S/o: Family Research Council (FRC).

[Frances]

You did. We will just have to disagree. Jesus said that His followers would be hated just as He was, so I'm ok with that.

 

 

I don't hate you for your beliefs about homosexuality. I feel sorry for you and I hope and pray that none of your children are gay.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

I don't hate you for your beliefs about homosexuality. I feel sorry for you and I hope and pray that none of your children are gay.

 

I've been thinking the same exact thing.

[Cindy in FL.]

Nope. I don't hate your daughter or any other homosexual (or adulterer, fornicator, liar, thief, etc), but I do not believe any homosexual acts they commit are right. That is not hate. I do not believe it is right when my son lies. I don't hate him. I don't believe it was right when my son was living with my now daughter in law. I don't hate them. I don't think it was right that I got pregnant out of wedlock with my oldest. I don't hate myself for that. I could go on and on.

 

You do not have to agree with everything someone does in order to not hate them. If that wasn't so, then everyone would hate everyone else.

 

You're not hated. You are doing the hating.

 

[Cindy in FL.]

I hope and pray none of my kids are gay, too. I pray they don't abuse their kids, steal, cheat on their taxes, commit adultery, etc. I want God's absolute best for them. I'll love them regardless.

 

I don't hate you for your beliefs about homosexuality. I feel sorry for you and I hope and pray that none of your children are gay.

[SemiSweet]

No, it doesn't.

 

 

Can you elaborate? Would you have your daughter marry her rapist? Where in the bible is polygamy, slavery, etc. forbidden? Because I see it mentioned frequently and not in a condemning way. Gods laws include those set forth in he Old Testament, yet I have yet to meet a single person who follows them, why is it ok to change them? Specifically why is it okay to ignore or change only some of them?

[LucyStoner]

I haven't had fudge in ages. Growing up, my Grandma used to make it from cocoa powder, butter, sugar, salt and vanilla. It was so yummy.

 

 

On a non food note, awhile back I read a book on compassion by Karen Armstrong. Basically, it all boils down to the Golden Rule. You can check out her charter for compassion and other resources at http://charterforcompassion.org/global-compassion-movement

 

Here's her Ted Talk https://www.ted.com/participate/ted-prize/prize-winning-wishes/charter-for-compassion-karen-armstrong

All of her books are worth a read.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think the 'I don't hate' can be a cop-out. You don't have to feel a personal animus towards someone, or a group of someones, to believe in a way that is hateful.

 

Or act hateful.

 

And saying gay teens kill themselves because God gave them a guilty heart sound unloving and hateful to me.

[Cindy in FL.]

That is not what I said.

 

Or act hateful.

 

And saying gay teens kill themselves because God gave them a guilty heart sound unloving and hateful to me.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

That is not what I said.

 

 

It is exactly what you said.

[LucyStoner]

Cindy, FWIW I don't think you hate people. I don't think you understand how your approach comes across but I don't think that makes you hateful.

 

If someone thought the reverse, that your heterosexual acts were sinful, would you be willing to accept that they loved you but just hated how you and your husband act behind closed doors? It doesn't feel very loving to be called deviant.

[Cindy in FL.]

It's late and I need to get to sleep, but briefly (more tomorrow, I hope): no, I would not have my daughter marry her rapist, nor does the Bible command such a thing. not everything in the Bible is expressly condemned or approved. Marriage was to be between one man and one woman (Jesus even restates this in the New Testament) and that they become one flesh. You cannot have that relationship with more than one wife at a time. Slavery in the Bible was not only not condoned, it was distinctly different from American enslavement of Africans.

 

So much of Old Testament law dealt with the nation of Israel as the people of God. In the New Testament, the people of God are not an earthly nation and therefore do not need the same governing laws. Other things were fulfilled by Jesus and did not carry over because of that.

 

That's all I've got for now! Thanks.

 

Can you elaborate? Would you have your daughter marry her rapist? Where in the bible is polygamy, slavery, etc. forbidden? Because I see it mentioned frequently and not in a condemning way. Gods laws include those set forth in he Old Testament, yet I have yet to meet a single person who follows them, why is it ok to change them? Specifically why is it okay to ignore or change only some of them?

[texasmama]

I made a cake today - vanilla with chocolate icing. Anyone is welcome to some. :)

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

I made a cake today - vanilla with chocolate icing. Anyone is welcome to some. :)

 

FTW! :D

[Cindy in FL.]

