Pope: GOD made people gay

Discussions about politics and goings on around the world. (Please keep discussions civil!)
User avatar
edwardmurphy
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2217
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2015 10:45 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 185 times
Been liked: 131 times

Re: Pope: GOD made people gay

#106

Post by edwardmurphy » Fri May 25, 2018 10:10 am

Kurieuo wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 4:34 pm
That fact you see it as "marriage equality" shows you don't see what the root issue is about for Christians and many who believe in God. That, is, disingenuous. Beat your wife much Ed? (also disingenuous)

Your understanding of marriage is completely different as to not be the same as ours.

Q: What's the difference between "marriage" and "civil union" Ed?
I'm not being disingenuous at all. "Defense of marriage" and "marriage equality" are commonly used terms in the debate. I know the difference between a civil union and a church marriage, but "marriage" is generally used interchangeably in that discussion as well.

The conservatives looking to defend "marriage" weren't trying to prevent the clergy from marrying gay couples - that's unconstitutional. Marriage, meaning marriage the way you define it, is a religious matter. The State has no right to rule on who can and can't enter into holy matrimony in the eyes of God. Instead, those conservatives were trying to deny gay couples the legal right to be "married" in the eyes of the State, which is to say the right to enter into a civil union or to have a civil union from one state legally recognized in another.

It's a messy discussion, and the terms aren't precise.
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible."

~ Donald J. Trump, back when Obama was President

"I don't take responsibility at all."

~ Donald J. Trump, now that he's the President

Convinced yet?

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 8529
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 408 times
Been liked: 645 times

Re: Pope: GOD made people gay

#107

Post by Philip » Fri May 25, 2018 12:44 pm

Ed: I know the difference between a civil union and a church marriage, but "marriage" is generally used interchangeably in that discussion as well.
Not by Bible-believing / understanding Christians it's not!

Here's my take on it politically: We do not live in a theocracy, we live in a (very flawed) democracy. So, I can support and vote for candidates that are against gay marriage as long as such candidates exist, and also vote against those politicians who embrace it. There are things in law that non-Christians vote against - and if they aren't able to form a significant majority voting otherwise, such laws will stand. NO one gets everything they want in a democracy. I can't expect laws to only favor Christians, unless enough Christians vote in certain ways. For me, this works as long as Christians and unbelievers are ALL not shown any favoritism or punitivisms before the law, as it's a question of numbers and beliefs. It's highly imperfect, from a Christian standpoint of being against things God says are wrong. But it's the best we have on earth.

A lot of people consider all manner of things perfectly fine that I believe the Bible strictly warns against. With Scripture as the measure, many people embrace things I find improper or worse. They can say a bad thing is actually "perfectly fine." But that doesn't change what I think about it as a believer in what Scripture says about it. As long as I am not coerced or forced to support others' sins, I can't get too worked up over what other people legally want that I believe to be sin - as long as I at least get a vote. And just because I get a vote to oppose certain things, I may not have candidate choices available to support MY views. So, two guys can unite in a ceremony and call it "marriage" - that doesn't change my views. Actually, whatever THEY or society in general calls such a union, doesn't make it marriage or non-sinful in MY view. And so how can I change the impact of those who want laws or whatever actions by the state that go against my Christian values? I can't force my views and I don't want anyone to force theirs on me. My only recourse is my vote and prayers for people hearts and minds to discover God and His ways. Oh, one last option - find a Christian theocracy on some remote island that I don't know of :roll: - other than that...

Notice that when Jesus and the Apostles were teaching about sins and what God finds good and bad, their approach was not to encourage political revolution to achieve righteous societal behavior which must first exist in one's heart and mind. Of course, many Jews had long thought the Messiah would come to overthrow ungodly politicians and evil peoples. Societal morality and laws come from the collective hearts and minds of the majority of people that can either raise the power (political or militarily) to FORCE change. As Christians are a minority, even where we do have votes, why should we expect that the state will accommodate our beliefs beyond Christians' collective voting power? We can hope, pray, vote, attempt to convince. And that's it!

