October 11th

[Grishnak]

I used to be very strongly anti-homosexual rights and will admit it before I post anything else.

I don't understand why people are against gay and lesbian rights, period. I can't even look back and find any good reason other than "it's yucky" and "it's not Christian" that I may have had even as close as two years ago. In America (the place in question with the pink day), guess what, there's a freedom of religion and belief. YOU may not like it, but what is that person doing to hurt you?

Give me one non-religious reason why two gay men or women should not be able to enter into a state-sponsored marriage. Marriage in America isn't necessarily a religious thing, and this is what drives me bonkers about the whole debate.

There is to some extent a "negative" culture and stereotype within the gay community, but I think a large part of that is the taboo that we as a society place on homosexuality. If it wasn't so taboo, people wouldn't feel the need to throw it in the faces of those they feel judge them. Much like the difference between a high school age alcohol drinker in the states vs. in Europe. The taboo isn't there in Europe, and you see so much less ridiculousness on the part of the population.

I'm the Volunteer Coordinator for the nation's largest non-profit bereavement camp. We match campers with same-sex "big buddy" volunteers for weekend camp sessions. The issue that came up recently, as we continue to expand, is whether an openly gay individual should be matched and allowed to volunteer. I'm still arguing with people in my office about it, but it really seems that being "gay" is so uncomfortable even in modern America that assumptions of other, more insidious, traits get applied. Even by those who profess to have gay friends and be open to homosexuality, suddenly pairing them with a camper isn't okay because maybe they're into that gender. This is wrong, and its prejudice. I will allow and use any gay volunteer who passes a background check until my CEO threatens to fire me for it (which may not be too far off).

I don't want to get on a high horse and tell you that you're wrong for believing whatever you believe. I won't tell anyone that they should wear pink/purple on a day like today if they don't want to, but I will challenge you to think about why you believe what you believe, and whether its a modern view of the world in the country you live in (as its laws apply) or just a personal/religious feeling of wrongness.

Also, to the gay and lesbian community: Don't just BE gay. Be a gay SOMETHING. So many people fall into the stereotype and outlandishness of throwing homosexuality back into people's faces because they've been met with such hatred that suddenly they are only identifying themselves as gay. Not a gay doctor, a gay lawyer, etc. You only help add fuel to the fire that divides the world on this issue when you give in to what people perceive to be "being gay."

[mya]

Out of curiosity' date=' Mya... if you're cool with sex outside of marriage, why aren't you cool with condom use?[/quote']

I am. English just triped me. I thought "condone" meant the opposite.

Just googled its definition Sorry.

So to make it ok, I have no problem with people using condoms.

[Grishnak]

Thinking condemn, were you?

[Pali]

Hehe, okay Mya. It just didn't make sense to me at first... I've NEVER heard of anyone who was cool with sex outside of marriage yet was anti-contraception, so I was confused.

[Pali]

Give me one non-religious reason why two gay men or women should not be able to enter into a state-sponsored marriage.

There aren't any. The whole debate about gay marriage is a problem of people's religious views intruding into their ideas of how we should run the country and how other citizens should be allowed to live their lives.

[Zrothum]

I thought there was a passage in the bible that forbid homosexuality? A man should not lay with another man, or something like that?

To me, that ends marriage right there. None of you can honestly say marriage will not contain a sexual aspect.

That's assuming there does indeed a biblical passage like I think?

[Kinicky]

Zrothum:

The passage you are thinking of is this:

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." - Leviticus 18:22

But let me also point out that in the Ten Commandments listed in Exodus we are told that:

You shall not lie. (As in bearing falsehood)

You shall not lust. (I've always wondered how this plays out in marriage - can a man lust after his own wife?)

You shall honor your father and mother.

And the list goes on...

Now, if we were to be honest, every one of us break one or all of these commandments on a regular basis. I know I do. Does that mean that it is ok to do so? No. But that DOES mean that we are on the same playing field. If we fail in one or more of these areas, how can we judge or condemn anyone else for failing in what we believe to be another area?

And to Grishnak and Pali:

The concept of morality and one's own religious beliefs are inseparable. And I do not think that my sharing with you what I believe to be accosting you, nor 'intruding into how other citizens should live their lives'. If I am forcing you to comply with my beliefs, then yes. But in speaking of them in a way that (I hope) is inoffensive and open, no.

[Raargant]

Now, if we were to be honest, every one of us break one or all of these commandments on a regular basis. I know I do. Does that mean that it is ok to do so? No. But that DOES mean that we are on the same playing field. If we fail in one or more of these areas, how can we judge or condemn anyone else for failing in what we believe to be another area?

In summary,

Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye' date=' but do not notice the log in your own eye?[/quote']

Or alternately,

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

[Kinicky]

Bingo.