I am certain that there are things that I do and say that others believe are wrong (not talking about this thread). When those things come to my attention, I do try to examine myself and see what validity there is in it. Someone might disagree with an aspect of my parenting, for instance. I would think about what they said, determine if I am doing something God says is wrong in that regard, and then either work to change my ways or know that it is ok for us to differ on that point. there is latitude in a lot of things.

 

I would not necessarily think they hated me. Depending on how they approached the subject, I would be more apt to think that they actually cared about me. How the broached the subject would matter.

 

I have never just come out and told anyone I know to be homosexual that I think they are in sin. If they ask my opinion or it comes up some other way I will discuss it. We have recently had a lesbian come to Bible study at our house. It was not discussed. She was welcome here. She has just invited my family to her restaurant for dinner. She obviously does not feel hated, threatened, bullied, or anything like that by us.

 

 

Cindy, FWIW I don't think you hate people. I don't think you understand how your approach comes across but I don't think that makes you hateful.

 

If someone thought the reverse, that your heterosexual acts were sinful, would you be willing to accept that they loved you but just hated how you and your husband act behind closed doors? It doesn't feel very loving to be called deviant.

[LucyStoner]

I am certain that there are things that I do and say that others believe are wrong (not talking about this thread). When those things come to my attention, I do try to examine myself and see what validity there is in it. Someone might disagree with an aspect of my parenting, for instance. I would think about what they said, determine if I am doing something God says is wrong in that regard, and then either work to change my ways or know that it is ok for us to differ on that point. there is latitude in a lot of things.

 

I would not necessarily think they hated me. Depending on how they approached the subject, I would be more apt to think that they actually cared about me. How the broached the subject would matter.

 

I have never just come out and told anyone I know to be homosexual that I think they are in sin. If they ask my opinion or it comes up some other way I will discuss it. We have recently had a lesbian come to Bible study at our house. It was not discussed. She was welcome here. She has just invited my family to her restaurant for dinner. She obviously does not feel hated, threatened, bullied, or anything like that by us.

 

 

 

What if your marriage was not legally valid? What if people were working to make it not legally valid? Would that feel intrusive or hateful?

[Cindy in FL.]

I really do understand what you are getting at. I don't think that I could truly answer that question because you don't know until you have walked in someone else's shoes. It is hard to convey how much my faith means to me and how foundational it is to my life. I do not want that to translate as hate to other people. I really don't. I just really believe what I believe.

 

I think that if we could sit down face to face, you'd find that I am not a monster.

 

What if your marriage was not legally valid? What if people were working to make it not legally valid? Would that feel intrusive or hateful?

[LucyStoner]

My brother's husband's stepfather refused to come to their commitment ceremony in 2005. His mom came but left very quickly. They buy their other grandkids much nicer presents and spend more time with them. When they married legally in a church in 2012, neither would come. Because. The gays. One year my brother and his husband invited that whole side of the family to Thanksgiving. My brother cooked for 20 people. They all came, sat 1/2 an hour and then just before dinner was to be served, said they had to go because someone else was hosting them. No one bothered to tell them this before they dropped $$$ to host everyone and done all the cooking and work. Like all 18 of the 20 people left.

 

So when they say "we love you, we just hate your sin", it comes across like a lead balloon. Honestly these people are lucky they are dealing with my brother and not me. I wouldn't keep giving them the opportunity to hurt my family.

[Cindy in FL.]

I wouldn't behave that way, though. I do often buy my granddaughter more stuff than my grandson. I'm just so tired of buying boy stuff! I'm pretty sure my grandson is on to me. :)

 

My brother's husband's stepfather refused to come to their commitment ceremony in 2005. His mom came but left very quickly. They buy their other grandkids much nicer presents and spend more time with them. When they married legally in a church in 2012, neither would come. Because. The gays. One year my brother and his brother invited that whole side of the family to Thanksgiving. My brother cooked for 20 people. They all came, sat 1/2 an hour and then just before dinner was to be served, said they had to go because someone else was hosting them. No one bothered to tell them this before they dropped $$$ to host everyone and done all the cooking and work. Like all 18 of the 20 people left.

 

So when they say "we love you, we just hate your sin", it comes across like a lead balloon. Honestly these people are lucky they are dealing with my brother and not me.

