Article: Real vs Fake Persecution CC

[marbel]

That makes absolute sense to me when you're talking about Biblical marriage.  

 

Legal marriage is another story entirely.  It is a contract; a civil right.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone's religion.  I'm not actually sure how anyone can see this part of it any differently.  You are not required to have any sort of service that has anything to do with anyone's faith in order to have a legal contract of marriage.  Similarly, you are not required to be legally sanctioned in order to be married in the eyes of God.  

 

Two separate issues, and types of marriage, entirely. 

 

There are quite a few people who support the idea of everyone having a civil union (and calling it that rather than legal marriage) and "reserving" (for lack of a better word) the word "marriage" for couples married within a religious context.  This would not solve the SSM issue, though, as there are many places of worship, Christian and otherwise, that perform such marriages.   It would solve the civil rights issue though, I think.  But I am not a legal scholar. 

 

 

[AlmiraGulch]

There are quite a few people who support the idea of everyone having a civil union (and calling it that rather than legal marriage) and "reserving" (for lack of a better word) the word "marriage" for couples married within a religious context.  This would not solve the SSM issue, though, as there are many places of worship, Christian and otherwise, that perform such marriages.   It would solve the civil rights issue though, I think.  But I am not a legal scholar. 

 

I don't see why calling it by a different name makes any difference.  What's at issue are the legal rights and benefits afforded to married couples that same sex couples in most places do not currently enjoy.  

 

"Marriage" is a legal term, not just a religious one.  The marriage contract, just like any other legal contract, should not be governed or altered based on any one group's religious beliefs.  

 

For that matter, those whose marriage is faith-based are more than welcome to call it something other than "marriage", if the word itself is at issue and they want to insure that their union is recognized as something different than that of same sex couples.    Call it "Spiritual Union" or something.  That's cool.  But it's not the same as the legal contract.  

[poppy]

There are quite a few people who support the idea of everyone having a civil union (and calling it that rather than legal marriage) and "reserving" (for lack of a better word) the word "marriage" for couples married within a religious context.  This would not solve the SSM issue, though, as there are many places of worship, Christian and otherwise, that perform such marriages.   It would solve the civil rights issue though, I think.  But I am not a legal scholar. 

 

This is basically how it already works, except now couples married by a Justice of the Peace (or whatever) are not forbidden from using the term "marriage".

 

I was married by a preacher outside my faith.  We got hitched in Jamaica at one of those "stay a week and the wedding is included" places.   I expected it to be a quick, fairly bland ceremony. But it turns out the preacher was quite vocally and bombastically Christian. (I don't mean that in a bad way).  Which, in retrospect, should not have been a surprise; Jamaica is far more Christian than my home state of Massachusetts. It was odd to get a religious ceremony when I expected a JoP ceremony!  We had a fun time, and obviously had full respect for the man of the cloth who married us. 

 

No point I guess.... just felt like sharing that anecdote.

[chiguirre]

I don't believe that this is the case.   More like this, I think:  God instituted marriage. I guess you could  say that God "owns" marriage. And it was between a man and a woman.  So that is marriage, period.   Any other combinations do not fit the definition of marriage. 

 

Obviously I am not speaking for anyone but myself, and my own understanding of objections.

I think you've hit on it, Marbel. Of course the reason that this argument isn't voiced (or I haven't heard it voiced in MSM) is that would invalidate all the current marriages where at least one partner isn't a Christian.

[HRAAB]

I don't believe that this is the case.   More like this, I think:  God instituted marriage. I guess you could  say that God "owns" marriage. And it was between a man and a woman.  So that is marriage, period.   Any other combinations do not fit the definition of marriage. 

 

Obviously I am not speaking for anyone but myself, and my own understanding of objections. 

 

Saying Christians 'owned' marriage wasn't very well thought out.  Would it be fair to say marriage belongs to God, and that some Christians feel they need to protect the Godly institution of marriage - even civil marriage?  

 

I guess that's where the disconnect is for me.  I used to believe similarly about marriage, and it was the job of the church to protect marriage, but that didn't extend to civil marriage.

[maize]

If anyone wants to read a perspective on the marriage debate from the POV of one religious institution, this is what my church has to say: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/the-divine-institution-of-marriage

 

I'm not up to discussing here (sorry, the atmosphere just seems more negative than I personally can handle ATM) but if anyone wants to discuss via PM I will try.

