U.S. Supreme Court Considers Gay Marriage

AlexDOM wrote: AlexDOM wrote: Well actually I'm commanded to share with others the Gospel, well it's more of a blessing to share in, not so much a burden (which Christians including I sometimes fall susceptible to.)  That's adorable. Yeah it really is. I think it is that God would love me so much to use me to witness to others, rather than force Himself on others. Like the opportunity I'm getting now.   Christ died for all of us to take away our sins and three days later rose again conquering death. That is a very general overview of the Gospel, but if anyone is further interested I would love to share more to you.  Yeah I know this blog thing is on the gay marriage thing, but I can't help to touch on what has changed my life and can change anyone. Can't hold back the good news! Especially to share it with people who have a passion for the supreme genre of all music, progressive rock. Prog rules and that is one of the other things in life I love to talk about and grateful that the Lord opened up my eyes to.

Save it for the Christian thread. If we wanted a sermon, we'd all go to a church 

Indeed!

Gerinski wrote: rushfan4 wrote: There are multiple points of view, but essentially you have the liberal side that says love is love let anyone marry who wants to marry.  Then there is the conservative side that says that God says that marriage is between a man and a woman and homosexuality is a morally reprehensible sin.   And then there are all points in between.  I'm digressing here, but it's always amusing that in the US you call 'liberals' the center-left (democrats) and 'conservatives' the center-right (republicans) while in Europe we use the term 'liberals' for the center-right (conservatives, pro-capitalist system, christian-democrats). (and the term 'socialists' for the center-left, which nowadays are not much different from liberals but just with a bit more social-oriented agenda). These terminologies (even the simple 'right' and 'left' words) were based on social environments which are no longer valid and I think that by now in the 21st century it's time that society should make a profound reflection and revision, because many not-so-well-educated people still forge their ideologies based on such cliches and terminologies without understanding what they are actually supporting, and heavily distorting the current political landscapes.

Earendil wrote: My hesitation in saying that polygamy should be called marriage is because I think it contradicts the most basic definition of marriage.  A union between two people. mar·riage   noun 1. a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husbandand wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation. b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation. 2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. Synonyms:matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness; separation. 3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a marriedcouple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials,marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment. 4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of ahusband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage. 5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song. Synonyms:blend, merger, unity, oneness; alliance, confederation. Antonyms: separation, division, disunion,schism. But of course definitions are made up by people, so they can change.

Well, if you look back through history, I'm pretty sure polygamous unions have been recognized much longer than gay marriage; you find them as far back as the Book of Genesis, whereas homosexuality is similarly ancient but gay marriage is a recent invention.  In ancient Greece, for example, homosexual relationships were common, especially between a young man and an older mentor who was also a sex partner.  They would have never thought of homosexual marriage, however.  At least that's been the case in Western/near Eastern civilization, I think.

If someone wants to openly equuate homosexuality with bestiality then he deserves whatever 'bashing' (written) that comes his way.  So no is the brief answer.  Sorry.  

Edited by akamaisondufromage - April 05 2013 at 18:05

^^He's equating the two because they're both sins, in his view.  If I'm reading him correctly, he would equate it with any other sexual sin, because of his theology of sin.  So he could also go the other way and equate homosexuality with premarital heterosexual sex, which would seem to be softening the typical conservative Christian position on the issue. 

^Why the distinction between his "opinions" and his "beliefs?"  I named both, not to distinguish them, but to lump them into one category.  It is his opinion that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world.  It is also his belief that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world.  Similarly, it is both his opinion and his belief that homosexuality is a sin.  And people here are ridiculing him for both of those beliefs.  The fact that others disagree does not make it right for them to resort to ridicule to express that disagreement.  Surely that type of thing should be discouraged?

Dean wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: ^Why the distinction between his "opinions" and his "beliefs?"  I named both, not to distinguish them, but to lump them into one category.  It is his opinion that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world.  It is also his belief that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world.  Similarly, it is both his opinion and his belief that homosexuality is a sin.  And people here are ridiculing him for both of those beliefs.  The fact that others disagree does not make it right for them to resort to ridicule to express that disagreement.  Surely that type of thing should be discouraged? If you (and he) find it so hard to distinguish between secular opinion and religious belief then that is a cop-out to prevent anyone from expressing opposition to that secular opinion, people are not ridiculing him for his beliefs.

Yes, he has been ridiculed for his religious beliefs.

Triceratopsoil wrote: AlexDOM wrote: Well actually I'm commanded to share with others the Gospel, well it's more of a blessing to share in, not so much a burden (which Christians including I sometimes fall susceptible to.) That's adorable.