[LucyStoner]

I really do understand what you are getting at. I don't think that I could truly answer that question because you don't know until you have walked in someone else's shoes. It is hard to convey how much my faith means to me and how foundational it is to my life. I do not want that to translate as hate to other people. I really don't. I just really believe what I believe.

 

I think that if we could sit down face to face, you'd find that I am not a monster.

 

 

This exchange started with me telling you that I didn't think you were hateful. By extension, please understand I don't think you are a monster. Neither am I some rage-monster Catholic turned Athiest ideologue who wants to force you to personally accept homosexuality is not a sin in your religion.

 

I merely think that we all need to coexist in a civil society and that means extending equal rights to people even if their lives and beliefs are against our own, to the extent their beliefs don't harm others. (Please no one else jump in here and tell me this means I would have to support the rights of Pedophiles R Us. No, I do not. Because they have no right to harm children, mkay?)

 

I think we *need* to empathize with others. That while we can't walk in someone else's shoes, any reasonably loving person can understand the golden rule. Both sides, church and state, benefit from a clear separation of religious and state power.

 

 

ETA- I don't know exactly how you feel about your religion but I know my faith and religious participation was foundational for me. I believed for a long time that I was bound for religious life as a nun. It is in part because I believe my church is very wrong, immorally wrong, about gay and transgendered people that I lost my faith. But it was the cornerstone of my life for a long time and is still largely responsible for my overall paradigm. I was just as big of a supporter of keeping church and state separate back then.

[Cindy in FL.]

Last night I was watching a (reality) show and the man's partner was gravely ill. I saw a human being who was scared and devastated by the possibility that he could lose someone he loved. I really get that. I see the humanity in people and my heart breaks for them when they are going through difficulties. Please know that I do care.

[Cammie]

"...weddings that cannot be weddings scripturally that is the current sole issue"

 

And this is the entire problem.  You or your church do not get to decide what can and cannot be a "wedding."  You can exclude whoever you want from getting married in your church.  You cannot determine that they cannot be "married" in another church.

 

Would you think it is right that your church be forced to change its rules on marriage?  Should my religious beliefs dictate what you can do in your church?  Who can be leaders?  Who can get married?

 

Should your religious beliefs dictate what happens in my church?  Should you get to decide who gets married in my church? 

 

Then why should your religion dictate anything outside of what happens within your own community?

 

What I think you are not getting (or refusing to accept)  is that in the United States of America we have recognized certain protected classes of people.  We, as a country, have said you can not discriminate against those classes.  It is illegal to discriminate against a person BASED ON MEMBERSHIP IN THAT CLASS.  So, you cannot discriminate based on race because race is a protected class.  The other examples you (and others) use - pedophiles, NABLA members, etc are all NOT PROTECTED CLASSES.  You are not legally required to not discriminate against pedophiles. 

 

When sexual orientation is a protected class that means you cannot discriminate in the public domain against someone based on their sexual orientation.  You can be as discriminatory as you want when it comes to who you invite to your home, who you become friends with, who you associate with in private.  However, if you run a business, you have to follow all sorts of laws that apply to businesses.  This includes all the laws regarding discrimination.  This is not complicated.  Those rules exists because we, as a nation, believe that it is necessary to ensure that people belonging to those protected classes deserve equal treatment.

 

Have your church, your church rules, your church marriage.  Have a private club and do what ever you want.  Open a business....follow the laws of the land.

 

I do think it is interesting that people who want to discriminate are often self described Libertarians.  While people who don't want to discriminate believe that it is important to have rules that ensure that all people are treated equally.  Thank god the USA has decided that we do need rules in place because there are so many people that if given a choice would choose to discriminate.

[EmseB]

Going back to the whole women's rights argument, then, do you believe that laws forcing businesses to  allow women to take out loans and credit cards, have their own bank accounts, etc. were misplaced? Or laws allowing black patrons to eat in restaurants they were previously turned away from? Should those laws not have been enacted or enforced? Or do you only believe that no one should be forced to do business with someone else going forward from this point in time?

