The Great Controversy -- or Is It Really?

[wriggz]

Originally Posted by Aldin

Right. What it will do is force people who think it is wrong to do business with gay couples anyway. Like I said earlier, I'm not a fan of someone choosing to refuse service to someone for anything other than necessary reasons. On the other hand, speaking of freedom to choose, I've always had a lot of sympathy for the "we reserve the right to refuse to do business with anyone" crowd. In the long run, economics should punish the foolish shortsightedness of folks who don't want to serve all of their potential customers. Sadly, I have to recognize that in the real world, that hasn't always been sufficient as a means of effecting necessary change.

~Aldin, citizen

This is why I read these things. I need to keep evaluting my own position to ensure I truely agree with my beliefs.

Should a bar owner have the right to have smoking section? It is his establishment, he advised his staff of the health risks, and Smoking is still legal.

I perfer the government to only step in to protect the human rights those that can't protect themselves (including marginalized people who may be left without any where to shop if bigotry rules the land). Imagine if no store would serve Red heads, then all the red heads would have to migrate or become extinct.

On the other hand I disagree with your right to fire live ammo in city centres and support the police in stopping that action. It is tricky to decide how much we should let government get invovled in our lives and where that shifting line is drawn at any given moment.

[twilkerson]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

No, *that's* the misdirection. Because as a practical matter, government will not stop sanctioning marriages. It's deeply ingrained in our law and in our culture. Telling same sex couples that "the government is getting out of the business of sanctioning marriage, and we're going to start by not sanctioning *you*," highlights precisely why the courts had to step in. "Reasoning" like that is near-naked oppression.

Thank you for responding. Can you clarify the term "near-naked oppression" so that I can better understand your thoughts on my original statement?

This debate and court's decision are self-evident that both culture and laws change. Since this law was changed on the argument that it originally restricted freedom, I questioned the reason the law existed in the first place and couldn't find a good reason our government is documenting and approving the relationships of its citizens.

[CrazyTankster]

I would really like to say how appreciative I am that this thread has gone 5 pages and remained civil, I think that speaks wonders for the community we have here and how much respect we all hold for each other.

On the topic itself, I think Christians have made a major mistake for years of trying to legislate how non-Christians should live their lives, and now it's catching up to them. Live your life, love everyone around you, and show God to them that way, instead of screaming that homosexuality and abortion are sins, while you divorce and remarry at will, gossip, ignore the orphans, don't visit those in jail, let 50 million Americans go hungry tonight (which is an absurd number with the resources available to us, and that's not even counting those over seas without clean water or food...) tear down your neighbor and break the law (which the Bible says to obey government laws, as God placed the government above us, unless it directly contridicts the Bible) by speeding, running stop signs, forgetting turn signals and cutting people off while driving.

I fear those are the sins that will get most Americans in trouble once they get to heaven, not oppressing gays or refusing to perform their marriage...

[CrazyTankster]

Originally Posted by twilkerson

I questioned the reason the law existed in the first place and couldn't find a good reason our government is documenting and approving the relationships of its citizens.

Cause it makes them money... (wild guess here.)

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by twilkerson

Thank you for responding. Can you clarify the term "near-naked oppression" so that I can better understand your thoughts on my original statement?

This debate and court's decision are self-evident that both culture and laws change. Since this law was changed on the argument that it originally restricted freedom, I questioned the reason the law existed in the first place and couldn't find a good reason our government is documenting and approving the relationships of its citizens.

Yes, I'll be glad to.

Unless I misunderstood you, the argument I understood you to be proposing was this:

The government should not be sanctioning any marriages. Civil unions, fine; marriages, no. Therefore, the government's power to sanction marriages should not be expanded in this case, it should be eliminated in all cases. Problem solved.

Now, that may not be what you were saying. I've heard that argument before, though, and that's what I was responding to. The fact is, the government isn't getting out of the marriage business, because it *can't*. It cannot wave a magic wand and all of the countless threads bundled into the rights and privileges of marriage suddenly come apart; there are too many public and private institutions that depend upon a sanctioned marriage for that to happen without massive upheaval.

So, while you and I might agree that the government should not be in the marriage business, that response to this debate is a smokescreen, in that what you want to discuss will take a transformative movement working for a generation or more, while countless same-sex couples remain unable to marry.

Have that conversation if you want; I don't have strong feelings one way or the other. But same sex couples should be able to marry, just like anybody else, *now*, and that shouldn't wait on (or be related to) whether the government is in the marriage business.

As for the term "near naked oppression," what I meant was this: If a person was insisting that we should remove government sanctioning of marriage instead of (or before) considering whether same sex couples should have the same right to wed as everyone else, that would be near-naked oppression. There would be no end to the debate about the former, so discussion about the latter would never even come to pass. It would be saying that you'll take the shovel and dig the well so the thirsty may drink, right after you move the mountain first.