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 8529
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 408 times
Been liked: 645 times

Re: Pope: GOD made people gay

#108

Post by Philip » Fri May 25, 2018 12:49 pm

BTW, I'm pretty sure Ed knows most Christians view marriage from a Godly / Biblical perspective. But his is a political argument. And while we can counter with a spiritual / Biblical one that he and many others won't agree with - again, we're not living in a theocracy. We have every right to vote the best options that support our beliefs (on both sides), as long as the courts truly stay neutral. Of course, we've seen quite a few incidents where they have not - but that's a whole other thread.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21518
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 202 times
Been liked: 1103 times

Re: Pope: GOD made people gay

#109

Post by RickD » Fri May 25, 2018 1:24 pm

The real question we need to ask, is if the pope realizes that God doesn't "make" anyone, technically.

People evolved. And, some are less evolved. Those are the gays.

Discuss.

:stirthepot: :popcorn:
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
BavarianWheels
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 12:09 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Southern California
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 14 times

Re: Pope: GOD made people gay

#110

Post by BavarianWheels » Fri May 25, 2018 1:41 pm

RickD wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 1:24 pm
The real question we need to ask, is if the pope realizes that God doesn't "make" anyone, technically.
True. God only made the Adam and Eve. The rest of us were procreated.
.
.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21518
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 202 times
Been liked: 1103 times

Re: Pope: GOD made people gay

#111

Post by RickD » Fri May 25, 2018 2:02 pm

BavarianWheels wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 1:41 pm
RickD wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 1:24 pm
The real question we need to ask, is if the pope realizes that God doesn't "make" anyone, technically.
True. God only made the Adam and Eve. The rest of us were procreated.
.
.
"The" Adam and Eve?

What's the significance of "the"?
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
BavarianWheels
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 12:09 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Southern California
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 14 times

Re: Pope: GOD made people gay

#112

Post by BavarianWheels » Fri May 25, 2018 2:07 pm

RickD wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 2:02 pm
BavarianWheels wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 1:41 pm
RickD wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 1:24 pm
The real question we need to ask, is if the pope realizes that God doesn't "make" anyone, technically.
True. God only made the Adam and Eve. The rest of us were procreated.
.
.
"The" Adam and Eve?

What's the significance of "the"?
It stems from having discussions with atheists and I like to appease them of their position that the bible is a fairytale, so I argue/discuss from the POV that the bible IS a fairytale, so we should discuss what the bible says, what the story is, how the characters act and interact.

I just got used to it and it flows off my fingers like melted butter.
.
.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10005
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 644 times
Been liked: 664 times

Re: Pope: GOD made people gay

#113

Post by Kurieuo » Sat May 26, 2018 8:42 pm

edwardmurphy wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 10:10 am
Kurieuo wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 4:34 pm
That fact you see it as "marriage equality" shows you don't see what the root issue is about for Christians and many who believe in God. That, is, disingenuous. Beat your wife much Ed? (also disingenuous)

Your understanding of marriage is completely different as to not be the same as ours.

Q: What's the difference between "marriage" and "civil union" Ed?
I'm not being disingenuous at all. "Defense of marriage" and "marriage equality" are commonly used terms in the debate.
"Marriage equality" is a term/slogan invented by one side, which is loaded and has unproved accusation embedded within it. That is, who'd seriously oppose "equality" for all? Such a noble thing. Right? Yes, it must be that anyone who'd vote against the government endorsement of same-sex couples being listed as "married", are against equality.

I strongly disagree. I'm for equality but against the government re-construction of marriage to encompass same-sex couples. If you don't agree with me, then do you beat your wife much Ed? I'm against marriage beating, how could you not be against such? :P

Ok, so you may not be being purposefully disingenuous, but that the debate is couched in such terms from one side like "marriage equality" is something that is disingenuous to the opposing side. It blows smoke over the real arguments and issues, and such a term is hard to just say "no" to, after all who doesn't want equality? It's quite a stroke of rhetorical genius in fact, whoever framed the issue as being one of "marriage equality".
Ed wrote:I know the difference between a civil union and a church marriage, but "marriage" is generally used interchangeably in that discussion as well.
So... what is the difference between "civil union" and "marriage"? There doesn't seem to be any, if both are social constructions. And if that is all marriage is -- a social construction -- then you'd right to declare there is no difference. And, then, well, marriage is what society makes it.