 

Now I'm sure you're just baiting me.  This is seriously revisionist history.  The laws being enacted and enforced by the government were the segregation laws, the Jim Crow laws, the laws telling women they couldn't own property.  Those laws had to be overturned, repealed, found unconstitutional, and the people that worked to do all that were met with violence -- beatings, imprisonment, and worse -- all at the hands of law enforcement officials.  No, I don't think segregation laws should have been enacted or enforced, no, I don't think laws that barred women from owning property should have been enacted or enforced.  I'm glad people rose up to get those laws taken off the books even though it cost them quite a bit.  But lets not pretend it was somehow the government righteously stepping in and demanding segregation be stopped.  Up until the bitter end, governments were trying to keep those laws on the books.  The feds had to outlaw those laws with the CRA, which was a culmination of public outcry against the government.  Rosa Parks was arrested by the government for violating the law of the land.  People who participated in sit ins were beaten and arrested by the government -- the police, the feds.  Banks were prohibited by law from letting women purchase property.  All of those groups were being oppressed by the government, because it was the government telling them they did not have the rights.  Even if white business owners didn't think segregation was right, they had to abide by that law.  Even if bus drivers didn't care if black people sat in front, they had to force them to the back or violate the law.  Even if a bank wanted to take a woman's money, they were not allowed by law to do so.  In the past people were routinely forced to treat black people and women in a way that violated their conscience because the government told them they had to, and they enforced it with violence.  And yet I'm the nutball here for suggesting something like that happens.

 

I don't think the law should prohibit businesses from entering into contracts with people, and I don't think it should force them to, either.  I think each party (buyer and seller) should enter a business contract voluntarily.  It really is that simple in my mind.

[LucyStoner]

The government isn't one cohesive institution.

 

I seem to recall pictures of Federal troops escorting the Little Rock Students to class.

 

The Civil Rights Act passed in part because swaths of the public demanded it. It also passed because LBJ demanded it and was willing to alienate the majority of Southern white voters for, as he said, a generation.

 

The legal changes of the civil rights movement were most definitely at times forced by the government on people- businesses, individuals, local and state governments.

[Frances]

 

 

I don't think the law should prohibit businesses from entering into contracts with people, and I don't think it should force them to, either.  I think each party (buyer and seller) should enter a business contract voluntarily.  It really is that simple in my mind.

So, for example, you think it would be fine for all of the businesses in a town to refuse to enter into a business contract with the one Muslim family in town? That is the kind of country you want to live in?

[LucyStoner]

Last night I was watching a (reality) show and the man's partner was gravely ill. I saw a human being who was scared and devastated by the possibility that he could lose someone he loved. I really get that. I see the humanity in people and my heart breaks for them when they are going through difficulties. Please know that I do care.

This example raises a longstanding bone of contention around the issue of civil rights for gay people. If there's no marriage and one partner dies, can a disapproving relative then swoop in and take over the end of life medical decisions, the funeral arrangements, the property of the deceased and in some cases the children of the deceased that the couple were raising together? The number of legal documents to approximate the full benefits of marriage is large and labyrinthine. Plenty of gay couples couldn't/can't afford that kind of legal help. Most everyone can afford a marriage license.

 

This isn't hypothetical. Some version of it has happened to scores of people. I've known many who have had this happen, including a great aunt. Disapproving legal next of kin comes in and takes over or tries to take over from a longtime, loving partner even if the next of kin hasn't had a relationship with the sick or deceased person in years and believes they are in hell.

 

This is why no one's faith or personal opinions matter in the civil rights of another.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Now I'm sure you're just baiting me.  This is seriously revisionist history.  

 

Um, no, but if you really insist on seeing it that way, I can't stop you. We're having a discussion here, like intelligent, thoughtful people.

 

I never said that no laws existed that mandated those kinds of discrimination. Of course they did. But let's think about who instituted them and who benefited from them. If you really imagine that this country was full of white people and powerful men just full of sympathy for blacks and women looking for change and the government was all that was holding change back, you're the one with the revisionist history. You can take a look at some of the riot links I posted earlier for a dose of reality on that score.

 

Who do you imagine it is who drove, and still drives, this country's laws? Its citizens, according to their consciences. When enough people decided that the laws that existed were unfair and needed to be changed, those who drove for change managed to get new laws instituted that reflected more accurately the evolving state of thought on issues like women's and civil rights. And those new laws then mandated AND ENFORCED that business owners interact with their customers in this new way. The same thing you insist that government today should NOT do. Did our government enforce crappy laws way back when? Yep. Does it enforce more equitable laws now? Yep. 