[HRAAB]

I am sure you are right in at least some cases. The problem, as I see it, is pinning down exactly what type of marriage was " instituted by God" as shown in the Christian Bible (using the Protestant one here, because it is the one with which I am most familiar, there may be other instances in the material included in the Roman Catholic version). Is it marriage with your half-sister? Being required to marry your rapist with no possibility of divorce? Being required to marry your dead husband's brother if you had no sons by your dead husband? Having multiple wives? Having concubines? All of these were either commanded by God or those in these situations were described as being blessed by God in the Bible.

 

Now, marrying foreigners or those outside the faith or remarrying a former spouse if one has been married in between were all specifically *not* allowed, also according to the Bible.

 

So, which ones are the "traditional Biblical marriages" being argued for when most of the same folk who are against same sex marriage seem to also be against the examples in the first paragraph and not to have a problem with allowing marriages like those in the second paragraph to be legal? It's pretty evident to me that marriage has changed dramatically at times over the centuries, even in religious terms within Christianity and within the Bible.

 

My own grandfather was legally allowed to marry his step-granddaughter (his daughter's step daughter), which to me is a lot more problematic and potentially destructive to family structures than allowing two unrelated adults of the same sex to marry.

 

I would be very interested in hearing a Christian respond to this post.  When I was a Christian, it wasn't something I really gave much though to - how did we arrive at our current understanding of marriage

[DawnM]

HA.  You reminded me of a job I had teaching at a middle school with a lot of secular teachers.  I was called "the little church girl."

 

Honestly, it didn't bother me.  I wasn't invited to the bar nights or events they attended many times, but when they had issues, guess who they came and asked to pray for them?

 

I still didn't feel persecuted or hated.

 

 

I do have people that mock my participation in my faith, I'm unlikely to have a jury of fellow Catholics, and I've actually been called to my face, "the token Christian". But...I hang out with a lot of atheists. (and I'm not the person you were asking)

 

that said, none of those things are persecution. Even those stupid Jack Chick tracts that are anti catholic are not persecution. 

 

[marbel]

Saying Christians 'owned' marriage wasn't very well thought out.  Would it be fair to say marriage belongs to God, and that some Christians feel they need to protect the Godly institution of marriage - even civil marriage?  

 

I guess that's where the disconnect is for me.  I used to believe similarly about marriage, and it was the job of the church to protect marriage, but that didn't extend to civil marriage.

 

I guess I don't understand the concept of protecting marriage.  I mean, I understand what you are saying, :-).  I have just never thought about it that way.

 

Now, Christians do have a duty to help others refrain from sinning, or to be careful not to enable sin.  So, if SSM is a sin, Christians should not support it because it would enable others to sin.   I don't know that "not supporting it" = voting against it in a ballot initiative.  It could mean just not voting on it.

 

What keeps coming to mind as I'm typing is that God is capable of protecting marriage, whatever that would look like.  The original intent of marriage did not include multiple wives, forced marriages, etc.  Again this is my own understanding so I am not making a pronouncement that I am correct and anyone who disagrees is wrong.

 

 

[PeacefulChaos]

Thinking out loud here, and I'm sure someone will set me straight.  Is part of the issue that there are Christians who believe that marriage is Biblical, that it was instituted by God, and because of that belief, they (some Christians) believe that marriage should be controlled by them?  That they, in a way, own marriage, and it is their responsibility to see that marriage is conducted according to their beliefs?

 

There's really no snark in my question.  Again, I'm trying to understand  on what grounds so many Christians vehemently disagree with marriage equality.

 

No.  I've never heard anything like that.  

Mostly, I hear Christians say everything that has been said here.  That SSM is the degeneration of our society, and that every society that has fallen over the course of time has been precluded by a 'sexual revolution' within that society.  (Don't ask me to cite references.  I can't remember.  I've read so many things over the past several years... Sigh.)  That being homosexual is a sin, and shouldn't be allowed.  Etc. Etc. 

That sort of thing.  Never anything regarding the 'ownership' of marriage or anything like that, other than the quip 'God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!'  ha ha... no, you're not funny.  :glare:

 

Sorry.  I'm so tired of this topic lol.  

Saying Christians 'owned' marriage wasn't very well thought out.  Would it be fair to say marriage belongs to God, and that some Christians feel they need to protect the Godly institution of marriage - even civil marriage?  

 

I guess that's where the disconnect is for me.  I used to believe similarly about marriage, and it was the job of the church to protect marriage, but that didn't extend to civil marriage.

