Proposition 8 overturned in California

[tcampen]

*sigh*

You guys are still missing the point. I realize that we don't have Christian laws. I understand that there is separation of church and state. What I've been trying to say is that God never required that separation, man did. As Christians, we SHOULD strive to have Christian laws based on the Christian faith. To say that we should be happy with secular laws goes against what the bible says.

So do you think we should have a theocracy rather than our current constitutional republic? And if we did, and if your version of Christianity fell out of favor of the theocracy's, how would you go about protecting your religious rights?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Until you can prove which of the thousands of versions of Christianity is right, you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone why it would be best to strive for that. I would never want evangelical Christianity controlling the laws, just like you might not like Catholicism controlling them, and they might object to orthodox. The only tenent I think you could safely argue all Christians in this world agree on is that Jesus is the Messiah. And that statement alone does not a country make.

That's why I said God's Christianity.

Supporting human rights does not mean one is "friends" with the world.

It does when those so-called human rights go against God's word.

Nobody needs your approval. Most of us don't believe your beliefs are correct, and many Christians don't believe God has a problem with gays.

You sure could fool me what with how y'all get so upset with me every time I say homosexuality is a sin and how you argue and deny that it is a sin.

Of course you don't need my approval. But you need God's, and I don't see Him giving it anywhere in the bible...but since you live by man's law first, I guess there's no issue for you.

 

[Sojourner1]

Until you can prove which of the thousands of versions of Christianity is right, you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone why it would be best to strive for that. I would never want evangelical Christianity controlling the laws, just like you might not like Catholicism controlling them, and they might object to orthodox. The only tenent I think you could safely argue all Christians in this world agree on is that Jesus is the Messiah. And that statement alone does not a country make.

I think the "version" of Christianity that would support same-sex marriage is a very small percentage of the whole of Christianity.

 

[Old Catholic Man]

You guys are totally missing the point and I can't help but think that you're being purposefully obtuse.

As a Christian, I'd rather have laws based on Christianity than secularism. As Christians, our actions should, first and foremost, be in line with God's laws, not man's laws. Man's law may well say homosexual marriage is okay, but God's laws do not. Man's law makes it okay to abort babies, but God's law does not.

God teaches that we should respect the authority placed above us, but that His law always comes first. When we decide how we feel based on what society tells us (which can be done via laws) rather than what God tells us, we've lost focus of what's important.

Saying "this is not a Christian country so we shouldn't have Christian laws" basically smacks God in the face as though His laws don't matter and man's laws trump His.

So who will determine what is God's law? Catholics, Orthodox, Baptists, Independent Fundamentalists, Oneness Pentecostals, Methodists, Episcopalians, ELCA, LCMS, Continuing Anglicans, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Copts, Holiness, Pietists, Amish?

I mean no offense, but as an Orthodox Christian, I trust neither you nor your husband to decide for me what God's law is.

Actually what a Christian should want is to have a country in which they can live by the dictates of their conscience so long as they aren't causing harm. That way you won't have to give up wine for the eucharist, or be prohibited from baptizing infants, or be told whom your husband must marry.

The U.S. Government as it is now does allow us to follow God's law first. Only if you institute a government that bases laws on a specific religion will you be forced to follow the law before God's law.

T

 

[pgp_protector]

*sigh*

You guys are still missing the point. I realize that we don't have Christian laws. I understand that there is separation of church and state. What I've been trying to say is that God never required that separation, man did. As Christians, we SHOULD strive to have Christian laws based on the Christian faith. To say that we should be happy with secular laws goes against what the bible says:

James 4:4
You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.

I've shown that I don't care if homosexuals marry. You can call yourself married all you want - it doesn't mean that I'm going to consider you married or consider your marriage valid.

I still haven't seen an answer to this

Jesus stated 2 Laws were the most important, what were they, and do you want them written into the State Laws ?

 

[Jase]

Of course I'm in agreement with God. Would you expect any less from someone who professes to be a Christian?

I would expect a self-professed Christian to be willing to let their beliefs stand up to scrutiny, instead of hiding behind the protection of the literal English Bible translation that most of the world knows is not 100% accurate. While I'm not referring to you specifically, I've met far too many Christians who base their entire faith on the literal perfection of the English Bible, and anyone who doesn't believe 100% the same as they do is being controlled by Satan.