 

You may not see it, or you may just not want to admit it, but what really drove change and equality in this country overall was not simply the removal of the unjust laws that were on the books. It was the institution and enforcement of the laws that replaced them--the ones that barred business owners from getting to pick and choose the types of customers they do business with based on arbitrary criteria like sex, skin color, and nationality. Once again, you're free to give up the privileges you enjoy today thanks to the enforcement of those more modern laws and protections. Somehow, though, I don't think you'd really care to. Don't kid yourself that you haven't benefited from the work of the people who went before you and the enforcement of the laws that were created thanks to their efforts.

[Laura Corin]

Wow.  That is definitely in the top ten most horrible and inhuman things I've read on here, and I've been here for several years now.

 

So, gay kids kill themselves because they're naughty and God makes them feel guilty until they just can't take any more?  Yeah... I'm not a Christian, but I'm guessing Jesus would REALLY not like you.

 

Incidentally, I'm a bisexual Pagan-Buddhist-Agnostic, and I don't feel any guilt whatsoever over it.  I guess God must have missed my heart when he was going around carving shit on peoples' internal organs, huh?

 

I've run out of likes, but I had to like this.  Bisexual atheist here, also missing the visceral scribing.

 

(Checks chest and conscience.)  Nope.  Nothing there.

[LucyStoner]

Just to loop everything back to the FRC and tangential to the suicide sub topic, the FRC calls the It Gets Better Project a "recruiting tool." Videos literally encouraging gay teens to NOT kill themselves, and instead of showing any concern for why such a project might have impetus to exist, they accuse well meaning adults of trying to recruit kids to be gay. In the first video, Dan Savage and his partner Terry talk about how their religious parents truly accepted them and about how much they love their son. The FRC says that gays like them adopting is really just gay men trying to get access to kids for sexual purposes.

 

I really want to know how people could support the FRCs logic here. I don't get it and I can't see how it is vaguely appropriate to accuse loving gay fathers wholesale of pedophilia.

 

[Rosie_0801]

I'm still wondering about all this gay behaviour. As far as I know, gay people cook, shop, raise kids, smooch/argue with their spouses, etc just like all us straight people do.

[Laura Corin]

I hope and pray none of my kids are gay, too. I pray they don't abuse their kids, steal, cheat on their taxes, commit adultery, etc. I want God's absolute best for them. I'll love them regardless.

 

 

Being gay is the equivalent of abusing children. Is that what you think?

[LucyStoner]

I'm still wondering about all this gay behaviour. As far as I know, gay people cook, shop, raise kids, smooch/argue with their spouses, etc just like all us straight people do.

I dunno. My brother can verbally harangue an umpire from the nosebleed seats, but I think straight dudes do that too. Hell, I do that. My brother also gets really excited about Black Friday but scores of straight people do that too. My brother might just take Elf on the Shelf a teensy bit over the top but it was straight women who made that darn elf. Not finding any gay lifestyle.

[OneStepAtATime]

I'm still wondering about all this gay behaviour. As far as I know, gay people cook, shop, raise kids, smooch/argue with their spouses, etc just like all us straight people do.

:iagree: 

 

I have several friends who are in stable same sex marriages.  One couple has been together nearly 30 years.  I am trying to understand where the "gay" behavior they exhibit is any different than what my husband and I exhibit.  They love each other.  They sometimes argue.  They pay bills.  They shop.  They own a home.  They go to work.  Only one cooks, though.  Well...to be honest I'm not sure what either DH or I do could be considered cooking, so maybe they've one upped us there.  :)

[Catwoman]

Being gay is the equivalent of abusing children. Is that what you think?

I didn't get the impression that was what she meant.

 

My feeling was that she was hoping her kids wouldn't be gay, just as she was hoping they also wouldn't turn out to be any of the other things she listed.

 

But I have been wrong in the past, so who knows? :)

[OneStepAtATime]

The deliberate conflation of gay men and pedophiles is particularly obnoxious.

 

Being gay is not remotely the same as being sexually attracted to children. It's in a different universe of sexual attraction.

 

The FRC also tells me that 'lesbian relationships are more violent' than heterosexual relationships. Gonna take a lot to convince me on that one!

 

:iagree:

[Rosie_0801]

And if we're talking about methods of endorphin production, gay people and straight people use the same sorts of techniques. There's nothing much in the way of *gay behaviour* there either.

 

 

I mean, seriously, approx 50% of the straight population *kiss girls* :svengo:

[TeacherZee]

I am going to sip Shirley Temples and eat coconut cake with Umisami.

