Christian community and have heard these discussions many times. Sure, there is a lot of Bible talk, but it honestly doesn't make sense when you dig deeper. For one, because 1 man 1 woman "traditional" marriage is not the only biblical definition of marriage. And two, it seems disingenuous when nobody is trying to legislate things the Bible actually commands. For example, when is the last time Christians were picketing businesses for opening on the Sabbath? That one even made it into the 10 Commandments. This argument falls apart quickly.

 

The fear of the U.S. becoming a fallen society like those that accepted homosexuality in the past always comes up. I still have not been able to figure out which societies these were, and how their "lack of morals" led to their fall. And if that is truly the concern, there should be far less hand-wringing about the LGBT community. A very real lack of morals exists in the powers that be in this country. Apparently gay marriage will destroy America, but greed and corruption in politics and large corporations - that will have little to do with it. Yeah, I don't think so.

 

So back to the quoted. Purely anecdotal, but every conversation I have heard eventually turns to some form of "if gay marriage is allowed and accepted, more people will 'choose' it." In their mind, it must be a choice. God says homosexuality is an abomination, therefore God could not create people this way.  I think this is the real fear. A belief that being gay is a choice, and therefore their child might choose it if they are exposed to it. This is of course true so far as their kids may not feel the need to hide it. But some Christians take it further, like gay is a contagious disease.

 

I suspect (anti gay marriage) Christians who feel this way will deny it. They may even have themselves convinced that this isn't the real issue. Most know better than to bring it up in regular conversation. However, I have heard it *so often* when these conversations get deeper that I feel this is the root of the problem for many. I think the only thing that will change this thinking is time. As the LGBT community becomes more accepted, fewer people will have this fear.

 

Conversations like this one are helpful because it forces people to articulate their thinking. Like the pp stated, this is changing incredibly fast. Change can be scary and fast change can feel even worse. Some people haven't even thought through their reasons for opposing gay marriage, they just do it because it is the norm in their world. As the norm changes and as they do think it through, hopefully these opinions will change.

[TracyP]

Yes.  I was actually coming back to add that it would be equally distasteful to me if they were heterosexual couples.  So there is no difference, except that it makes people "other."  Most people don't identify positively with the Honey Boo-book folks either.     If all I knew of "the southern lifestyle" was Honey Boo-book, I might have a bad impression of southerners.

 

I think this is a fair point. It is safe to say that we all have mental images of healthy heterosexual couples to combat the Jerry Springer images. If you don't know many or even any openly gay people, images like that might give you a negative impression. You see this all the time with issues of race. People shouldn't think this way, but they do. And yes, I have been given a negative impression of the south by the media. My in-laws live in AL and trips there have done little to help. I *know* on some level that isn't fair, but my brain sometimes makes negative associations anyway.

[Tenaj]

Is this a joke? Even with a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis, by definition, Christianity did not exist until Christ was born and started his ministry.

 

Christianity began with the birth, death and resurrection of Christ.  But I believe that the Old Testament is also inspired Scripture and I was merely pointing out that the concept of marriage was ordained by God from the very beginning of the world.

[marbel]

Jerry Springer has had heterosexual couples doing the same type of stuff for years.  I see that he is branching out and trying to be inclusive now lol.  There are plenty of negative reality type shows that portray less than laudable heterosexual couples.  I don't think any of us assume that they represent all heterosexual couples.  So I am missing your point exactly.  I mean, are you saying that people who see dysfunctional gay couples are unable to stop themselves from generalizing to all gay couples and so we should not judge them too harshly for being anti gay?

 

Yes, of course heterosexual couples also appear on these shows.  But most of us have plenty of counter-examples so we know that those people are not representative of heterosexuals.  I know lots of southerners so I know that they are not all like Honey Booboo.  But if all a person knows of gay and lesbian people is what they see on tv, and it's like what I saw yesterday, they may think that's how all gay and lesbian people are.  

 

I am not saying it's right or accurate.  I'm saying this is why some people think the way they do.   

[Tenaj]

 

But what kind of marriage?

 

• Polygamous?  Gen 4:19 "Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah." Gen 26:34 Esau marries two women and another in Gen 28 (this time a cousin). Gen 29 Jacob marries sisters (who are his first cousins) then the servant of one of his wives (Gen 30).   