Keep in mind - Every attrocity committed in history by Christians (and they basically are considered the worst in terms of human attrocities) has been justified by some literal interpretation of the Bible. This case with gays is absolutely no different than slavery, segregation, miscegnation, denying women rights, the Crusades, witch burning, slaughter of muslims in Europe, the dark ages, arresting Galileo, etc.. All has been justified using your approach to Bible translation.

One would think that history would have taught us a lesson, but apparently not.

 

[BigBadWlf]

You sure could fool me what with how y'all get so upset with me every time I say homosexuality is a sin and how you argue and deny that it is a sin.

I would argue and protest with the same intensity if anyone made such a claim about any other minority and I hope others would too.

Of course you don't need my approval. But you need God's, and I don't see Him giving it anywhere in the bible...but since you live by man's law first, I guess there's no issue for you.

So what are you saying about those of us who doesn’t agree with your personal interpretations of the bible?

 

[Staccato]

Well, having read through 60 and counting pages of this, it looks like everything has been argued halfway to death already, so forgive me for not stating my own view, which is likely a reiteration of what others here have already said and boils down to perhaps the best line in the whole ruling:

"fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections" - Judge Walker

GO TEAM!

I play Warhammer 40k. It is a war game using metal and plastic models. I have one such model called Eldrad Ulthwe. He's a psychic and master manipulator, and I also attribute to him the personality of a major jerk. Does that mean I believe my little model is actually sentient and has these personality traits?

Didn't he get sucked into the heart of a blackstone fortress by the power of Slannesh quite a while back?

There might be a moral in there somewhere

Heck no. Freakin treehugger class! Priest, Lock, and Mage are my main classes. Rogue was my original, but they are too twitchy.

Warriors forever. Prot spec PvP owns the face off everything if played correctly

 

[Old Catholic Man]

I'm so tempted to get my old private server running again.
I'd play online, but my old guild died & the players just never came back (left the bank full of stuff though )

I'd probably join in if you do. My son has been trying to get me to play.

T

 

[Jase]

I think the "version" of Christianity that would support same-sex marriage is a very small percentage of the whole of Christianity.

I think you would have a very hard time proving that. The hatred of homosexuality is heavily focused on Evangelical denominations like Southern Baptists, which are almost exclusively found in the United States. And Roman Catholic, predominately in Italy, and various other parts of Europe.

But, the majority of the 1st World, which is heavily Christianized either allows same-sex marriage, or is much more accepting of it. The US is the only country in NATO that doesn't allow openly gay members in the military.

The trend of same-sex marriage, and homosexuality is exactly like what happened with race and gender. African-American rights, and women's rights were heavily oppressed by the Christian right decades ago, and now, in all but the most conservative of Christian circles, they are nearly non-issues. I guarantee you, in the mid 21st Century, sexual orientation will have the same result, and will be a non-issue for most of the world.

Conservatives are always opposed to any form of progress, be it scientific or social. They, however, always lose.

 

[Old Catholic Man]

The will of the people will not be ignored. This will go to the supreme court. America wasn't founded on same sex marriage. Plus, the polygamist and beastality candidates will complain now.

Do you realize my friend that no law, no matter how popular, can stand so long as it is unconstitutional? Same sex marriage will be the law of the land within the next 4 years unless a Constitutional Amendment is passed within that period of time.

T

 

[Old Catholic Man]

Um, you mean your interpretation of God's law may say that, but millions upon millions of Christians disagree with you. You can't claim something as fact without evidence. And there is zero evidence that your beliefs are correct.

And how about those of us who God told are not sinning by being homosexual/bisexual/transgender?

To atheists, muslims and Jews, Christian laws are meaningless and have no business being in this country. When you move to a secluded island and set up your own theocracy where only Fundamentalist Christians are permitted to be citizens, you can set up any laws you want. Until then, your laws are meaningless.

I don't think she's a Fundamentalist Jase although I may be wrong.
T

 

[Jase]

That's why I said God's Christianity.

Which is essentially meaningless, since God does not follow Christianity - it's a human invention, and whatever God's Christianity might be, is dependent on whatever denomination is preaching it. "God's Christianity" to a Southern Baptist is Southern Baptist doctrine, whereas "God's Christianity" to Roman Catholics, is based on Catholic doctrine. So in the end, it still boils down to human created denominations.

