Gay Marriage

dru is on fire.:

See, normally I would reply with something about how God doesn't hate gay people and explain the bible verses and why they don't actually mean what they're interpreted to, etc etc. But now I'm just so offended by what was said that I don't want to say those things, I just feel like I've been attacked and have no desire to help.

But wasn't your immediate response essentially "wow sorry for your experiences but not all Christians hate gays I am a nice Christian"? Not "I hate you how dare you"

In any case, giving her """helpful""" Bible explanations (??) - how does this help with her experiences of homophobia? wasn't her whole point "I don't want or need Christian kindness"? why can't you just accept that statement instead of pressing "help" on her?

@ pravda.
I don't hate her, so I wouldn't say that.

I didn't reference her original post when I made my post so I didn't remember what she said. If someone who was upset about Christianity and gays and stuff said something, i would say what I said. Sorry for the specifics there.

I'm a nice person so I would open with a nice statement. I try to be nice no matter what. Not all people are as nice as me and my statement was referring to other people, too.

@ dru is on fire.

how am I putting words in your mouth when you literally said people who are "cruel" to Christians don't "exist in the spirit of coexistence" so they don't deserve to be protected from oppression? how could I have not read that correctly?

dru is on fire.:

I don't hate her, so I wouldn't say that.

My point was that faced with animosity you responded civilly. Yet you seem to be arguing that faced with animosity people are entitled - or, rather, should/will - respond with animosity. But I think if someone is both a genuinely caring person and reasonably aware of the suffering that people of their group commit upon the group speaking in a hostile manner, they'll respond civilly. If I am impolite to a straight person* and they start using homophobic language - or if you scratch the surface of a "nice guy"* and he starts drawing on misogyny - I'm inclined to think they weren't really that "nice" at all. Being 'tolerant' of marginalised groups on the condition that they are constantly polite or even praising of your "tolerance" isn't really a cause for celebration. Which all goes back into her point of "I don't need Christian kindness." She's not interested in "winning" over people who are going to turn around and attack her, even if you think such an attack is justified (on account of 'rudeness')

*on the basis of het/male privilege for e.g.

@ kafka.
When did I say they don't deserve to be protected for oppression? When did I say they deserved to be treated badly? I didn't.

All I said was that if someone inititially acts rudely to another, the other person may not respond kindly. I didn't say it was right, I just said it was a fact of life.

I never once encouraged or supported homophobia in my post. You're just shoving words in my mouth and twisting them and I refuse to choke on them, so I'm done with this conversation.

@ pravda.
I don't mean entitled to at all. I think it's human reaction to go on the defense when someone attacks you.

I don't even think it has to do with sexuality. Anytime you are rude to someone, they will probably be defensive. I mean, I might not even know the girl is gay depending on what she says, so I may not even know she's gay to be able to "give her homophobia" or whatever.

@ pravda.
I'm not exactly saying that I hate you entirely. It's just when people like you, even if you are kind about it, I don't care for it. I don't let it bother me or get to me because half of the Christians I know all say they're accepting, but in the end they all stabbed me in the back. I just choose to stay away from them when the topic is my sexuality, or anything LGBT related.

OurNameInStars:

I'm not exactly saying that I hate you entirely. It's just when people like you, even if you are kind about it, I don't care for it. I don't let it bother me or get to me because half of the Christians I know all say they're accepting, but in the end they all stabbed me in the back. I just choose to stay away from them when the topic is my sexuality, or anything LGBT related.

I assume you mean Dru? I'm gay and agree with your anger if not with your conclusion.

This topic is becoming a really uncomfortable atmosphere...

Do we need to point out our sexual orientations to be taken seriously in this thread? Do I need to get all defensive and be 'hey I'm pan, not straight'. What is going on?

I assume her "people like you" was [vocal] Christians, not heterosexuals. The latter is pretty difficult to avoid. In any case she really hasn't strayed far from "this is my experience and this is how I choose to live my life," power to her.

I feel like I'm being called out for attacking someone when I really didn't. And the points I initially made about rudeness were agreed with because the original post was edited. Now I'm being told I'm hated or asked if I'm hated or what the heck? I thinks this conversation has gone beyond any point where anything can even be discussed because it doesn't even make sense anymore, so I'm going to exit.

The Master:

This topic is becoming a really uncomfortable atmosphere...

Seconded.

--

On another note:

Apparently my country's government or some part of it is trying to overthrow the vote to make gay marriage legal here. It makes me sad because I obviously don't live within the same extremeties as some places in the States, this takes a huge toll on the LGBTQ community. I don't understand why anybody could be against it.

My brother and I had this conversation, where he said that marriage was about religion. So I pointed out that non-religious people get married and marriage/relationships pre-date most religions. He claimed it's about a man and a woman pro-creating. I asked if infertile couples should not marry or if people should divorce after they finish having kids. He went to his room because he couldn't think up anything to say

I support gay marriage.
My mother may not approve of it, but I think that everyone deserves to love and be loved in anyway they like. And homosexuals aren't less humans that we are.