Yet the whole point advanced by the other side, the side you see as merely being a "religious" point (yet, there are many who would not advocate gay "marriage" who are also irreligious), is that marriage represents something more fundamental to the family unit, it is something that supervenes upon the natural biological order for humanity, expresses something real about REALITY rather than a mere CONSTRUCTION. Evidently, you disagree, it might seem like many Materialists must. And yet, even Materialists can see the natural order of things is this way rather than that, so I'm not sure how much it matters. We both can see a certain design to nature, whether you think such is "as nature intended" or God.

Do you know the etymological roots of the term "marriage"? What it fundamentally represents? It comes from "matriomony" -"mater" = "mother"; and the rest signified an action, state or condition. To enter into matrimony, is therefore very much a signification that you're entering into a relationship for family, not love per se. This is the design, or premise if you prefer, of marriage.

Naturally, that is biologically, the foundations for offspring (motherhood, and similarly fatherhood), are laid between male and female. New life is conceived via the two having natural intercourse, the sperm fertlising the ovum and wella, right? It's that simple. So, despite all the psychoanalysing babble of our day, marriage -- in the most natural sense (not just a divine or religious sense) -- is satisfied via male and female coming together.

That is again that new life is the telos of our biology between the two sexes, and as such the telos of marriage/matrimony which is enters into motherhood.

Being the most natural, I'd argue children receive the best structure in a family that is most natural. Is tihs not why gay couples raising children often feel a strong need to involve someone of their opposite sex, because they're trying to make up for the otherwise natural deficiency in their child's upbringing (having both sexes involved is seen as a positive need and important to a child's development). Yet, all things being equal (i.e., in a non-abusive parental environment), nothing is better for a child developmentally than being raised by their natural mother and father. Indeed our the personalities of a man and woman are distinct, yet complementary to a child's development. The woman if often the more nurturing, compassionate and caring verses the man who is generally stronger and thus more naturally inclined to a protector role.

Perhaps you'd also like to break down such biological distinctions as well, remove any real role to either sex in a natural family structure? That is, the role of sexes are merely social constructions? Yet, biology tells us otherwise on that too, right?
Ed wrote:The conservatives looking to defend "marriage" weren't trying to prevent the clergy from marrying gay couples - that's unconstitutional. Marriage, meaning marriage the way you define it, is a religious matter. The State has no right to rule on who can and can't enter into holy matrimony in the eyes of God. Instead, those conservatives were trying to deny gay couples the legal right to be "married" in the eyes of the State, which is to say the right to enter into a civil union or to have a civil union from one state legally recognized in another.

It's a messy discussion, and the terms aren't precise.
Convervatives, shmonervatives. Leftist, shpleftists. Interesting you take exception to some labelling people "left", yet feel free to employ labels yourself. ;) :P There is a practicality to such labels though, right? Sorry, just something I noticed in passing - I don't see anything necessarily wrong with such.

Here's how I SEE marriage. It is something that can only be logically had between a man and woman. Such to me isn't necessarily a religious matter, but just the nature of things. Animals don't marry fullstop, they just have sex. They don't have the consciousness to think about marrying. Indeed, the human family is quite unique and distinct, advanced, based upon human consciousness which is leaps and bounds ahead of any other creature. Marriage therefore has a natural foundation. And, is also very anthropomorphic.

Yet, you're also right in identifying "marriage" as also a religious institution. In particular, one born out of Judaistic roots, from which Christianity has its roots, and much of the Western world has been saturated. Thus, "marriage" is considered by many only within a framework of "holy matrimony". This is what I suppose is often termed a "traditional" view of marriage. Perhaps even, and I do think, marriage is a purely religious or I'd say "spiritual" concept.

In this respect then, no goverment has the right to dictate what sacraments a church or religion should honour. and in what way they should be structured (you know except for say child sacrifices). And, where they "steal" this concept and attempt to redefine/re-package it for the society over which they govern, then is that right?

Consider if the government saw benefit to the often Christian practice of child baptisms. That such, in some way, has some benefit to society. So wanting to encourage such further, they decide to incentify child baptisms and so maintain a registry of child baptisms for such purposes. Now fast-forward a couple millenia later and such is still carried out. Does the government of the day have the right to dictate the exact way in which child baptism should be performed in order to be "child baptism"? Perhaps it does, for its own reasons. But, the fact that such was born from theological roots found within Christianity, the government is just "stealing" the idea and re-constructing such according to its own purpose and the society it seeks to govern. And this, is by a large, what a lot of people -- Christians, Jews, Muslims -- are repulsed by. And indeed, feel affronted by, if you can put yourself in the shoes of such for a moment. It's even what Hitler attempted to do in nazifying Christianity and the Bible with something that better supported their purposes.