 

Not really.  There are many Christians who believe that our country was founded as a Christian nation (thank you, Religious Right!  Sigh again...) and that to allow something that, to them, is clearly against Christian beliefs, would be totally wrong.  Etc. 

 

The closest thing I can think of to what you are describing is what a family member of mine has said - that 'marriage' in itself does belong to God, and that civil unions just used the same word because it was easiest.  So they wouldn't be against all civil unions (heterosexual, SSM, whatev) being referred to as such, and all church marriages being referred to as marriage.  

 

That's what I've observed.

 

~Signed, a Christian who is okay with SSM

[idnib]

I note that ISIS are suggesting that all girls and women between the ages of 11 and 46, living in or around Mosul, should undergo FGM.

 

Now that's persecution.

 

Marriage equality ? Not so much.

 

 

I think it's possible the ISIS thing is not true, although I'm not defending ISIS. In regards to FGM I completely agree with you.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

If anyone wants to read a perspective on the marriage debate from the POV of one religious institution, this is what my church has to say: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/the-divine-institution-of-marriage

 

I'm not up to discussing here (sorry, the atmosphere just seems more negative than I personally can handle ATM) but if anyone wants to discuss via PM I will try.

 

 

The article you linked is fairly weak, as it 1.) fails to explain how marriage should be based on Christian beliefs when most cultures, Christian or not, had marriage ceremonies, and 2.) it is extrememly disingenuous (I would argue it borders on lying by omission) regarding some recent cases regarding SSM and religious "freedoms."

 

And again, making the case for secular laws to be based on religious beliefs is a bit of a fail from the start.

[La Texican]

If anyone wants to read a perspective on the marriage debate from the POV of one religious institution, this is what my church has to say: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/the-divine-institution-of-marriage

 

I'm not up to discussing here (sorry, the atmosphere just seems more negative than I personally can handle ATM) but if anyone wants to discuss via PM I will try.

The article said we already have 50% unwed mothers, and abortion, and that the gay marraige is continuing the downtrend of the disintegrating nuclear family that children need to thrive.

So the "nays" wished they could go back in time and change those other things, but this is the issue here and now where they can fight the good fight.

 

The "yays" compare this to a part of an uptrend in civil rights, people learning to be more civil to other people...first the blacks, then the women, now the gays, getting to live normally if they want. The yays think things are getting better, the nays think things are getting worse.

 

Hard to think about the world being better or worse. The world just has so many people it has to be better for some, and worse for others around the world and around town. What would cause a "yay" to vote "nay", to give up the march of progress of human rights? If it would make the world better. What would cause a "nay" to vote "yay"? If they thought it wouldn't mess the world up worse.

[Heidi]

But it's not really a discussion. The poster said she felt bullied, and that an agenda was being pushed down her throat, and that those in favor of 'traditional marriage' try to put forth reasonable arguments but cut off by cries persecution, and that people aren't respectful. Then she claimed dogpile. Then she said discussion is impossible. At no point has actually said anything that makes an argument against gay marriage. It's all just complaining about how much people who disagree with that side are bullies who are impossible to talk with.

 

I can say why I think gay marriage should be legal. It's really easy to talk about, from my perspective. I'd LOVE to. Why can't we?

She was just called a BIGOT for her beliefs over the definition of marriage. She didn't feel bullied. She IS being bullied. Is this acceptable behavior on this board? Everyone is ok with that?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

She was just called a BIGOT for her beliefs over the definition of marriage. She didn't feel bullied. She IS being bullied. Is this acceptable behavior on this board? Everyone is ok with that?

 

And telling other board members that their relationships and beliefs are invalid, not worthy of protection, and a sign of moral decay isn't bullying?  Those words have been spoken here many times, yet were generally given a pass.

 

When you are using your personal religious beliefs to argue against the civil rights of others, then a little backlash should be expected.  And yes, we do have members here in same sex relationships (probably more than you think) who have been hurt by those words.

[BrookValley.]

She was just called a BIGOT for her beliefs over the definition of marriage. She didn't feel bullied. She IS being bullied. Is this acceptable behavior on this board? Everyone is ok with that?

 

I suppose you're talking about my comment.

 

My comment was made after the poster said she was being bullied. Nobody was bullying anyone. And I didn't actually directly call anyone a bigot.