 

Then I am going to go bake saffron muffins.

 

All while crying over some of the attitudes in this thread.

 

Tomorrow I will listen to my religious service that is presented by my gay pastor and be thankful that I live in a country where gay people can marry.

 

ETA: I ran out of likes several pages ago.

[Cindy in FL.]

No, not at all. Though I am sure that some gay people do abuse children just like some of every other group of people on the planet. All I meant was that I hope that they don't do any of these things which I consider to be wrong.

 

Being gay is the equivalent of abusing children. Is that what you think?

[Cindy in FL.]

You're spot on, Catwoman. I was definitely not saying they are child abusers. I know that some people think Christians single out homosexuals acts as being sinful (and they do), but any unrepented of sin separates us from God. I just wanted to say that I hope they don't commit that sin or any other.

 

I didn't get the impression that was what she meant.

 

My feeling was that she was hoping her kids wouldn't be gay, just as she was hoping they also wouldn't turn out to be any of the other things she listed.

 

But I have been wrong in the past, so who knows? :)

[Joanne]

You're spot on, Catwoman. I was definitely not saying they are child abusers. I know that some people think Christians single out homosexuals acts as being sin and I just wanted to say that I hope they commit any of a number of sins.

 

 

Juxtaposing, as you have repeatedly, being gay with liars, cheats, adulterers, belies a complete "miss" in terms of actually understanding *gay* at all.

 

It is so far of the mark in terms of biology, science, and reality. What you are doing is EXACTLY what was done with regard to black persons in the US.

[Cindy in FL.]

Just for the record, I do NOT believe this. I think they adopt because they want to have children, to be fathers.

 

The FRC says that gays like them adopting is really just gay men trying to get access to kids for sexual purposes.

 

I really want to know how people could support the FRCs logic here. I don't get it and I can't see how it is vaguely appropriate to accuse loving gay fathers wholesale of pedophilia.

 

[Cindy in FL.]

I think that a person should be able to designate anyone they want to make decisions for them, be executor of their estate, and to raise their children should they be unable to.

 

This example raises a longstanding bone of contention around the issue of civil rights for gay people. If there's no marriage and one partner dies, can a disapproving relative then swoop in and take over the end of life medical decisions, the funeral arrangements, the property of the deceased and in some cases the children of the deceased that the couple were raising together? The number of legal documents to approximate the full benefits of marriage is large and labyrinthine. Plenty of gay couples couldn't/can't afford that kind of legal help. Most everyone can afford a marriage license.

 

This isn't hypothetical. Some version of it has happened to scores of people. I've known many who have had this happen, including a great aunt. Disapproving legal next of kin comes in and takes over or tries to take over from a longtime, loving partner even if the next of kin hasn't had a relationship with the sick or deceased person in years and believes they are in hell.

 

This is why no one's faith or personal opinions matter in the civil rights of another.

[ktgrok]

I think we just come at this from such different perspectives. I believe that God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have eternally shared a communion with one another that was so perfect that God wanted to share it, so He created mankind. I believe that the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. The chief end is not our happiness. God does not desire us to be unhappy, but He is not going to change His laws because we are not happy living according to them.

 

I think that mankind can be the happiest, most joyful, and most fulfilled living the way God intended us to live. I am not going to pretend it is otherwise to make myself or anyone else happier or more comfortable with their choices that go against God's best for us.

 

I do not believe any of these things to hurt others. For me, as a Christian, the most important thing in my life is Jesus Christ. If you are living your life in a way that is not in agreement with what is taught in God's Word, then I am not going to support, condone, or agree with it. I just cannot do it.

 

I do not believe that the Bible condones slavery, polygamy, or a lot of other things people want to say it does. I believe there is one race -- the human race. You are free to intermarry within cultures/ethnicities. You are not free to marry those of another religion. We were members of an African American church for 3 years and if our sons found a godly wife among them or any other ethnicity then praise the Lord!

 

I do believe that the Bible clearly state that certain people will not inherit the Kingdom of God. There is a list which included liars, fornicators, drunkards, and homosexuals. Anyone who does not repent (turn from) their sin will not inherit the Kingdom. I didn't make the rules, but I believe in the One who did.