You didn't adopt the "near naked oppression" position for yourself, but I described in my post a version of your argument in which the gov't refuses to sanction same sex marriages but is continuing to sanction others. I was - if you read my post again, you'll see - referring to my own expression of an argument that may or may not be precisely what you intended. That's why I worded it that way: I was talking about a position I wasn't sure you were expressing, so I set it up for myself the way I wanted to discuss it.

[ollie]

As someone who is mostly sympathetic, I think, to what you were trying to say, but still agreeing with Dad_Scaper that the result is oppression, I'll have a stab. DS might massively disagree with this, but maybe it'll be a useful thing to add to the conversation anyway.

Ideally, governments would get out of the business of controlling relationships. My marriage is a worthless sham that I entered into purely to get a visa. The 20-odd year relationship with the other person in that marriage is not a sham, but the act of getting married is well down the list of things we've done together of importance to me.

In my ideal world, there would be a checklist offered by governments where you can enter into possibly-time-limited agreements with others that the government has some say in: tax breaks, visitation and plug-pulling rights, child custody commitments and so on. You'd be able to opt in and out of these with other people as appropriate and regardless of irrelevant details like gender. Churches and whoever else can imbue the word "marriage" with whatever significance they like and whoever wants to partake in that, according to the limits of the particular church definition can do so, and it would presumably keep much the same cultural weight that it does now.

However, let's move onto the oppression bit. How do we get from where we are now (or where we were last week, more relevantly) to that point? Certainly, extending the number of ways in which the government can ratify a marriage does not seem like a good idea. So with the ideal world situation in mind we naturally argue against loosening the conditions on who can get married. And that's the oppression: that ideal world is nowhere near getting realised and, I suspect, won't be in my lifetime. In the meantime we are (were) denying those who want same-sex marriages the same privileges those who want man-woman ones.

Short version: don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.


Edit. Well, why don't the rest of you sort it all out while I'm typing. That's a good plan too. At least I see I was not too far off from DS's meaning.

[twilkerson]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

You didn't adopt the "near naked oppression" position for yourself, but I described in my post a version of your argument in which the gov't refuses to sanction same sex marriages but is continuing to sanction others. I was - if you read my post again, you'll see - referring to my own expression of an argument that may or may not be precisely what you intended. That's why I worded it that way: I was talking about a position I wasn't sure you were expressing, so I set it up for myself the way I wanted to discuss it.

No worries. I'm glad that we are on the same page now and fully understand your contribution to the discussion.

I personally find peace in the quote, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15 and expect that my neighbors also have the freedom to run their houses without my judgement.

At this time I'm retiring from this thread and would like to express my gratitude for the civility of our Heroscapers community.

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by twilkerson

I personally find peace in the quote, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15 and expect that my neighbors also have the freedom to run their houses without my judgment.

That's some powerful stuff right there, TW. A lot of truth in that simple sentence.

[dart48]

Wow, if nothing else, this thread has taught me something, I didn't know as much as I thought I did beforehand on this subject. I spend hours and hours searching through articles and scientific research and found flaws in a lot of the things I've learned over the years. Dad_scaper, I'd have to say I concede from my previous statements.

Originally Posted by twilkerson

I personally find peace in the quote, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15 and expect that my neighbors also have the freedom to run their houses without my judgement.

At this time I'm retiring from this thread and would like to express my gratitude for the civility of our Heroscapers community.

That about sums up where I'm sitting now. I may not be for gay marriage for personal reasons, honestly, Im not for homosexuality at all. BUT, I do get where they are coming from and that they do deserve the right to get married if they wish. It's not my place to deny them that right. "But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."

Thanks Dad_scaper for teaching me something.

[Joseph Sweeney]

Originally Posted by dart48

Thanks Dad_scaper for teaching me something.

Pffft. That's all he does. He taught me a bunch too.

Dad_Scaper for a reason?

~JS

[Hahma]

Just wondering how long these rainbows are going to be popular? They are quite distracting.

The above was posted by a member of my gaming group on our group's Facebook page. We have a ton of members of our gaming association in Northwest Indiana and south suburbs of Chicago.

Anyway, since the recent Supreme Court ruling, a handful of people in our group have used whatever tool to add the translucent rainbow banner over their FB avatar. I'm not sure if the guy who posted what's quoted above was just meaning it toward the guys in our group, or if on FB in general, and perhaps unintentionally posted on the group's page instead of his own.

The guy's my age (48 ) and generally a good guy and we have fun whenever we're participating in the same game on game night or whenever. But, he's also very Conservative and Catholic.

My point is that some people who are opposed to gay's, gay marriage etc. because of their religion seem to make everything about them and how it's hurting/affecting them. I mean, this ruling doesn't affect this one guy or any of the others out there who's religious belief's don't coincide with the court's ruling. So why play the victim?

I have other friends in the group that are very Christian or even so so Christians, but they don't comment one way or the other. They don't try to preach or force their beliefs on others. I certainly appreciate that for sure.