Some on my side of the debate may not be able to articulate to such lengths, so you might think not all believe this who reject gay "marriage". You are likely right, but surely you still nonetheless see how a great many people (particularly religious people) feel their faith is being threatened by such. Even if you think it odd and stupid.

Ever thought about why? Why they feel that way? Why for example, being forced to make a cake endorsing marriage as what the world (i.e. government) has re-constructed versus what they believe "God" says -- is a threat upon ones freedom of belief rather than a matter of equality? Just try place yourself in the shoes of such. I know it might be hard, but try for a moment to understand through the eyes of say a Christian cakemaker what is being asked of them.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

User avatar
edwardmurphy
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2217
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2015 10:45 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 185 times
Been liked: 131 times

Re: Pope: GOD made people gay

#114

Post by edwardmurphy » Mon May 28, 2018 5:58 pm

I'm American, so when I discuss marriage equality (or the defense of traditional marriage, as the other side called it) I come at it from an American perspective. So here's how it is in the USA:

In the United States the sacred union of two people in the eyes of God is called "marriage," and so is the secular union of two people in the eyes of the State. It doesn't matter how anybody feels about that. It's a fact. That thing where a justice of the peace joins two people, thus allowing them to share health insurance and jointly file their taxes is legally known as a "marriage." So is the thing where a priest joins two people in holy matrimony. They're not the same thing, but they have the same name.

Civil unions also exist in the US, but they're not marriages. Civil unions do not offer the same benefits and protections as marriages, nor are they even recognized in many states or at the Federal level. A marriage is unquestionably better than a civil union, in both the eyes of the Lord and the eyes of the State, and offering one group "marriage" and another group "civil union" is unequal.

Who can or cannot get married in the eyes of God is a religious matter. The State cannot prevent the Church from marrying a gay couple in the eyes of the Lord, nor can it require them to do so. That decision rests in the hands of religious leaders, which is why, for example, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America ordains homosexual ministers and performs same-sex marriages, while the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod does not. The point here is that, in the United States at least, "marriage" (in the way that it's defined by Bible-believing Christians) was not subject to laws banning same-sex unions.

What, then, was the Defense of Marriage Act? What was the point of all the laws banning same-sex unions that were passed by conservative legislatures? What were they looking to accomplish if they couldn't stop an ordained minister from marrying two men in the eyes of God?

And that, K, is where we get to the issue of "marriage equality," why that's the correct term, and why people who opposed it are deserving of criticism. The laws made to defend marriage were universally aimed at denying same-sex couples the right to be united in the eyes of the State. The right to be married in the eyes of the State is important. It's what allows two people to share a healthcare plan (which matters a hell of a lot more here than in any other developed nation). It's what allows for tax free inheritance for the surviving spouse. It's what allows full visitation rights if a spouse is critically ill, the right to share custody of a child, and the right to file taxes jointly. Being married in the eyes of the State is a big deal, and denying that right to homosexual citizens is textbook discrimination. Working hard to prevent your neighbors from enjoying the same rights and freedoms that you take for granted is a vile act and worthy of scorn. Hiding behind religion to justify discrimination in a purely secular matter...? Well, I don't approve.

Simply put, if you believe that all citizens should be equal in the eyes of the law then you must support the right of all citizens to marry the partner of their choice, regardless of their sexual orientation. That's what "equal in the eyes of the law" means. You don't have to like it. You don't have to attend a church that permits it. You don't have to regard it as valid in the eyes of God. But you cannot reasonably oppose it while claiming to believe that we're all equal in the eyes of the law.
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible."

~ Donald J. Trump, back when Obama was President

"I don't take responsibility at all."

~ Donald J. Trump, now that he's the President

Convinced yet?

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 8529
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 408 times
Been liked: 645 times

Re: Pope: GOD made people gay

#115

Post by Philip » Mon May 28, 2018 7:28 pm

Easy solution - kill special treatments and benefits for EVERYONE! Note also that the various favoritisms under the law for marrieds discriminate against single people.