The U.S Supreme Court has finally decided the fate of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8. In a 5-4 decision, DOMA was struck down as unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy was the deciding vote and wrote the majority statement. In another 5-4 decision, Proposition 8 was declared to have no standing and the appeals were thrown out. Chief Justice Roberts was the deciding vote and wrote the majority statement. Proposition 8 is officially declared unconstitutional. Both Prop 8 and DOMA are dead.

California is lucky number 13 to legalize! I knew we had it in us. We made a mistake almost five years ago, but I knew we had it in us to correct this mistake. I have faith in my home. I am proud of my home State right now. It took us longer than it should have but as they say, better late than never! California is going to be a big influence on the fight for marriage equality. What was it they said? As goes California, so goes the rest of the nation. Maybe it's a cliche phrase, but it is true. California is a big State and we've got a lot of influential power. Now that we've got marriage equality, I know a lot of people in this State will be committed to helping other States gain marriage equality.

So, how does everyone feel about the rulings? Do you agree or disagree with the rulings? If you want more info on the rulings, you can keep reading.

---

Section 3 of DOMA was struck down as unconstitutional for violating the equal protections clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority ruling also declared that DOMA harms same-sex couples by saying their relationships are "lesser" than heterosexual couples and declared that DOMA directly harms children with same-sex households. So the entire law is not gone, but we killed the heart of it. For the first time in history, same-sex couples are eligible for federal benefits and will be recognized by the federal government. DOMA's ruling will do a lot for the fight for marriage equality because it declared that the equal protections clause also protects same-sex couples. That right there means a lot.

Proposition 8 was thrown out for lacking standing. According to the majority opinion, the majority decided on this ruling because as they claim, the Supreme Court has never upheld a law in which the Attorney General nor the governor will defend. In this case, both California's AG and governor refused to defend Prop 8. It was left up to the pro-Prop 8 groups to defend. Which they had a right to. However, according to the Supreme Court, they did not have a right or reason to appeal the original verdict. It should not have reached the Supreme Court nor reached the Ninth Circuit, it should not have gone past the District Court so everything past Judge Walker's ruling has been invalidated and the case has been bounced back to that ruling. Judge Walker's ruling of unconstitutional is final word.

Furthermore, the majority opinion stated that the defendants (pro-Prop 8) failed to prove they are affected by Prop 8 directly and would be harmed by its repeal as they originally claimed. The plaintiffs (anti-Prop 8) were able to prove that same-sex couples and their families were directly harmed by Proposition 8. But the same cannot be said for the defendants. They couldn't prove they would be harmed by this law being repealed, they could barely come up with a reason as to how it even slightly affects them. So this is another reason there is no standing, because the defendants were unable to prove their claim that Prop 8 directly affected them and repeal would directly harm them.

So, in short, Proposition 8 is declared unconstitutional according to Judge Walker's 2010 ruling. Same-sex marriage will resume in California, it is expected to resume by the end of July. This is, of course, if the defendants don't challenge in District Court again.

I would just like to point something out: Christianity was created to reform Judaism. If I am correct, Jesus was sent to the Earth to change what had been happening before he arrived. I consider these two periods of time (before Jesus, after Jesus) to be The Old Testament and The New Testament, respectively. Thus I personally do not understand why Christianity teaches lessons that are fundamental in the Old, but not New, Testament. Why follow the rules of Judaism when God sent His Son to create a new religion, the one true religion?

One such lesson is that homosexuality is a disgrace. I will not say that the New Testament does not mention homosexuality, in fact it is mentioned about four times, albeit among controversy. These passages are controversial because frankly, the Bible was not originally written in a language its contemporary followers can understand. Today's Christians are fated to read what other people have translated. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you pick up two different translations, you have two different Bibles. They might be very similar, but they are different. Another point I would like to mention is that Jesus never specifically says anything about homosexuality. The four or so instances it is touched upon among all 27 books of The New Testament is by a normal human being, who was also present in The Old Testament. And even then, like I said, the original message cannot be agreed upon. Simply put, it is lost in translation.

However, there is one thing that is consistent among all translations: the Word of Jesus. As a Christian, I choose to follow what He says. Yes, I know most will say "You can't pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow", and I don't. I believe all of the Bible to be a source of guidance. But that does not mandate it is all Law. Again, there are those that will argue "But the Bible is God's Word, and God's Word is Law." In my opinion, the only true Word that is God's is what he says through Jesus and through the Holy Spirit. Do you ever get done praying and hear a little voice in your head saying "persecute the gays"? Probably not. And if you do, it's likely Satan.