 

However, yeah, denying people the same rights as others over a religious belief, by definition, is bigotry. For some reason, people seem to think that saying "oh, but it's my belief" means it is somehow beyond reproach, and anyone calling it out is a "bully." I really fail to see the logic in that, and I think it's a total cop-out. Go ahead and own it. This "belief" is really, truly hurtful to people. It affects people's lives in ways you obviously cannot imagine. But it's your "belief," so I can't voice disagreement, and call it out for what it is, without being a bully? Really? Who's the bully here?

[maize]

I think people probably OFTEN forget there are LGBT parents here, and there are parents of LGBT children here.

 

At least, that's how I choose to interpret the fact people are open about wanting to deny those members marriage equality.

I am very much aware of the situation of same sex couples and acknowledge the real challenges they face. It may be hard for some to conceive of, but it is entirely possible to both seek to understand and treat others with compassion and still make choices that go against the desires or most obvious benefit of someone--when perceived detriments outweigh that benefit.

 

You do not know me, nor my circle of family and friends. I do know that some times the things I choose to stand up for are the very things that are painful to people I care about. I do not make choices without thought, or without feeling. If it were always possible both to stand for what I believe is best and at the same time not cause pain to others, I would gladly make that choice. Since I have not always found it to be possible, I make the best decisions I can and try to live my life with humility, integrity, compassion, and faith.

 

I find life to be complex, and right and wrong are not always clear and uncomplicated. I do the best I can.

[zoobie]

I suppose you're talking about my comment.

 

My comment was made after the poster said she was being bullied. Nobody was bullying anyone. And I didn't actually directly call anyone a bigot.

 

However, yeah, denying people the same rights as others over a religious belief, by definition, is bigotry. For some reason, people seem to think that saying "oh, but it's my belief" means it is somehow beyond reproach, and anyone calling it out is a "bully." I really fail to see the logic in that, and I think it's a total cop-out. Go ahead and own it. This "belief" is really, truly hurtful to people. It affects people's lives in ways you obviously cannot imagine. But it's your "belief," so I can't voice disagreement, and call it out for what it is, without being a bully? Really? Who's the bully here?

It's not you. It's the new talking point. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/23/rubio-decries-intolerance-against-same-sex-marriage-opponents/

[BrookValley.]

It's not you. It's the new talking point. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/23/rubio-decries-intolerance-against-same-sex-marriage-opponents/

 

:banghead:   Oh, good grief. That makes my brain hurt. And not just because I seem to be repeatedly banging my head against a brick wall. There are some impressive mental gymnastics going on there.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I am very much aware of the situation of same sex couples and acknowledge the real challenges they face. It may be hard for some to conceive of, but it is entirely possible to both seek to understand and treat others with compassion and still make choices that go against the desires or most obvious benefit of someone--when perceived detriments outweigh that benefit.

 

You do not know me, nor my circle of family and friends. I do know that some times the things I choose to stand up for are the very things that are painful to people I care about. I do not make choices without thought, or without feeling. If it were always possible both to stand for what I believe is best and at the same time not cause pain to others, I would gladly make that choice. Since I have not always found it to be possible, I make the best decisions I can and try to live my life with humility, integrity, compassion, and faith.

 

I find life to be complex, and right and wrong are not always clear and uncomplicated. I do the best I can.

 

Here is where you lose me: how is letting consenting adults make their own decisions have any impact on your life?  In what way are you directly affected by a gay couple marrying?

[Catwoman]

HA. You reminded me of a job I had teaching at a middle school with a lot of secular teachers. I was called "the little church girl."

 

Honestly, it didn't bother me. I wasn't invited to the bar nights or events they attended many times, but when they had issues, guess who they came and asked to pray for them?

 

I still didn't feel persecuted or hated.

One of my cousins told me that when she was in college, she was the only Catholic in her group of friends, so whenever anyone lost anything, they'd ask her to pray to Saint Anthony for them. :D

[Rosie_0801]

One of my cousins told me that when she was in college, she was the only Catholic in her group of friends, so whenever anyone lost anything, they'd ask her to pray to Saint Anthony for them. :D

 

It's all who you know, isn't it?  :P

[Mrs Mungo]

Thinking out loud here, and I'm sure someone will set me straight. Is part of the issue that there are Christians who believe that marriage is Biblical, that it was instituted by God, and because of that belief, they (some Christians) believe that marriage should be controlled by them? That they, in a way, own marriage, and it is their responsibility to see that marriage is conducted according to their beliefs?