It does when those so-called human rights go against God's word.

Did ending slavery go against God's word? According to the Bible yes. Did giving women rights go against God's word? Again, according to the Bible yes.

Your interpretation of the Bible does not = God's word.

Of course you don't need my approval. But you need God's, and I don't see Him giving it anywhere in the bible...but since you live by man's law first, I guess there's no issue for you.

Or, it means like I said, that many of us have prayed over this issue countless times, and God has never indicated we're wrong nor has he ever changed us. Your beliefs are not necessarily right. You can believe they are all you want, but you seem incapable of realizing that your understanding of the Bible, is not flawless. If God intended the Bible to be perfect, He would have hand written the entire thing personally, and would have made sure all of us were born capable of understanding Ancient Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic in the context of the ancient world.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I think you would have a very hard time proving that. The hatred of homosexuality is heavily focused on Evangelical denominations like Southern Baptists, which are almost exclusively found in the United States. And Roman Catholic, predominately in Italy, and various other parts of Europe.

But, the majority of the 1st World, which is heavily Christianized either allows same-sex marriage, or is much more accepting of it. The US is the only country in NATO that doesn't allow openly gay members in the military.

The trend of same-sex marriage, and homosexuality is exactly like what happened with race and gender. African-American rights, and women's rights were heavily oppressed by the Christian right decades ago, and now, in all but the most conservative of Christian circles, they are nearly non-issues. I guarantee you, in the mid 21st Century, sexual orientation will have the same result, and will be a non-issue for most of the world.

Conservatives are always opposed to any form of progress, be it scientific or social. They, however, always lose.

 

[Sojourner1]

I think you would have a very hard time proving that. The hatred of homosexuality is heavily focused on Evangelical denominations like Southern Baptists, which are almost exclusively found in the United States. And Roman Catholic, predominately in Italy, and various other parts of Europe.

But, the majority of the 1st World, which is heavily Christianized either allows same-sex marriage, or is much more accepting of it. The US is the only country in NATO that doesn't allow openly gay members in the military.

The trend of same-sex marriage, and homosexuality is exactly like what happened with race and gender. African-American rights, and women's rights were heavily oppressed by the Christian right decades ago, and now, in all but the most conservative of Christian circles, they are nearly non-issues. I guarantee you, in the mid 21st Century, sexual orientation will have the same result, and will be a non-issue for most of the world.

Conservatives are always opposed to any form of progress, be it scientific or social. They, however, always lose.

Here you go: List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality. Check the columns that state whether the denomination blesses unions or marries.

 

[Old Catholic Man]

God's.

To be determined how, or by whom.

T

 

[Jase]

So what are you saying about those of us who doesn’t agree with your personal interpretations of the bible?

This is a point I'm having a very difficult time getting across. Conservatives seem incapable of realizing that their beliefs are based on an interpretation of the text, and that everyone reads it different. Who is to say that their particular interpretation is what God intended and everyone who disagrees is wrong?

It's the height of hubris to claim "my understanding of the Bible is perfect, therefore yours must be wrong."

 

[Sojourner1]

This is a point I'm having a very difficult time getting across. Conservatives seem incapable of realizing that their beliefs are based on an interpretation of the text, and that everyone reads it different. Who is to say that their particular interpretation is what God intended and everyone who disagrees is wrong?

It's the height of hubris to claim "my understanding of the Bible is perfect, therefore yours must be wrong."

Which Bible translation do you read?

 

[Jase]

Do you realize my friend that no law, no matter how popular, can stand so long as it is unconstitutional? Same sex marriage will be the law of the land within the next 4 years unless a Constitutional Amendment is passed within that period of time.

T

They don't seem to get this here, not that I'm surprised since civic education seems painfully inadequate in this country.

300 million Americans could vote on a law, and 1 Judge could still find that law Unconstitutional, and they would all lose. Only 52% of Californian voters even voted for Prop 8. Hardly a big majority.

 

[Jase]

I don't think she's a Fundamentalist Jase although I may be wrong.
T

Perhaps not. I kinda use Fundamentalist/Conservative/Literalist interchangeably, since the differences seem to be very small. Not really sure what other term to use to distinguish different groups.