There's no "cop-out" here.  I make no distinction between a secular belief and a religious one, and I am quite open to opposition to either.  You're making an unfair distinction between his beliefs about God and his beliefs about homosexuality.  Both are his opinion.  Both are his belief.  Both can be posited as truth and both can be argued against; the fact that one has specifically to do with God and the other does not does not make them different kinds of statements.  Both are truth claims.  Both can be the subject of reasonable debate.  Both are either true or untrue.  Both can be "proven" to an extent, but neither can be proven with absolute certainty. 

None of this justifies ridiculing either of his beliefs/opinions/whatever-you-want-to-call-them.  They should be challenged, because all ideas should be challenged.  They should not be ridiculed.

Dean wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Dean wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: ^Why the distinction between his "opinions" and his "beliefs?"  I named both, not to distinguish them, but to lump them into one category.  It is his opinion that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world.  It is also his belief that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world.  Similarly, it is both his opinion and his belief that homosexuality is a sin.  And people here are ridiculing him for both of those beliefs.  The fact that others disagree does not make it right for them to resort to ridicule to express that disagreement.  Surely that type of thing should be discouraged? If you (and he) find it so hard to distinguish between secular opinion and religious belief then that is a cop-out to prevent anyone from expressing opposition to that secular opinion, people are not ridiculing him for his beliefs. Yes, he has been ridiculed for his religious beliefs. Triceratopsoil wrote: AlexDOM wrote: Well actually I'm commanded to share with others the Gospel, well it's more of a blessing to share in, not so much a burden (which Christians including I sometimes fall susceptible to.) That's adorable. There's no "cop-out" here.  I make no distinction between a secular belief and a religious one, and I am quite open to opposition to either.  You're making an unfair distinction between his beliefs about God and his beliefs about homosexuality.  Both are his opinion.  Both are his belief.  Both can be posited as truth and both can be argued against; the fact that one has specifically to do with God and the other does not does not make them different kinds of statements.  Both are truth claims.  Both can be the subject of reasonable debate.  Both are either true or untrue.  Both can be "proven" to an extent, but neither can be proven with absolute certainty.  None of this justifies ridiculing either of his beliefs/opinions/whatever-you-want-to-call-them.  They should be challenged, because all ideas should be challenged.  They should not be ridiculed. Was that ridicule of his opinion/belief?... sorry I missed the explicit connections between what he said about sin, homosexuality and bestiality, his beliefs in christianity and his statement that he was commanded to share the gospel with others. I don't see that Colin's (admittedly sarcastic) comment was ridiculing his belief in his religion.   I never said "secular belief", I said "secular opinion" - I do not equate opinion with belief. You cannot posit religious opinion as a truth in a secular debate - sorry, but that's just the way it is. Sin does not exist outside religious clubs, very very few religious sins are secular crimes (one or two maybe, if you are lucky), very, very few are codified in common or statute law - the argument that this should not be legal because it is a sin is a weak one.

Given the context of Colin's other statements, I think that his comment was obviously ridicule and condescending.  I don't know what else you would call it.

Now you're making an unfair distinction between "religious" and "secular" without explaining why.  I'm not saying that things can't  be "religious" or "secular"; I'm saying that there's no difference in how they can be used in a debate.  "Jesus Christ is the Son of God" is a truth claim, just as much as is any truth claim about homosexuality or politics or science.  You can't neatly divide truth claims into "religious" and "secular" and say that one has no place in the other.  They are both claims to truth.  Objective truth.  They affect each other.  Christians do not merely claim that Jesus is alive in their heads, or that He means something to them; they claim that he objectively, truly, came down from heaven into this earth and died on the cross and rose from the dead.  You can choose to believe that or not.  You can argue for it or against it; and scholars have been arguing about it for years.  It can be the subject of debate because it is an objective truth claim.  It either happened in history or it didn't.  Whether it did or did not has a profound effect on everything else.  You don't have to believe it, but you can't dismiss it as mere fancy that has no bearing on a "secular" debate.  It has as much place on others' arguments based on science or politics or ethics or what have you.

Your argument is an example of an error called the fact/value split; an error that places empirical data in the realm of "fact" or "objective truth" - in other words things that can be objectively true or false.  Then it places things like religion in the realm of "values" or "the subjective"; things that are relative to each individual.  This is false.  Religions make objective truth claims.  "Jesus Christ is the Son of God."  "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet." "The Lord our God, the Lord is one."  None of these are subjective or relative.  They are either objectively true or not.

I have never heard the word "sin" used outside of a religious context and in fact most definitions of the word is that sin is an offense against god. 

How is making homesexual marriage a protected civil right  imposing on anyone?  I'm heterosexual and would not feel imposed upon at all.  Alex can still be a Christian even if homosexual marriage becomes a protected right.  Your argument is that because some religious people will be upset that it's imposing our will on them.  No one will have to act differently in any way if gay marriage becomes a right.  Your argument makes no sense. 

Not letting A impose his will on B is not imposing on A. 


Edited by The Doctor - April 06 2013 at 00:38