 

There's really no snark in my question. Again, I'm trying to understand on what grounds so many Christians vehemently disagree with marriage equality.

I am a Christian. I believe in the sanctity of my marriage. I think marriage has a two-fold purpose. One is religious. The other has to do with civil benefits. The latter shouldn't be controlled by religious beliefs. Separating them makes sense to me. Like in Europe, everyone could get married at the courthouse, then have a religious ceremony, if they choose to do so.

[Heidi]

Here is where you lose me: how is letting consenting adults make their own decisions have any impact on your life?  In what way are you directly affected by a gay couple marrying?

 

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:

 

"Opting out of marriage altogether will provide a quicker path to progress, as only the death of marriage can bring about the dawn of equality for all."

-- Dr. Meagan Tyler,

Lecturer in Sociology at Victoria University

 

 "The real question that should be debated is not whether gay marriage should be allowed, but rather, is marriage really something we need anymore?"

-- David Vakalis

 

  "A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. [Legalizing "same-sex marriage"] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.â€

-- Michelangelo Signorile,

OUT magazine, December/January 1994

 

 "And after all, we are advocating the destruction of the centrality of marriage and the nuclear family unit... ."

-- Ryan Conrad

 

 "But perhaps the next step isn’t to, once again, expand the otherwise narrow definition of marriage but to altogether abolish the false distinction between married families and other equally valid but unrecognized partnerships."

-- Sally Kohn,

Prop 8: Let’s Get Rid of Marriage Instead!

 

 "Wouldn't marriage's death as a state institution, including for straight people, be the best solution? ...Scrap the civil register; make no distinction in the state's eyes between married and unmarried citizens."

-- Alex Gabriel, 

Politics.co.uk

 

 "Marriage is the proverbial burning building.  Instead of pounding on the door to be let in... queers should be stoking the flames!"

-- National Conference on Organized Resistance

 

 "Marriage should not be a goal; it should be a choice. One choice available out of many recognized as valid by society. But it isn’t. Not yet. Right now, as far as society is concerned, you are married or you are not yet married. And as that notion becomes further codified our freedom to make other choices steadily erodes."

-- David McGee

 

 "The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."

-- Paul Varnell,

Chicago Free Press

 

 "We must aim at the abolition of the family, so that the sexist, male supremacist system can no longer be nurtured there."

-- Gay Liberation Front: Manifesto,

London, 1971, revised 1978

 

“Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. ... We must keep our eyes on the goal ... of radically reordering society’s views of reality." [source]

-- Paula Ettelbrick

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

 

 "... fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist."

-- Masha Gessen, journalist

During a pannel discussion at the Sydney Writers Festival

 

 

I'm guessing that for those who promote gay marriage, these are not real issues.  Perhaps you do not believe institution of traditional, heterosexual marriage is the bedrock of society, the new morality IS your morality, and those who oppose it should be silenced and/or forced to accept that which you believe is right.  It is a battle of beliefs, it seems.

[TeacherZee]

The thing is, other countries have gay marriage, and have had for many years, and their society functions quite well so the fall down of society argument fails. In addition it hasn't led to children being taught about homosexuality other than in the we must respect everyone way. I would hope that even though you believe homosexuality is a sin you still teach basic human respect.

[Mrs Mungo]

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.

There is a disconnect here.

 

People are allowed to be racist. Free speech laws protect Westboro and allow them to protest and say nasty, hateful things. Free speech does not protect them against push back or people disagreeing with them or counter-protesting. Free speech is a two way street. It doesn't erode free speech for you to experience (non-violent, non-harmful) repercussions due to expressing your opinions. Suffragettes went to jail for protesting and wanting the vote. Freedom riders were murdered in their quest to achieve civil rights protections. People were killed in riots fighting for protections for workers. Someone disagreeing with you or not liking your opinion is not you experiencing persecution.

 

It validates and promotes the homosexual lifestyle. Civil laws modify everyone's perception of acceptable forms of behavior.

Civil behavior. Adultery, lying, coveting, divorce, drinking to excess, gambling to excess, smoking, greed, sloth there are lots of behaviors that I feel are unacceptable that are legal and that people engage in on a regular basis. I can say tomy children, "I feel this behavior is bad/has a negative impact on people's lives" without demanding that they all be made illegal. Legal does not equal moral.

 

It destroys the institute of marriage, the foundation of society.

Marriage was around long before Christianity.