User avatar
edwardmurphy
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2217
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2015 10:45 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 185 times
Been liked: 131 times

Re: Pope: GOD made people gay

#116

Post by edwardmurphy » Mon May 28, 2018 7:44 pm

Philip wrote:
Mon May 28, 2018 7:28 pm
Easy solution - kill special treatments and benefits for EVERYONE!
So it's easier to burn the whole thing down than give everyone a seat at the table? Really?
Philip wrote:
Mon May 28, 2018 7:28 pm
Note also that the various favoritisms under the law for marrieds discriminate against single people.
Can you think of an example where that's the case?
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible."

~ Donald J. Trump, back when Obama was President

"I don't take responsibility at all."

~ Donald J. Trump, now that he's the President

Convinced yet?

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 8529
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 408 times
Been liked: 645 times

Re: Pope: GOD made people gay

#117

Post by Philip » Mon May 28, 2018 8:30 pm

Ed, I like that getting the government out of marriages and unions allows everyone the freedom to pursue whatever they like, and to call it whatever they like. And it stops ALL favoritisms from government - thus ending accusations of discrimination.

Advantages of marriage vs. singleness: https://blog.taxact.com/tax-advantages-getting-married/

User avatar
edwardmurphy
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2217
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2015 10:45 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 185 times
Been liked: 131 times

Re: Pope: GOD made people gay

#118

Post by edwardmurphy » Mon May 28, 2018 9:27 pm

Philip wrote:
Mon May 28, 2018 8:30 pm
Ed, I like that getting the government out of marriages and unions allows everyone the freedom to pursue whatever they like, and to call it whatever they like. And it stops ALL favoritisms from government - thus ending accusations of discrimination.
I'd be fine with that.

My problem with the argument is that those who came out against marriage equality could have pushed for Federal recognition of civil unions that gave everyone the same rights, but they didn't. Instead they worked their asses off to try maintain the status quo. Rather than seek a fair solution that was open to all they tried to legally define "marriage" - by which I mean the legal, secular union of two people in the eyes of the State - as being between a man and a woman and they did it explicitly to exclude same-sex couples.
Philip wrote:
Mon May 28, 2018 8:30 pm
Advantages of marriage vs. singleness: https://blog.taxact.com/tax-advantages-getting-married/
Phil, that article says that, despite the "marriage tax," there are specific situations in which getting married can be financially beneficial for a couple. That's hardly a ringing endorsement of the tax benefits of marriage.
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible."

~ Donald J. Trump, back when Obama was President

"I don't take responsibility at all."

~ Donald J. Trump, now that he's the President

Convinced yet?

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 8529
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 408 times
Been liked: 645 times

Re: Pope: GOD made people gay

#119

Post by Philip » Tue May 29, 2018 7:54 am

Ed: My problem with the argument is that those who came out against marriage equality could have pushed for Federal recognition of civil unions that gave everyone the same rights, but they didn't.
Of course many (Christians and secularists alike) have not wanted such unions at all - as they see them as immoral. I see them as immoral but recognize a democracy with our constitution might well allow for it. Course, there's always the legal battle over the definition of marriage, and over who gets to define it? Yes, a civil union should satisfy gay people, but many of them are militant as to what they are pushing for - as many would feel marginalized by not being able to be "married" in the eyes of the law. And just like many are offended by such unions, many gay people could care less if they offend those who think such unions are immoral. But the question of being offended - no matter which side one is one - should not enter the equation.
Ed: Instead they worked their asses off to try maintain the status quo. Rather than seek a fair solution that was open to all they tried to legally define "marriage" - by which I mean the legal, secular union of two people in the eyes of the State - as being between a man and a woman and they did it explicitly to exclude same-sex couples.
Then you need to get over it. Of COURSE many are repulsed by the idea of such unions - and for a variety of reasons - and so they didn't want to recognize it or to subsidize it in any way (benefits, etc.). And most of them didn't want to because of moral reasons and that they think it is harmful for society - they don't want to normalize or encourage what they think is immoral and harmful. For some, the opposition to such is merely a powerful cultural preference that has turned into extreme dislike of the practitioners. So the gay unionists are demanding what many others think is immoral. Ah, but those of us who think such unions are immoral also like living in a democracy with protections that others don't like. And in a democracy, NO one gets everything they want. But we all have the right to lobby for and vote for those who most closely share our personal concerns and ideals - and then out of this come successful majorities that make rules and appoint judges. And if one doesn't like this system - as there will always be winners and losers, and also some groups who game the system better than others - then they can go find a society where everyone thinks as they do. But that place doesn't exist in a large scale society.