Poligamy was not part of God's plan.  Just because people did it does not mean that God approves.  Sin had already entered the world at this point.

• Where the spouse can be rented out for gain because she's attractive or if you think it may cause trouble? Gen 12, where Abram gives Sarai to Pharoah and gains donkeys, camels, servants, sheep and cattle.

Brought a curse on Pharoah's house.  Pharoah was just happy to get rid of them . . . not a God-ordained action on Abraham's part.  Shows that Abraham was struggling with having faith in God at that time.

• Where extramarital relations are okay in order to get a child? Gen 16  Sarai sends Abram to Hagar to produce a child. Gen 30 Rachel sends Jacob to Bilhah

The child produced by the union of Abram to Hagar did not fulfill God's promise to Abraham regarding a child.  Only the child, Isaac, from Sarai  was able to fulfill the prophecy of Abraham having as many descendants as there are stars in the sky.  Once again Abraham strayed from God's promise by taking this action.

• To your half sister? Gen 20:12 where Abraham says of Sarah "Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife" when confronted about why he has again given his wife to Abimelek and gains sheep, cattle, slaves, and land. (note the Isaac tries the same thing with the same king in Gen 26, but the king finds out Rebecca is Isaac's wife, not his sister, in time)

Same as above

• With concubines? Gen 22:24 speaks of the concubine of Nahor (Abraham's brother). Gen 36 Esau's son Eliphaz has a concubine

Same answer as before . . . People sin.  The Bible is full of sinners.

• To your cousin? Gen 24--Rebecca is the granddaughter of Nahor and so Isaac's cousin, and Abraham sends out specifically to his own father's family to find Isaac a wife. Gen 29 Jacob marries both his first cousins (his uncle's daughters)

It wasn't uncommon in that day to seek spouses from among your cousins.  It still isn't in some cultures.

 

• To your brother-in-law because you had no sons by your dead husband? Gen 38 Judah orders Onan to fulfill his duty to Tamar

Protection of the family property and family line.  Protection for the widow who has no other means of support.

 

 

 

Marriage was defined in Genesis 2:24.  All of these instances occurred after that time.  The Bible is full of people and therefore it is full of sinners.  That doesn't negate God's definition of marriage way back in the beginning.

[Lady Florida.]

I have not yet seen anyone answer the questions about which form of biblical marriage they think should be protected. Several posters have pointed out that biblical marriages were not traditionally one man + one woman, yet those who want "traditional" marriage saved have not responded. 

 

As for Jerry Springer, Cheaters, and similar shows, if someone already knows that the episodes with heterosexual couples aren't typical, why would they think the shows with gay couples are? Really. We know what this type of show is like, so why assume that when the couples are gay they're a realistic portrayal of gay couples?

 

 

ETA:  JanOH, you must have been posting while I was. I haven't yet read through it all, but at least someone finally did respond to my first point.

[KarenNC]

Is this a joke? Even with a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis, by definition, Christianity did not exist until Christ was born and started his ministry.

 

It's bound up in the doctrine of the Trinity---God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all the same entity, so whenever there is God, there is of course Jesus (and the Holy Spirit). Most of the teaching I've heard on this stems from John 1 "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God," where Jesus is identified as the Word. Therefore  Jesus was there from the beginning. As the Nicene Creed puts it: "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made..."

[Caroline]

Yes, of course heterosexual couples also appear on these shows.  But most of us have plenty of counter-examples so we know that those people are not representative of heterosexuals.  I know lots of southerners so I know that they are not all like Honey Booboo.  But if all a person knows of gay and lesbian people is what they see on tv, and it's like what I saw yesterday, they may think that's how all gay and lesbian people are.  

 

I am not saying it's right or accurate.  I'm saying this is why some people think the way they do.   

 

My guess is that most of these people have seen many homosexual couples in public, they just didn't realize it. If you are out to dinner and see two men or two women eating together, you probably assume they are just friends. I know I do. If I see a man and a woman out to dinner together, I assume they are a couple. Two men or two women at the zoo with kids? Friends or a couple? Two women holding hands at the zoo, can you imagine the reaction they would get? Man and woman holding hands at the zoo=happily married couple.