[Tenaj]

Marriage was around long before Christianity.

 

 

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

[Tanaqui]

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

 

Even if you're looking at the Bible as an unadulturated, extremely factual historical document, you surely know that the events in Genesis predate the birth of Christ - don't you?

[Onceuponatime]

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

 

People, and marriage, came before the book of Genesis, which did not exist in its present form till the 800's BCE at the very earliest.

[stripe]

Seriously? :confused:

 

We must watch totally different TV shows, because I can't remember the last time I saw a TV character saying grace or going to church. And what currently popular shows make a point of having their characters be religious? I can't think of any.

Okay, granted I am still back in season 5 of a 7 season show, but Murdoch Mysteries has a scientifically minded Catholic homicide detective who received a Jesuit education, makes the sign of the cross whenever he sees a dead body (which would be at least once per show) and who struggles with moral issues at times, and is the victim of some anti-Catholic slurs. It is a Canadian show, though....as was Little Mosque on the Prairie. Hmm.

 

Anyway, I don't know about people saying grace too often on TV, but they are shown shopping for Christmas and having Easter egg hunts and the like, or some nod to Judaism. There are a lot of jokes about bar mitzvahs. ;)

 

 

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

Do you mean that it was established with the pairing of Adam and Eve? I am not aware of any Christian scholarship that says the book of Genesis was written concurrent with the happenings described in it.

 

I frankly don't quite understand the Christian position(s) on marriage given the long list of prophets who, according to the Bible, had concubines, multiple wives, harems, a side relationship with a handmaid to produce a child, and the like, but I don't want to sound as if I am attacking Christianity; I simply am perplexed.

[Laura Corin]

 Like in Europe, everyone could get married at the courthouse, then have a religious ceremony, if they choose to do so.

 

Currently, in the UK, Gay people have more partnership options than straight people do.  As we inched toward Gay marriage, we went through a half-way stage called 'civil partnership', which was only open to same-sex couples.  Then same-sex marriage was brought in.  Civil partnership was never offered to straight couples - as you can have a non-religious marriage at the registry office (or a stately home, or a hotel...) anyway, CP for straight people was considered an unnecessary complication.  Some straight people are still pushing for CP to be offered to them too, however.

 

So - three options.  One for straight people, two for Gay people.  Not a big deal - just one of those historical accidents.  The only issue comes when a civilly partnered couple wants to marry.  They have to divorce first.

 

L

[Laura Corin]

I'm guessing that for those who promote gay marriage, these are not real issues.  Perhaps you do not believe institution of traditional, heterosexual marriage is the bedrock of society, the new morality IS your morality, and those who oppose it should be silenced and/or forced to accept that which you believe is right.  It is a battle of beliefs, it seems.

 

When my parents' traditional, solemnised-in-church marriage broke down due to my father's infidelity, it was my mother's relationship with another woman that became my stability.  Where is the bedrock and where the shifting sand?

 

L

[SadieMarie]

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:

 

 

What exactly is the "gay lifestyle"?  

 

Is this "real persecution" of which you speak about the cakes again?  

 

How will it affect free speech?  People who believe that whites are superior to all other colors of people are free to say so and put it in pamphlets and even on signs and march around in public.  There are people who teach their children their racist beliefs.  That is not illegal either.  Are you thinking that if gay marriage is legal they won't be able to continue to do the same regarding people who are homosexual?  How do you work that out exactly?  Is it because it will be harder if your children see happy families headed by gay couples and see that they are the same as any other happy family and so it will be a little harder to make the case?

 

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.  

 

Gay marriage has been legal in my state for a while.  There are gay couples in our social circle.  My children play with theirs.  It has had ZERO impact on my marriage.  I also know heterosexual couples who did not bother to get married and yet live together and raise their kids.  People can do that, and have been, for a long time.  That is not a new thing that just arrived with gay marriage.  That is how gay couples had to do it before it was legal for them to get married.  Is gay marriage going to somehow taint your marriage?  Being around gay couples and having friends who are openly and happily gay has not tempted me into being a lesbian lol.  I have not once considered the possibility of leaving dh and his man parts to try some of that lesbian sex.  I can absolutely, positively tell you that it is not contagious.  

 

 

[DawnM]

I think this is key.

 

I am a Christian.  I am even Evangelical.  I am often appalled at the distain for people who are gay.  If all sex outside of a traditional marriage is wrong/sinful, then why is homosexual sin thought of as "more wrong?"