 

That's great for you, but do you understand why basing our laws on your personal beliefs is not ok? If we can let you choose to ignore the law or to discriminate based on your interpretation of your scripture, than we have to also allow others, with different interpretations, or different scriptures, to choose what laws they can ignore, and which people they can discriminate against. Do you want that? There are plenty of people in this country right now that believe the scriptures are against interracial marriage, or mingling of races at all. There are people that use religion to say that black people carry the mark of Cain, there are people who feel that it is against their religion for women to drive, go without a head covering, etc etc. This is true. Our constitution gives people certain rights regardless of anyone's beliefs. 

[Cindy in FL.]

But I didn't say anything about laws in any of my posts. I'm also did not agree with or defend the FRC. I only stated that I believe homosexual acts to be wrong (as well as lots of other things being wrong).

 

That's great for you, but do you understand why basing our laws on your personal beliefs is not ok? If we can let you choose to ignore the law or to discriminate based on your interpretation of your scripture, than we have to also allow others, with different interpretations, or different scriptures, to choose what laws they can ignore, and which people they can discriminate against. Do you want that? There are plenty of people in this country right now that believe the scriptures are against interracial marriage, or mingling of races at all. There are people that use religion to say that black people carry the mark of Cain, there are people who feel that it is against their religion for women to drive, go without a head covering, etc etc. This is true. Our constitution gives people certain rights regardless of anyone's beliefs.

[ktgrok]

But I didn't say anything about laws in any of my posts. I'm also did not agree with or defend the FRC. I only stated that I believe homosexual acts to be wrong (as well as lots of other things being wrong).

 

 

Ok, then I'm confused. This thread wasn't a discussion about homosexuality being wrong or right. No one wants to regulate your belief. The thread was about the FRC, who wants to have laws that discriminate against gay people. Laws that say that marriage is only what religion defines it to be, wether or not you ARE religious. Heck, they defended the bill in Uganda several times, and although they later clarified that they don't support the death penalty for gay people, they never said they disagree with the rest of it...which carries a life in prison sentence for being gay. Heck, sodomy is still illegal here in the USA in places. 

 

I have no opinion on anyone's belief, at least not that I feel led to share. But laws? We can't have laws based on a particular religion. That's theocracy. And I'm not ok with that. There is ZERO difference between Christians saying gay marriage should be against the law because they think it is wrong scripturally, and Catholics saying remarriage after divorce should be against the law because they think it is wrong scripturally. (excluding annulment, of course). 

 

 

[Cindy in FL.]

I think people comment in threads all the time without it necessarily being completely tied to the op. I shared because it seemed right at the time, I didn't mean to cause confusion. People often post when something said in a thread "speaks to them". I don't know if that clarifies it at all. Not nearly enough sleep last night! :)

[ktgrok]

I think people comment in threads all the time without it necessarily being completely tied to the op. I shared because it seemed right at the time, I didn't mean to cause confusion. People often post when something said in a thread "speaks to them". I don't know if that clarifies it at all. Not nearly enough sleep last night! :)

 

I think people, or maybe just me, took all your posts to be agreeing with the FRC, and if that isn't the case, I think there was a lot of arguing that didn't need to happen. Believing something is vastly different than legislating that belief. 

[Cindy in FL.]

I really don't know anything about the FRC and I suspect that I would lump them in with Westboro Baptist if what I've heard here is right. Westboro is horrible and makes me very angry.

[Scarlett]

I think people, or maybe just me, took all your posts to be agreeing with the FRC, and if that isn't the case, I think there was a lot of arguing that didn't need to happen. Believing something is vastly different than legislating that belief.

I probably should have stayed completely off the thread then because I know nothing about the FRC.

 

I don't march in anti gay parades, I don't try to get their rights revoked or keep them from having other rights. I am not involved in politics in any way. I obey anti discrimination laws. I don't know any gay people beyond a casual greeting and I have never been rude or hateful to any in my life.

 

And I don't think a person is a pedophile just because they are gay.

[KarenC]

You can't. Just like you couldn't have a baptism or confirmation or bar/bat mitzvah or any other sacrament.

 

You can get legal recognition for your union by filling out some paperwork and paying a fee to a bureaucrat. Which I personally have no objection to homosexual couples doing. A legal contract =/= marriage.

Wait, I must be confused.  You're not saying that a married couple not of your religion isn't married are you?

[texasmama]

FTW! :D

 

No coffee in me yet, but I don't know what this means.  Help a girl out!  ;)