I was just trying to converse without sounding overly religious, and when I start throwing out Bible citations it generally does little more than turn everybody off. But yes, that's what I believe and what I TRY to live by, and wish that other people who profess themselves as Christians would also try to model.

[Raargant]

I, on the other hand, not being a Christian, have no compunctions against using such citations

[Kinicky]

Oh, the irony.

EDIT: As a side note, Raargant, you seem to have a lot of time patrolling these forums. Is that time that could be better spent on, say, CHAPTER 12?!?!

You're killin' me, Smalls.

[Raargant]

I can forum-scavenge at work. Writing a novel...

[Tantangel]

See, he's writing a novel. Those were just the free teaser chapters, your punk *** has to pay $23.99 to get the rest of them when it comes out in hardback. And no, sorry there wont be a paperback version for a while, if ever.

[Kinicky]

See' date=' he's writing a novel. Those were just the free teaser chapters, your punk *** has to pay $23.99 to get the rest of them when it comes out in hardback. And no, sorry there wont be a paperback version for a while, if ever. [/quote']

You see? We all have our sins.

Some are just particularly egregious.

[TheNewGuy]

Every Christian just loves to pick and choose which parts of the Bible he or she wants to listen to.

For the feminist Christians, they choose to disbelieve that women should submit to their husbands, and that the husband should be the head of the household.

For the anti-feminist Christians, they choose to disbelieve that men should honor their wives and treat them with respect and care.

For racist Christians, they choose to disbelieve that Jesus wasn't white.

For gay Christians, they choose to disbelieve that non-heterosexual sex (sodomy) is a sin.

For gay-hater Christians, they choose to disbelieve that God loves everybody, no matter where you put it.

SOOOO well put. That last one is something I'd say more christians have missed that not. Made me really sad when I saw on TV, "christians" demonstrating against homosexuals, holding signs with texts like "God hates you". I mean, come on! That is hypocracy at its worst.

[Kinicky]

SOOOO well put. That last one is something I'd say more christians have missed that not. Made me really sad when I saw on TV' date=' "christians" demonstrating against homosexuals, holding signs with texts like "God hates you". I mean, come on! That is hypocracy at its worst.[/quote']

Really? Is this still happening a lot, and currently?

More recently, I've been seeing predominantly the opposite.

Not to say that it doesn't happen - in fact, there is even a "ministry" out there that pickets the funerals of homosexuals.

And to be honest, while I try to be tolerant of most people, those who use their 'Christianity' as a podium by which to bash and hate on others REALLY gets under my skin. I don't know that I would trust myself to be so particularly compassionate if I came face to face with that crap.

I will say, however, that Christianity has had an interesting recent history in the US. It developed to the point that, a few generations back, being a Christian was the social norm. And so, people began to propogate themselves as such for political, social, even economic reasons. And with that false foundation, they were hypocritical at best.

Now, the rampant hypocrisy that came out in that era has led to a backlash (as much of history does) where the response is to battle AGAINST Christianity, because it is seen as a framework for hate, intolerance, and ignorance.

I would be careful with the blanket generalizations, though. The 'picking and choosing' of scripture (which happens to every Christian to SOME extent - such is the nature of interpretation) is NOT done so much on the grass roots level. Rather, it is seen heavily among the more 'vocal' groups, who generally succeed in making all of us Christians look like idiots, or bigots.

Which most of us are not.

[Raargant]

Concur. Vocal idiots generally make up in volume what they lack in numbers, to disguise that lack. This is, incidentally, as true in politics as it is in religion.

[Zrothum]

Or on internet forums. *cough cough*

[Kinicky]

Or on internet forums. *cough cough*

Heh. That made me laugh.

Here is a clip I found of a recent demonstration that sort of revealed what I was talking about earlier.

O'Reilly very definitely reveals a conservative slant here, but looking beyond that I think you can still see that the hate speeches are there.

EDIT: The group that is being discussed here (Battlecry) is focused on altering the media to portray things that are more wholesome, as opposed to the extensive violence and sexuality that is rampant in the current media.

[Grishnak]

I thought there was a passage in the bible that forbid homosexuality? A man should not lay with another man, or something like that?

To me, that ends marriage right there. None of you can honestly say marriage will not contain a sexual aspect.

Again, my argument was that marriage, in the United States, is not necessarily a religious institution. Many, many people go to a courthouse and get married without any sort of religious ceremony or blessing.

To Kinicky: I'm not saying that your beliefs are forced on other people, or attacking. I was asking in my post for people against Gay Rights, which is what today is all about, to give me a reason (one that has nothing to do with their religion, since America touts religious freedom) why a Gay Couple who seeks marriage should not have the same rights and benefits as a married straight one. That's what today is supposed to be about. The awareness that we as a society are mistreating an entire population of our own people because we disagree with what they do behind closed doors.