 

It just isn't acceptable to be a normal homosexual couple in public in a lot of places because someone will think you are trying to corrupt their children into being homosexuals. Think of some of the reactions in this thread to homosexuality. Would you want to be treated like that in public? Of course not. So in public, you hide who you are and let people assume you are just friends out to dinner.

[marbel]

My guess is that most of these people have seen many homosexual couples in public, they just didn't realize it. If you are out to dinner and see two men or two women eating together, you probably assume they are just friends. I know I do. If I see a man and a woman out to dinner together, I assume they are a couple. Two men or two women at the zoo with kids? Friends or a couple? Two women holding hands at the zoo, can you imagine the reaction they would get? Man and woman holding hands at the zoo=happily married couple.

 

It just isn't acceptable to be a normal homosexual couple in public in a lot of places because someone will think you are trying to corrupt their children into being homosexuals. Think of some of the reactions in this thread to homosexuality. Would you want to be treated like that in public? Of course not. So in public, you hide who you are and let people assume you are just friends out to dinner.

 

This depends on where you live!  I do see male couples and female couples out holding hands. There is not a stir; if there is a reaction it is very quiet.  I have seen men at the zoo with a baby in a stroller and they are acting very much like the parents of the baby.  No one is saying anything nasty to them.  I see women walking through IKEA hand in hand.  No one is giving them a second glance. 

 

But I live in a large metropolitan area.  I don't doubt there are areas where this is not the case. 

[Caroline]

This depends on where you live!  I do see male couples and female couples out holding hands. There is not a stir; if there is a reaction it is very quiet.  I have seen men at the zoo with a baby in a stroller and they are acting very much like the parents of the baby.  No one is saying anything nasty to them.  I see women walking through IKEA hand in hand.  No one is giving them a second glance. 

 

But I live in a large metropolitan area.  I don't doubt there are areas where this is not the case. 

 

If it is so common and so out there, then why would you say people only saw it on Jerry Springer? Now you are countering your own point.

[NicAnn]

If it is so common and so out there, then why would you say people only saw it on Jerry Springer? Now you are countering your own point.

Because in some places it is. I grew up in the Midwest. My only experience with gay people were super militant lesbians (my aunt) who truly hated men and girly girls, or energetic gay men who lived life as if it were a pride parade. The only people who were out, were the vocal ones. I just didn't know any others. Now, I live in Seattle. So my experience is that most gay families are quiet, polite, and, well, normal. But it was a perspective change for me as a very young adult.

[marbel]

This depends on where you live!  I do see male couples and female couples out holding hands. There is not a stir; if there is a reaction it is very quiet.  I have seen men at the zoo with a baby in a stroller and they are acting very much like the parents of the baby.  No one is saying anything nasty to them.  I see women walking through IKEA hand in hand.  No one is giving them a second glance. 

 

But I live in a large metropolitan area.  I don't doubt there are areas where this is not the case. 

 

 

If it is so common and so out there, then why would you say people only saw it on Jerry Springer? Now you are countering your own point.

 

I said it is common where I live.  I'm sure there are areas where it is not so common.  Those would be the areas in which Jerry Springer et. al. might be a person's only experience. I'm talking about different sets of people.   I guess there might be a few differences between, say, a small rural town in the midwest and Philadelphia.   LOL. 

 

ETA: I had not seen Nic Ann's post above in which she mentions the midwest, honest. :-)

[Aura]

Just wanted to say that I have avoided making a decision on same sex marriage. I haven't been sure how to mesh what I was taught with how I currently believe. But this thread has encouraged me to finalize and articulate what I believe with regards to...well...any marriage!

 

I've come to the conclusion that there are two types of marriage: political and sacred, and the two should be separate, particularly here in the U.S.

 

What was established in the beginning as an ideal, in my opinion, is irrelevant to what is now. Biblically, God allowed many things that he didn't consider an ideal. Jesus was very clear that how we treat each other should be loving and kind foremost, not insisting that rules and procedures be followed. Christians should remember this, and remember that religious freedom means freedom for EVERYONE to believe and act on those beliefs as they choose, not just those they agree with.

 

Most Christians I know seem to be hung up on the idea that the U.S. is a Christian nation. But this just isn't true. The U.S. is a FREE nation, granting everyone here the freedom to worship who and how they see fit (do I really need to add the caveat "as long as they're not hurting others, etc."?) To ensure true freedom of religion, we need separate the two types of marriage.