God's word is Love. In 1 Corinthians 13:13, Jesus says "And these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is Love." To me, subjecting someone who you deem 'ungodly' to a life lived lesser than yours is not Love. It is not up to you who is a sinner; in fact, we are all sinners.So even if God truly mandates that homosexuality is a sin (I say if simply because we cannot know; we can only know and trust what He tells us directly, for through the mouths of men His word is tainted by sin), who are you to judge its practitioners?

Some will rebute with, "Marriage is a religious matter." Maybe it is, I personally will admit I haven't done enough research on that particular subject to say differently. But at this moment I will act with the belief that it is a right given only to the Children of God. Would you not say that anyone who is a Child of God deserves his blessing? Because my God, the Biblical God, says that everyone is his child. May I go further to say that if you do not believe that it is a right given to only the Children of God (i.e. everyone) and instead granted to only the practicioners of a certain religion, than who should get married? I read earlier that marriage originated as a Jewish ritual. Is that to say that only Jews should get married? And since Christianity is a dederivative of Judaism, then by this rule, I guess Christians can get married too. So, only Jews and Cgristians. How do you know who is a Christian or not? You do not. I am a practicing non-denominational Christian and I am bisexual. Does my sin make me any less Christian? No. It makes me human.

Another thing I would like to say on the basis that marriage is a religious practice - Are we not, as followers of Jesus and His Great Commission, instructed to reach out to others and allow all into our hearts so that they may know the Love and Truth of Jesus Christ? Did you ever stop to think that if maybe we stopped judging and restricting homosexuals so harshly, they might have less of a distaste for Christians? (I am speaking in a very generalized manner here, I know not all Christians hate gays, and not all gays hate Christianity) Perhaps, by allowing them into our church, which marriage is a branch of, they will be able to know Christ.

Allow me to reference a passage from this lovely article.

Finally, just following this passage (in chapter 2), Paul chastises his readers for any sort of judgmentalism on their parts: "Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things." (Romans 2:1) While Paul has harsh words for idolators, he seems quick to point out that judgmentalism is to be avoided. Paul seems to be saying that using his words to judge homosexuals (or anyone else) in our own day would be a grievous error.

I see many Christians using their Bibles, this book which is supposed to be a symbol of acceptance, hope, and love, to condemn others as sinners, specifically homosexuals. And yet in that same Bible, Paul says not to judge. I may be guilty of referencing Scripture to condemn others in your eyes, and if I am, I plead forgiveness, to both God and you. I am not attempting to offend or condemn, it just pains me to see so many of my Brothers and Sisters in Christ hurting each other, and I wanted to share my viewpoint which I think can appeal to both logic and belief.

Please, read my words however you wish, all I ask is that you have interpreted them with an open mind, a mind which does not judge and does not condemn. I suppose that is all I have to say. If you find mistakes (I'm sure there are some, I cannot claim to be the most well-versed nor unbiased person), feel free to share it with me, so I may refine my statement until it is as perfect as humanly possible. Again, I simply request you point it out civilly, so I may further my knowledge.

But as is, I support gay marriage, I do not believe homosexuality is a sin, and I do my best to love every one of God's children, for we are all the same in His eyes, and He wants us all to be with Him in Heaven. And frankly, trifling with such worldly matters as marriage when we could be helping others find God is outrageous. So anyway. Thanks for reading.

@ chekov.
I pretty much agree with everything you said.

However, this is the Bible verse that gets brought up to counter your point.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
-Matthew 5:17

However, people pick and choose and that's just using the Bible to suit your prejudices, like they used to do to justify slavery. If they don't think tattoos, clothing of two materials, or having sex on your period are worthy of making laws about, then they need to shut it.

@ druscilla the misfit
Thanks, it's always great to learn new things. It definitely changes my view a little, so I'll have to edit my argument in the future to be absolutely correct. But I'm glad you agree. Always good to meet fellow Christians who support gay marriage.

I'm not really proud of my country's recent SCOTUS decision....

The Supreme Court made it a state's rights issues, meaning the Supreme Court finds states with constitutional amendments banning marriage equality to be legal. Gay rights advanced for 30% of Americans who live somewhere its legal... the other 70% took a huge step back as the Supreme Court did not say marriage is a right and can be defined at will by each individual state. If anything, by reaffirming a state's "right" to discriminate, this decision made things worse for LGBT people living in conservative states.

With reference to the full faith and credit clause, the Supreme Court could have made a much more just decision.

@ Kurtni
I watched a report a few months ago that compared same-sex marriage to the fight to legalize interracial marriages. They showed how the states began to legalize it, in what order, and when the Court stepped in. They waited until over half the states had legalized it before doing so. The states were in the same areas they are now as far as legalization and the last ones to hold out were generally deep south and Dakota/Montana area.

I'm not saying it's right, just that it's consistent with the only real previous ruling we have to compare it to.