[Kinicky]

Grishnak:

Apologies. I did not mean to come off as defensive. I was actually trying to address your question and Pali's comment at the same time. My reference to me 'forcing my opinion' was more a response to Pali's statement:

The whole debate about gay marriage is a problem of people's religious views intruding into their ideas of how we should run the country and how other citizens should be allowed to live their lives.

My view on marriage defines it as a God-sanctioned union. As such, I don't believe that homosexual marriage is viable. That is MY opinion, and if you don't share it, that's cool. I don't agree with a homosexual lifestyle, however, and thus I won't support it.

I WILL, however, support the people. I hate the fact that the gay clture is somewhat of an enigma to much of the Christian population, who define an entire group of people by their sin. There is NO other groups we do this to, and I think it is shameful and wrong.

[Raargant]

To Kinicky: I'm not saying that your beliefs are forced on other people, or attacking. I was asking in my post for people against Gay Rights, which is what today is all about, to give me a reason (one that has nothing to do with their religion, since America touts religious freedom) why a Gay Couple who seeks marriage should not have the same rights and benefits as a married straight one. That's what today is supposed to be about. The awareness that we as a society are mistreating an entire population of our own people because we disagree with what they do behind closed doors.

I think most of the opposition to homosexuality w/regards to marriage is not with regards to extending them the rights and benefits (which is why civil unions exist); but rather, with calling it marriage.

[Tantangel]

To be honest I think it's a joke. What this country stands for and what people are constantly bickering about are two different things. I say let them do what they want to do, if they want to do things to each other behind closed doors they can do so, they aren't trying to force it on you are they? And even if they broadcast it on the internet, you'd have to know exactly how to get to that and you'd be viewing it for your dis/pleasure of your own accord. That's your fault. So you're disgusted about what they may be doing behind those closed doors, YOU are thinking about it, YOU don't have to. Isn't it supposed to be separation of Church and State? Why is it then that so often that Church gets dragged into the State to ban same sex marriage or other same sex activities? There's no real good reason why, people mostly just drag religion into it and say that it's wrong, while personally I believe it to be kind of gross, I don't have to think about what may happen. I don't believe they're born that way though, I've talked to many before who just found the same sex more attractive than the opposite after a time who had dated/had sex with women.

[Pali]

My view on marriage defines it as a God-sanctioned union. As such' date=' I don't believe that homosexual marriage is viable. That is MY opinion, and if you don't share it, that's cool. I don't agree with a homosexual lifestyle, however, and thus I won't support it.[/quote']

Well, yeah, as an atheist, I don't really consider marriage to be God-sanctioned. Still, in a country where marriage is not always religious (people get married by courts all the time... for instance, my dad's marriage had no priest and was at a country club, but I doubt you'd say he isn't married), isn't trying to make it man-woman for all a form of imposing your religious beliefs on others through law?

I WILL, however, support the people. I hate the fact that the gay clture is somewhat of an enigma to much of the Christian population, who define an entire group of people by their sin. There is NO other groups we do this to, and I think it is shameful and wrong.

This I am glad to hear. Though, I'd argue that atheists tend to get a bad rap as well... surveys have shown that more of the country wouldn't vote for someone because they're atheist than wouldn't vote for someone for being gay.

[HBwillie]

Every Christian just loves to pick and choose which parts of the Bible he or she wants to listen to.

For the feminist Christians, they choose to disbelieve that women should submit to their husbands, and that the husband should be the head of the household.

For the anti-feminist Christians, they choose to disbelieve that men should honor their wives and treat them with respect and care.

For racist Christians, they choose to disbelieve that Jesus wasn't white.

For gay Christians, they choose to disbelieve that non-heterosexual sex (sodomy) is a sin.

For gay-hater Christians, they choose to disbelieve that God loves everybody, no matter where you put it.

Me? No, I didn't wear pink or purple. I had no idea it was, and have never heard of, whatever-day-you-said-that-was. And even if I had, I wouldn't wear pink or purple, because I don't have but two shirts that fall into that category of colors, and they are both dirty. Plus, none of the gay people I know are even willing to admit that what they are doing -might- be wrong. Not is, but might be. They aren't even willing to admit that they are fallible and as human as the rest of us. I don't care if it is, or isn't. Actually, I just don't care. Put it where it makes you happy, gay people.

The Bible is open to interpretation, since there are so many variations of it. Its true intention and meaning will be debated until the end of time. Live your life by its words or not, but don't generalize and say Christians pick and choose what they want to believe. That's pretty offensive.