 

The government should endorse only political marriages...for tax and legal purposes. Every political marriage is preformed by a Justice of the Peace, in a more legal and official format. Not that different from the way it is now, it's just that ONLY the government can issue a political, or government-recognized marriage certificate, and religion is not involved AT ALL.

 

Sacred marriages are those done following religious beliefs. They would be preformed in addition to or in place of, and outside of, political marriages. People can choose which or both of the methods they want. If they only want a political union, fine. If they don't want the government involved and want a sacred marriage "before God." Fine.

 

This really doesn't have to be that difficult, but I think as someone said before, many Christians are afraid that homosexuality will be the downfall of a great society. They are more afraid of what might happen than in treating others in the loving manner they are called to do. If more Christians truly followed Jesus's example, and treated everyone they met with love and kindness, regardless of who or what they are...if they worked on actually helping others in the physical sense instead of being so hyper-focused on eternal destiny, then they may find that they have many more important things to focus on instead of people's sexual orientation....like real persecution, hatefulness, and greed.

[Mrs Mungo]

It's bound up in the doctrine of the Trinity---God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all the same entity, so whenever there is God, there is of course Jesus (and the Holy Spirit). Most of the teaching I've heard on this stems from John 1 "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God," where Jesus is identified as the Word. Therefore Jesus was there from the beginning. As the Nicene Creed puts it: "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made..."

None of which defines when the religion of Christianity was founded.

[albeto.]

If more Christians truly followed Jesus's example, and treated everyone they met with love and kindness, regardless of who or what they are...if they worked on actually helping others in the physical sense instead of being so hyper-focused on eternal destiny, then they may find that they have many more important things to focus on instead of people's sexual orientation....like real persecution, hatefulness, and greed.

 

I suspect every Christian sincerely believes they are treating everyone they meet with love and kindness. Not enabling dangerous behavior (tough love) and all. 

 

It might help explain why the word "hypocrisy" is so often heard in this context. 

 

And why increasing number of people (especially younger people) are no longer interested in being a part of it. 

[albeto.]

This depends on where you live!  I do see male couples and female couples out holding hands. There is not a stir; if there is a reaction it is very quiet.  I have seen men at the zoo with a baby in a stroller and they are acting very much like the parents of the baby.  No one is saying anything nasty to them.  I see women walking through IKEA hand in hand.  No one is giving them a second glance. 

 

But I live in a large metropolitan area.  I don't doubt there are areas where this is not the case. 

 

 What a romantic getaway.

 

[albeto.]

Same answer as before . . . People sin.  The Bible is full of sinners.

 

The idea that Christians would single out this one sin and ignore others like divorce (which in most cases counts as adultery, and let's call "emotional adultery" and "porn addiction" and other reasons to justify a biblically sanctioned divorce what they really are - excuses) is one reason why Christian beliefs are increasingly dismissed when considering public policy, as well as one reason why the Christian voice in public is of less and less interest, concern, and respect. Beliefs devoid of rational reason are irrelevant to rational, reasonable discourse. That is to say, at the point a defense employs belief over reason, it is ignored, or should be. I think that because it is increasingly ignored, some people interpret that as being silenced. It's not true, there's no evidence to support it. I mean, let's face it, if anyone should be silenced, it's this pastor who claims gay people are possessed by “Fart Demons†that can drive pigs to suicide. But he's not being silenced. He is being laughed at, but mockery is not persecution, it's just embarrassing. People like to jump to absurd conclusions and rally around the fear flag (Michele Bachmann: Gays Pursuing 'Tyranny,' 'Deviancy,' Polygamy, and Child Rape), but calling out that fear as irrational and offensive is not evidence of impending criminalization of Christianity or Christians.  

[albeto.]

Purely anecdotal, but every conversation I have heard eventually turns to some form of "if gay marriage is allowed and accepted, more people will 'choose' it." In their mind, it must be a choice. God says homosexuality is an abomination, therefore God could not create people this way.  I think this is the real fear. A belief that being gay is a choice, and therefore their child might choose it if they are exposed to it. This is of course true so far as their kids may not feel the need to hide it. But some Christians take it further, like gay is a contagious disease.