 

I really don't care to get into a discussion because I am not sure I can convey what truly is in my heart.  I am not pro-gay, as in fight for the cause pro, but I am most certainly not anti gay people.  I was engaged to a man at one time in my early 20s who now lives with a man.  I still care about him very much and he knows it.

 

I just don't see Jesus as being anti-this or anti-that.  People are far more attuned to what Christians stand against than what they stand for.  I have a hard time with that because I think Christians really created it and we need to stop.  

 

Recently a gay man came in to our church.  He was there to meet with a pastor.  Our associate pastor listened to him tell him that his partner was dying of cancer and that no Christian would talk to him or pray with him (we were the 5th church he came to and no one else would give him the time of day once he said he was gay).  Our assoc. pastor prayed with him, for him, and for his partner.  The man then told him that he had grown up in the church and wanted to come visit and asked if he would be welcome at our church.  Our assoc. pastor had to be honest and tell him he didn't know.   When he told that story I cried.  How can we even say we are believers and not welcome a person who wants to come?   I am quite sure our church is not alone in that.

 

I guess for not wanting to get into a discussion, I got into a discussion.  Sorry about that.  

 

 

The thing is, other countries have gay marriage, and have had for many years, and their society functions quite well so the fall down of society argument fails. In addition it hasn't led to children being taught about homosexuality other than in the we must respect everyone way. I would hope that even though you believe homosexuality is a sin you still teach basic human respect.

 

[Vera]

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.

People who are gay just are gay. There is no right and wrong involved. It is like having brown hair or being left handed. It just IS.

 

I understand that the homosexuality will be validated but I don't understand what you mean by the homosexual lifestyle. In my experience there is no homosexual lifestyle. The way homosexuals live is as varied as the way that heterosexuals live. Also, what do you mean by the lifestyle will be promoted? I can't figure out what that might entail. Do you mean that homosexuals will start recruiting for their team? You can't make someone gay just like you can't make someone heterosexual. I will repeat that someone's sexual orientation just is what it is.

[KarenNC]

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

 

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

[marbel]

<snip>

 

Recently a gay man came in to our church.  He was there to meet with a pastor.  Our associate pastor listened to him tell him that his partner was dying of cancer and that no Christian would talk to him or pray with him (we were the 5th church he came to and no one else would give him the time of day once he said he was gay).  Our assoc. pastor prayed with him, for him, and for his partner.  The man then told him that he had grown up in the church and wanted to come visit and asked if he would be welcome at our church.  Our assoc. pastor had to be honest and tell him he didn't know.   When he told that story I cried.  How can we even say we are believers and not welcome a person who wants to come?   I am quite sure our church is not alone in that.

 

I guess for not wanting to get into a discussion, I got into a discussion.  Sorry about that.  

 

This is a sad story.   But I want to comment on the bolded. 

 

I can imagine my pastor, or myself, telling a gay man that I didn't know if he would be welcome at our church.  Officially, yes, of course anyone is welcome. Most people would be welcoming, I'm quite sure.  But the pastor - no one, really - can control the response of every person in the church.  

 

The church is full of sinners, yes?

 

Not everyone is going to welcome the family who arrives late every Sunday and has to trek up to the front row because that's the only space left.  Not everyone is going to welcome a single mom whose child is needy and hard to control.  Not everyone is going to welcome the young man with the large tattoos and earrings.   Not everyone is going to welcome the obese woman who cannot stand for hymns.   Not everyone is going to welcome the girl in the too-short shorts and crop top, or people who are shabbily dressed. 

 

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.

 

I'm glad you posted. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rosie_0801]

I don't understand how legalising gay marriage could erode free speech and religious freedom. Isn't hate speech and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation already illegal? Once gay marriage is legal, no one will care what anyone thinks about it or whether they recognise it unless they are breaking laws that are already in existence. 

[poppy]

 

 

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.

 

You are completely right we want it to be the social norm. In fact, in some places - such as my church - it is. Our congregation has a bunch of SSM married couples. I know 4 couples personally.    That's the problem with saying recognizing SSM negatively impacts religious freedom; banning it goes against my religious beliefs.

 

But thank you for the detailed post, it is helpful to see the perspective.  It really isn't about gay people, then. It's about loss of status.  An understandable concern. 

[bolt.]

I recently co-camped with another woman and her children -- no husbands. I was interesting to (first) notice that we were probably being percieved as a gay couple with 5 kids... And then to observe the semi-friendly, sightly awkward way our site-neighbours interacted with us on a casual basis.