Ultimately, Ed, people don't agree upon issues involving morality. And I can also guarantee you that many Christians who see gay unions as immoral, also see many heterosexual unions that they see as being equally immoral. And while many find the influences of immoral heterosexual unions as less threatening to society - they shouldn't. And many Christians DO love those who they don't want pursuing immoral unions of any sort - heterosexual or gay, and etc. (Et Cetera has a long list) - it's just that they don't want certain things they believe harm society.

Ultimately, from Scripture, outside of the theocracy that was once Israel, there is no expectation for ANY other state to be able to successfully police morality. And Israel under The Law, didn't do such a great job of that either - which is because you can't legislate what happens in hearts and minds - as that's a spiritual matter. And THAT is why Christ didn't focus on political solutions, but instead upon ones involving the heart and mind of individuals.

User avatar
Stu
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:32 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 12 times
Been liked: 34 times

Re: Pope: GOD made people gay

#120

Post by Stu » Tue May 29, 2018 8:20 am

Philip wrote:
Tue May 29, 2018 7:54 am
Ed: My problem with the argument is that those who came out against marriage equality could have pushed for Federal recognition of civil unions that gave everyone the same rights, but they didn't.
Of course many (Christians and secularists alike) have not wanted such unions at all - as they see them as immoral. I see them as immoral but recognize a democracy with our constitution might well allow for it. Course, there's always the legal battle over the definition of marriage, and over who gets to define it? Yes, a civil union should satisfy gay people, but many of them are militant as to what they are pushing for - as many would feel marginalized by not being able to be "married" in the eyes of the law. And just like many are offended by such unions, many gay people could care less if they offend those who think such unions are immoral. But the question of being offended - no matter which side one is one - should not enter the equation.
Ed: Instead they worked their asses off to try maintain the status quo. Rather than seek a fair solution that was open to all they tried to legally define "marriage" - by which I mean the legal, secular union of two people in the eyes of the State - as being between a man and a woman and they did it explicitly to exclude same-sex couples.
Then you need to get over it. Of COURSE many are repulsed by the idea of such unions - and for a variety of reasons - and so they didn't want to recognize it or to subsidize it in any way (benefits, etc.). And most of them didn't want to because of moral reasons and that they think it is harmful for society - they don't want to normalize or encourage what they think is immoral and harmful. For some, the opposition to such is merely a powerful cultural preference that has turned into extreme dislike of the practitioners. So the gay unionists are demanding what many others think is immoral. Ah, but those of us who think such unions are immoral also like living in a democracy with protections that others don't like. And in a democracy, NO one gets everything they want. But we all have the right to lobby for and vote for those who most closely share our personal concerns and ideals - and then out of this come successful majorities that make rules and appoint judges. And if one doesn't like this system - as there will always be winners and losers, and also some groups who game the system better than others - then they can go find a society where everyone thinks as they do. But that place doesn't exist in a large scale society.

Ultimately, Ed, people don't agree upon issues involving morality. And I can also guarantee you that many Christians who see gay unions as immoral, also see many heterosexual unions that they see as being equally immoral. And while many find the influences of immoral heterosexual unions as less threatening to society - they shouldn't. And many Christians DO love those who they don't want pursuing immoral unions of any sort - heterosexual or gay, and etc. (Et Cetera has a long list) - it's just that they don't want certain things they believe harm society.

Ultimately, from Scripture, outside of the theocracy that was once Israel, there is no expectation for ANY other state to be able to successfully police morality. And Israel under The Law, didn't do such a great job of that either - which is because you can't legislate what happens in hearts and minds - as that's a spiritual matter. And THAT is why Christ didn't focus on political solutions, but instead upon ones involving the heart and mind of individuals.
Just to point out that as far as I know (I'm not American), you live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
Only when the blood runs and the shackles restrain, will the sheep then awake. When all is lost.

Post Reply