 

I think you've got your finger on one very hot button. The other fear, I suspect anyway, is the fear that one might be reading the bible / understanding God "wrong." If one's understanding of God is wrong, then perhaps they're putting their faith in the wrong thing. Trusting yourself to make choices based on a faith that is unreliable is a bit like trusting a bungee jump adventure to a local donkey driver. In concept it might work, but do you really want to put your [eternal] life in the wrong hands?

 

When I was a believer I also identified with the more conservative side of the spectrum. My thinking was "in for a penny, in for a pound." In other words, if I could trust Jesus this far, why would I not trust him farther?  I know it's wrong to assume my experience is universal, but I suspect it's not completely unusual. In any case, having huge challenges to my understanding really threw off my game. It really shook me up because here I was putting my trust in something I knew I couldn't confirm with touch, sight, sound, but accepted on faith. But faith is such a fleeting thing - it's based on emotions and emotions are fluid and responsive to external events. My emotions were constantly changing, which meant my faith was constantly needing an emotional upgrade to keep it strong. Something like this, the idea that I understood God incorrectly, was too hard to take. Either Jesus was trustworthy, or he wasn't. By extension, this included the bible, and my church that guided me in understanding what the bible really meant.

 

Homosexuality is one of those things that can promote a huge conflict of interest. Some people hang on to their faith, their trust, even stronger. Some modify it. The risk in either is in losing it ultimately, either concluding the whole thing is untrustworthy, or by wandering so far to the left of center you wander right off the map (the latter is what happened to me). This, I think, is another very hot button - the fear of loosing faith, the fear of children and loved ones losing faith. If God made people to be attracted to the same or to trans gendered people, what does that say about God? What does that say about how the bible should be read? What does that say about one's ability to feel confident they are understanding the bible accurately? What does it say about faith?

 

These fears, I suspect, are hidden in the whole "Gay Marriage Will Undermine Humanity" argument. It serves as a veneer that allows the individual to maintain one strongly held belief (God is good, God can be identified by [my understanding of] the bible) that is incompatible with another (I know so-and-so and he's gay and he's a good person). Ultimately, the Christian community will learn to modify the faith as it did when anti miscegenation laws went into effect, but that's hardly consolation for one facing this conflict now. 

[idnib]

The argument on this topic is always over-simplified.  Part of me wants to agree and say, "Sure, everyone should have a right to be married, regardless of their sexual orientation, in the eyes of the law.  It won't affect me personally and I can still hold to my religion and disagree with homosexual acts without any repercussions."  I would like to say that.  That would be nice if there were no consequences that followed, but that is wishful thinking.

 

I want to point out this conversation is going to quickly go down-hill because I am going to express my opinions on the topic.  There is no tolerance for views like mine on this board.  A sign of things to come, perhaps?

 

I believe when gay marriage becomes a legal "right," the nonacceptance and non-recognition of those legal rights by Christians will be called discrimination, first socially and then legally.  You cannot tell me that simply the legal recognition will be enough.  Those who are pro-gay marriage want it to be an accepted social norm, and there are some religions, including my own, in which it will never be accepted.  The fake persecution of Christians who don't accept gay marriage will eventually become a real persecution.  It will compromise free speech and eventually religious freedom.  That affects everyone, including myself and my children.

 

It validates and promotes the homosexual lifestyle.  Civil laws modify everyone's perception of acceptable forms of behavior.  Legal acceptance of gay marriage will expose my children to this new "morality" and promote it as acceptable.  It is taught in schools as acceptable.  It will affect the perceptions of right and wrong of my children and children's children.  That directly affects us.

 

It destroys the institute of marriage, the foundation of society.  That will affect all of us.  That is the point of the push towards gay marriage, I believe, at least according to these people:

 

 

I don't agree with your point of view, but thank you for actually answering a question posed here which had been previously avoided. I appreciate it.

[KarenNC]

None of which defines when the religion of Christianity was founded.

 

I understand that. I was trying to explain why many Christians (all? I don't know) see Genesis as being relevant to Christianity.

[albeto.]

I, for one, certainly hope so.  

 

I will never, ever sit quietly while people cling to their pearls and their religious books and hide behind them as a means to promote discrimination and bigotry, which is exactly what is happening here, by definition.