 

While not unpleasant, I think it would be really challenging to *always* have to deal with that style of awkwardness in *every* social interaction.

[KarenNC]

This is a sad story.   But I want to comment on the bolded. 

 

I can imagine my pastor, or myself, telling a gay man that I didn't know if he would be welcome at our church.  Officially, yes, of course anyone is welcome. Most people would be welcoming, I'm quite sure.  But the pastor - no one, really - can control the response of every person in the church.  

 

The church is full of sinners, yes?

 

Not everyone is going to welcome the family who arrives late every Sunday and has to trek up to the front row because that's the only space left.  Not everyone is going to welcome a single mom whose child is needy and hard to control.  Not everyone is going to welcome the young man with the large tattoos and earrings.   Not everyone is going to welcome the obese woman who cannot stand for hymns.   Not everyone is going to welcome the girl in the too-short shorts and crop top, or people who are shabbily dressed. 

 

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.

 

I'm glad you posted. 

 

I'm trying to imagine the church flyer:

 

"We are delighted to welcome you to First __________ Church and hope to see you Sunday. We strive to follow Christ's example and teaching and welcome all.

 

Let's be honest, though, and say that if:

You are too fat to stand up for hymns

You don't dress well enough

You wear clothes that are too short

You have tattoos or piercings

You are a single mother

Your child doesn't sit quietly

You can't be on time for services

You are gay

 

you may want to find another church that is better suited for your needs because we have members who don't want to be around you and you may not be comfortable here."

 

I'm afraid I don't see the examples as equally likely.

[marbel]

I'm trying to imagine the church flyer:

 

"We are delighted to welcome you to First __________ Church and hope to see you Sunday. We strive to follow Christ's example and teaching and welcome all.

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean about the examples not being equivalent.  My point was simply that though the church welcomes all who come in the door, there may be individual people who are not so welcoming.

 

ETA:  OK, on reflection, maybe I do see what you mean.  No one is going to say to the single mom with the special needs kids "I'm not sure you will be welcome" so no one should say that to the gay man.  Is that what you mean?

 

So, yeah, you are right, the examples are not all equivalent.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AlmiraGulch]

 

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, 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.

 

I don't care that you (the general "you") may say "I don't hate the gays.  I even have a gay friend. I just hate their sin."  Seriously?  Enough. Believe whatever you want to believe.  You're entitled.  But just as there is little tolerance for other antiquated and bigoted points of view that are based on someone's religious text (i.e., no interracial marriage, separate drinking fountains and bathroom facilities, sending women to a tent to be alone during their period), I am encouraged by the fact that people no longer sit around and keep their mouths shut when talking about this issue because the concept is offensive to a group that has traditionally held the privileged position of the majority.   

[AlmiraGulch]

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

 

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

[Tenaj]

Even if you're looking at the Bible as an unadulturated, extremely factual historical document, you surely know that the events in Genesis predate the birth of Christ - don't you?

 

 

Yes, and as a Christian I do not discount the Old Testament as relevant to my current Christian life.  In Genesis 2: 24 God established the concept of marriage, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh".

 

Yes, there are many, many examples throughout the Bible of men who left that concept behind, usually to their detriment, either quickly or years later.  

[KarenNC]

I'm not sure what you mean about the examples not being equivalent.  My point was simply that though the church welcomes all who come in the door, there may be individual people who are not so welcoming.

 

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.

[KarenNC]

Yes, and as a Christian I do not discount the Old Testament as relevant to my current Christian life.  In Genesis 2: 24 God established the concept of marriage, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh".

 

Yes, there are many, many examples throughout the Bible of men who left that concept behind, usually to their detriment, either quickly or years later.  

 

So what do you do with the examples of a wide variety of marriages that God apparently approved of in Genesis and other books of the Bible, but are now considered illegal and not accepted by the majority of churches? These are not people who were later condemned for their multiple marriage, cousin marriage, etc and in some cases (as noted in my previous post) were specifically ordered by God.

[KarenNC]

ETA:  OK, on reflection, maybe I do see what you mean.  No one is going to say to the single mom with the special needs kids "I'm not sure you will be welcome" so no one should say that to the gay man.  Is that what you mean?

 

So, yeah, you are right, the examples are not all equivalent.  

 

Yep.

[Vera]

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.

[livetoread]

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.