On a personal note for some perspective on me, I grew up Catholic, as did my sister and wife. Heck, my oldest daughter (23 and living in Albany, NY) was just out for a few days for a visit and mentioned how her boyfriend was raised Catholic and forced to go to Catholic schools. We all bailed out of that once we had a choice as adults. Also, from what my mom (still very Catholic) mentioned recently, there have been a lot people leaving the Catholic church in general.

As for religion, well I really don't partake. Over the years I have grown less trusting of religious organizations overall. I think that a lot of it has been open to human interpretation and that can be flawed. I mean you have Catholic priests molesting kids and the church covering it up. You have mega-churches with the pastor or whatever living in a mansion, or the other one that says he needs a $68 million (or something around there) jet to be able to spread the word.

I've seen people of all faiths do questionable things over the years, but because they go to church on Sunday (or Saturday or whenever), then everything's okay. So I wonder how people that don't follow the letter of the law so to speak for their own religion, dare to cherry pick things like homosexuality to all of a sudden be strict and by the book about?

I have no issues with people being into their religion and whatnot, as long as they aren't trying to force it down mine or other people's throat. I already have a plumber co-worker that used to be a wild one but has found God and is now a super hardcore Catholic, telling me that I'm going to hell. Whatever dude, at least I'll be there with most of the people that I care about.

The other hypocritical thing people say is when asked about kids with cancer or people suffering in many parts of the world, people with say that it's God's will and part of his plan (or something to that effect). But when talking about homosexuals, then it's a sin and not part of God's plan. Again, it's cherry-picking what things happen in the world are God's will and what isn't part of God's will. Isn't it all his will?

That's it. I'm sure my points of view aren't shared for the most part, but I'm honest about them anyway for what it's worth. Also, for the record, my sister and I were raised by my mother after my parents got divorced when I was 5. No I didn't have 2 moms or 2 dads, but I also didn't have a mom and dad while growing up, as my dad was out of the picture for the most part. Oh, and as far as men and women were meant to be put together to reproduce, sure that worked for my first marriage, but my current wife couldn't conceive the "old fashioned" way, so we had to do Invitro to have our wonderful twin daughters that are now 12. Fortunately science (and good health insurance at the time) was there for us, as we would never had our beautiful children back in the olden days.

[stay_golden_PONYBOY]

Originally Posted by Joseph Sweeney

Not sure if this is directed at me not.

Lemme know if it is, but otherwise, yes, I tend to disregard Leviticus as a whole, it being founded off of Jewish tradition and such.

Not directed to you. Just my observations and opinion.

There are a lot of mentions in this thread that people don't read the good book anymore for one reason or another, and that pains me.

I think there's a lot of overzealous and uneducated Christian clergy out there that quote single passages and take things out of context. When those ideas are presented as representative of me or my beliefs, I take offense.

Many Christians out there quote Leviticus on the homosexuality topic and just like you mentioned, disregard the rest of the commandments given in the Old Testament.

Some quote 2 lines from Romans and then ignore the rest of Saul/Paul's words.

I find it funny that there is so much debate on an issue that didn't even make it on Moses's top 10 list, and that most Christians claim to follow, or at least live by the 10 commandments.

If homosexuality was a sentence to hell or the worst sin ever, don't you think God would have replaced one of the "don't covet's" with "don't be gay". Or, wouldn't JC have cleansed the homosexuals instead of the lepers?

My man JC fulfilled the law. That alone frees all of us gentiles from any of the rules in Leviticus. He was the ultimate sacrifice and paid for every sin that has ever happened or ever will. There will be no judgment until he comes back and he stresses that we shouldn't judge others.

As a Christian, we have the easiest faith to follow and so many people out there pollute it with misinterpretations. If you love God and love your neighbor, all the other things fall into place.

I think that any church that doesn't welcome or include all of God's people is wrong.

It is my opinion that God gave the rules of Leviticus to a chosen group of people that were supposed to represent him, but he had reasons to give them those rules. Don't eat this...it can make you sick. You represent me, so don't act like the heathen you're about to go fight. Don't let men have sex with men since you'll need an army of fighting age individuals in about 20 years to conquer the promised land.

It is also my opinion that the rules in Romans and elsewhere in the New Testament refer to male child sex slaves. Not the act of consenting and loving adults.

Few can explain the chemical and psychological causes of love, and I don't think many can truly define love.

Yes, marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman, but all that really happens is a confession of love before God by 2 people.

Does anyone really think God doesn't know that he created some people with an attraction to the same sex?

Romans explains that our elected officials are there because of his will. This event is part of his plan.

Christians should welcome all people with open arms and invite them to the flock. Represent JC and act just like he did...with love.

If Christian's need something to stand for, may I suggest something actually important?

Feed the poor. Prevent child abuse. Testify why JC is the man and encourage people to continue to have faith. Find out why a kid is so full of hate he shoots up a church because of skin color.

Again, just me and my thoughts.

For those that have fallen away...

You are always welcome back.