 

Amen. I hope these views become as intolerable as promotion of racist views are today.  As long as these views inspire public policy and private behavior, I hope they find a resounding lack of respect. I'm all about free speech, but that includes freedom to respond to blatantly erroneous, pseudo-scientific, hostile comments as they appear. 

[Saddlemomma]

I really, really hope that those of you who oppose gay marriage keep posting with your views. You and people like you are hurting my child and I am desperately trying to understand why. I have not heard an argument that I can understand yet so please keep trying. That was not meant to be rude. I really do want to understand.

 

First of all, we have to remove the Bible from the equation.  I don't invoke biblical reasons for why I don't endorse same-sex marriage.  I go back to the original reason of why the government got involved in marriage in the first place. If you truly want to understand why, may I respectfully suggest you read the following in the order I've posted them: (The first one is the most important and longest.  The second and third are very short and support the first.)

 

• http://www.str.org/publications/same-sex-marriage-challenges-and-responses#.U9Kc97G2XsE  (you'll need to click on the link at the bottom of the banner that reads: Solid Ground May/June 2004.
• http://www.str.org/quickthoughts/is-marriage-about-love#.U9Kb4LG2XsE
• http://www.str.org/blog/how-will-same-sex-marriage-hurt-you#.U9Kch7G2XsE

I hope this helps you understand where some of us are coming from.  You may not agree, and that's fine.  However, you did state that you do really want to understand.

 

Discrimination is a double-edged sword.  It cannot be avoided. If you are protecting a minority, you are usually discriminating against the majority and vice-verse.  There is no such thing as non-discrimination.  You are always discriminating against someone or something.

[poppy]

 

 

Discrimination is a double-edged sword.  It cannot be avoided. If you are protecting a minority, you are usually discriminating against the majority and vice-verse.  There is no such thing as non-discrimination.  You are always discriminating against someone or something.

 

So.  Do you think that getting rid of Jim Crow laws was discriminating against white people? Women getting the vote was discrimination against men? 

[albeto.]

... 

 

Yes, they should be welcome.  In a perfect world without sinners they would be.

 

Of course that man may hear things in the preaching he does not like.  But then all of us do, or should - because we are all sinners.

 

The argument is that Christians know equal marriage will be the downfall of society because they have in their possession the ultimate source of right and wrong (the bible, the holy ghost sharing with them the "truth," etc). But we're asked to excuse them when they cannot keep their own communities running in such a way that would support their claims? 

 

Aren't you asking to have it both ways here? 

[*Lulu*]

 

Discrimination is a double-edged sword. It cannot be avoided. If you are protecting a minority, you are usually discriminating against the majority and vice-verse. There is no such thing as non-discrimination. You are always discriminating against someone or something.

I have not yet read the links, (I will try to get to them after this), but I wanted to comment of this quoted bit because it jumped out me.

 

Could you elaborate on how saying people of all colors may swim in the same pool or drink from the same fountain discriminates against the majority?

[La Texican]

I'm reading the links, but why have I seen the arguement "homosexuals can marry, just not someone of the same sex." Why have I seen that arguement more than once? Why is that even a sentence? Why has it been said multiple times? It doesn't make much sense to me. Does it make sense to anyone else?

[Aura]

I have not yet read the links, (I will try to get to them after this), but I wanted to comment of this quoted bit because it jumped out me.

 

Could you elaborate on how saying people of all colors may swim in the same pool or drink from the same fountain discriminates against the majority?

Hmmm. Originally, I thought she meant that if the majority feels that this is a bad thing, then forcing them to do it is discriminating against them...whatever "it" is.

 

However, discrimination is about DENYING things. So, is it really discrimination? Is it denying the majority to live how they want to live (without the other side participating in things)?

[albeto.]

It's all who you know, isn't it?  :p

 

I have a friend whose aunt would punish St. Anthony if he didn't find her lost widget soon enough. She'd place a quarter at the feet of his little statue on the mantle and pray a little prayer. The quarter would go into the "poor box" at the church. If after a day he didn't deliver, the quarter was replaced with a dime, and so on. If St. Anthony didn't deliver by the time a penny had spent the day at his feet, he was turned around and punished by having to face the wall until he complied. 

 

It's not just about who you know, it's about how you negotiate.

 

;-)

[KarenNC]

Marriage was defined in Genesis 2:24.  All of these instances occurred after that time.  The Bible is full of people and therefore it is full of sinners.  That doesn't negate God's definition of marriage way back in the beginning.

 

I'm not sure how to quote responses that are interleaved with my post, but I'll try.

 

Abraham---Pharaoh and Abimelek, the unwitting dupes in these situations, were the ones punished by God, not Abraham or Sarah, the ones actually in the marriage. In fact, Abraham made out like a bandit both times in terms of slaves, livestock, land, etc. I am not aware of any evidence that he was ever punished for having married his half-sister, but the union was used to found the Jews. It seems unlikely that God was unable to find *anybody* else in a non-related marriage or, if was done to make a point, that part wasn't mentioned (as it was with Hosea and Gomer).

 

polygamy---"just because people did it doesn't mean God approves"---okay, how does one discriminate between those things that people did in the Bible with the things they did of which he approves? There are multiple instances of men in polygamous marriages being amply rewarded, and Jesus failed to take the opportunity to speak out against it when directly questioned in both Luke 20 and Mark 12. I am not aware of instances of people being punished for having more than one wife. Instead, it simply seems to be one option. There are instances of people of specific rank being told to have only one wife, but there are also other behavioral restrictions on particular people (think the priestly class) that aren't generally applicable. Bilhah does more properly fall in this category, btw, my mistake.

 

Cousin marriages---why do cousin marriages get a pass as being not "uncommon in those days" when polygamy does not? Is this another instance of people did it but God doesn't approve, though he neglected to mention that or to punish those who transgressed?

 

Levirate marriage---if it was permissible, indeed commanded, to have a type of marriage  that would otherwise not be an acceptable sexual situation in order to safeguard property and protect those who had no other means of support, is there an argument for same sex marriage to safeguard the legal and property rights of individuals and their children or to protect a partner with no other means of support permissible?

 

Overall, I find little support in the Bible that God was any more opposed to these kinds of marriages or had less to do with establishing them than he was to having a single partner as a general rule. 

[KarenNC]

I have a friend whose aunt would punish St. Anthony if he didn't find her lost widget soon enough. She'd place a quarter at the feet of his little statue on the mantle and pray a little prayer. The quarter would go into the "poor box" at the church. If after a day he didn't deliver, the quarter was replaced with a dime, and so on. If St. Anthony didn't deliver by the time a penny had spent the day at his feet, he was turned around and punished by having to face the wall until he complied. 

 

It's not just about who you know, it's about how you negotiate.

 

;-)

 

I have a friend who did anthropological fieldwork in Chiapas a number of years ago. There, if the saints didn't answer prayers for rain, etc properly, they were punished by having bits broken off of their statues---fingers, toes, etc.

[KarenNC]

I'm reading the links, but why have I seen the arguement "homosexuals can marry, just not someone of the same sex." Why have I seen that arguement more than once? Why is that even a sentence? Why has it been said multiple times? It doesn't make much sense to me. Does it make sense to anyone else?

 

It comes from the mindset that homosexuality is a choice, so they could equally as well choose to marry someone of the opposite gender. Now, that those same people are not able to choose equally  easily to change their sexual orientation, doesn't seem to enter into it.

[albeto.]

I have a friend who did anthropological fieldwork in Chiapas a number of years ago. There, if the saints didn't answer prayers for rain, etc properly, they were punished by having bits broken off of their statues---fingers, toes, etc.

 

That is some hard core worship!

 

:laugh:

[Mrs Mungo]

 

 

Discrimination is a double-edged sword. It cannot be avoided. If you are protecting a minority, you are usually discriminating against the majority and vice-verse. There is no such thing as non-discrimination. You are always discriminating against someone or something.

No. It is not discriminating against people to not give them their way. That is faulty reasoning. Having colored drinking fountains is discrimination. Having to use the same drinking fountain as black people is not discrimination.

[*Lulu*]

Just wanted to quote this bit from the most recent blog post of the blogger who wrote the article posted in the OP.

 

"It’s not discrimination when we are prevented from doing the discriminating. It’s not persecution when we are prevented from doing the persecuting. It’s not bullying when we’re told that we can’t bully others."

 

I would love to have someone explain to me why this is not right.

 

While we are at it, I have asked multiple times in this thread for someone to explain to me how telling school children it is alright to be gay is anymore a religious discrimination than saying it is alright for girls/women to have their heads uncovered, adults to drink or have tattoos, or girls to wear pants. All things that are considered anywhere from undesirable to sinful in certain religious groups.

[La Texican]

It comes from the mindset that homosexuality is a choice, so they could equally as well choose to marry someone of the opposite gender. Now, that those same people are not able to choose equally easily to change their sexual orientation, doesn't seem to enter into it.

it still doesn't add up. If they chose to be homosexual, then why would they want a same sex marraige? Oh. Is it a rhetorical device to say if they don't want a same sex marraige, then what are we talking about, because marraige means same sex by definition?

[bibiche]

I have a friend who did anthropological fieldwork in Chiapas a number of years ago. There, if the saints didn't answer prayers for rain, etc properly, they were punished by having bits broken off of their statues---fingers, toes, etc.

They get whipped, too, those naughty naughties!

[La Texican]

These points sounded more reasonable.

 

"They want to change legal definitions of marraige undemocratically, by judicial fiat."

True, efforts were made by taking cases to court instead of just making a vote.

 

"They want benefits other loving pairs, such as sisters who live togeather their whole life, don't get, which are reserved for married people."

[La Texican]

"Further, if love were the sine qua non of marriage, no “for better or for worse†promises would be needed at the altar.  Vows aren’t meant to sustain love; they are meant to sustain the union when love wanes. A pledge keeps a family intact not for love, but for the sake of children."

 

The second link argues this, which follows the reasoning that sisters don't get the same benefit of married couples. I can agree with both of those statements, but cannot agree that gender discrimination in marriage is the logical conclusion. You can't marry if you can't have kids (it happens) or even if you already have kids, or even if you plan to adopt or have kids by surrogacy, if you're a same sex couple.

[La Texican]

Now I feel bad because you didn't offer those links for me to tell you why they're wrong. Off to read the last one.

[Catwoman]

I have a friend whose aunt would punish St. Anthony if he didn't find her lost widget soon enough. She'd place a quarter at the feet of his little statue on the mantle and pray a little prayer. The quarter would go into the "poor box" at the church. If after a day he didn't deliver, the quarter was replaced with a dime, and so on. If St. Anthony didn't deliver by the time a penny had spent the day at his feet, he was turned around and punished by having to face the wall until he complied. 

 

It's not just about who you know, it's about how you negotiate.

 

;-)

Wow. Using strong-arm tactics against Saint Anthony... :eek:

[Mrs Mungo]

"They want to change legal definitions of marraige undemocratically, by judicial fiat."

This is a misunderstanding of our system of government. The people and/or our representatives make laws. The judicial branch interprets those laws and/or decides whether they are constitutional. Many judges were deciding that laws about marriage needed to be applied to couples equally. So, in many states people made laws specifically making SSM illegal. Those laws are being found to be unconstitutional. We do not have a strict democracy in the US. The will of the people is not the law of the land. Our constitutional and system of checks and balances is specifically, intentionally designed to prevent the majority from making laws that harm minority groups.

 

 

 

"They want benefits other loving pairs, such as sisters who live togeather their whole life, don't get, which are reserved for married people."

 

I think having civil unions in which anyone can pick a partner to be legally bound to would solve this problem.

 

 

Isn't hate speech and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation already illegal?

 

No. Hate speech isn't generally forbidden in the US. We have very few laws restricting speech, and they mostly apply to something like speech in the workplace. Here is an interesting article that explores the reasons for this: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/free-speech-isnt-free/283672/. And no, sexual orientation is not a protected class in many states.

 

 

I understand that. I was trying to explain why many Christians (all? I don't know) see Genesis as being relevant to Christianity.

But, again, that has nothing to do with what I said. I said that marriage existed long before Christianity. That is a fact. The existence of the book of Genesis doesn't change that fact at all.

[La Texican]

The third one is the most valid fear, legally having to do business in a context you feel is immoral if immoral people legally gain equal rights and become a protected class. No amount of comparing blacks to gays will mollify a baker, photographer, or minister who does not want to be forced to participate in any way in a gay ceremony. Even the hobby lobby ruling doesn't address this concern, because it can always be overturned. And if gays already have rights, and the courts later decide that businesses are not a moral extention of their owners, then what?