Radical Clerics, Christian Morals, and Homosexuality

quote:

---

I just read a great article that explains the Christian position and that i see as logical and reasonable.

​

Macklemore-Same-Sex-Marriage-and-Human-Equality

---

I thought that it was just a shallow attempt to avoid the justified charge of bigotry. For instance a patriotic American ought to recognise that the law - including marriage law - is a secular instrument and it is not there solely for imposing religious values on all of society (which is all he offers).So long as the opposition to gay marriage fails to offer reasonable objections, how can we conclude that their position is based on anything more than bigotry?

quote:

---

Just because I believe that people can choose who or what to have sex with and that they have a responsibility...to society...to be mature about it does not make me a bigot.

---

Except that if you assume that homosexual sex is automatically "irresponsible" and "immature" you ARE a bigot.

quote:

---

If the culture forces churches to perform gay marriages, we'll just have to go to jail or whatever penalty is coming down the pike against Christians, because at least the true orthodox churches won't give in to that

---

You do realise that there isn't the slightest possibility of that happening in the U.S. in the forseeable future ?

quote:

---

It seems none of you read the article, or ignored some valid logic.

---

You mean like the bit where he claims that he is right because he can draw a simple Venn diagram ?But let's deal with your points about incest and polygamy. Are you claiming that there are NO valid secular reasons for banning incest and polygamy ? Because unless you are, you don't have a point. I notice that your quote doesn't attempt to address that issue which suggests to me that it is far from being valid logic, just the usual apologetic evasions and excuses.

quote:

---

There is no need for two people of the same gender to get married apart from non love reasons. Just as there is no need to marry your sister if by some strange reason you were attracted to her.

---

You think that love isn't a reason for marriage ? I would say that society disagrees. And isn't there a huge difference between ruling out marriage to a few people and ruling out marriage to EVERYONE that a person might reasonably fall in love with ?

quote:

---

Sexuality can be expressed in ways that are not harmful to society...be you gay or straight.

---

That would seem to be more a condemnation of adulterers than of gays.

quote:

---

I understand that some of us are born with an attraction and emotional predisposition towards either (or both) genders.

​

The problem that you guys seem to be having is in confusing attraction and sexuality.

---

Seems to me that the problem is that they're not nearly as distinct as you would like to make out.

quote:

---

While I'm at it I'll note that I said the attitude on this thread is a "FORM" of persecution. I do think the opinions on this thread in support of gay marriage and calling Christians bigots for opposing it as sin represent a trend that is fairly new but growing, and already strident and hate-filled to my ears.

---

I guess that Muslims can certainly claim to be persecuted in America. And your attitude to Catholicism is clearly "persecution" by your definition and ruled by much worse hate. Denying gay marriage - and the consequences of denying it - is still worse persecution than truthful criticism. Indeed your bullying rants on this forum must be considered a "FORM of persecution" in your eyes. If, that is, you apply your criteria consistently. And let's be honest - who expects you to have enough integrity to do that ?

So what's the difference, that makes what you do acceptable ?

quote:

---

What I've said against Catholicism or gay marriage and etc has never been said with the violent tone that's been directed against Christians on this thread, and elsewhere at EvC.

---

I'd say that it sounds MORE violent to me. Certainly it is more hateful.

quote:

---

My war is completely a war of words, to expose the evils of Catholicism in the hope that some might understand that their power is dangerous, and I've always said it's not Catholics, it's the Vatican that's dangerous.

---

And yet you attack Catholic doctrine, often without understanding what it actually says. I think that ordinary Catholics are entitled to take offence and feel concerned about that.

quote:

---

Or to prevent the enactment of gay marriage which would destroy the society.

---

And we find that to be hysterical nonsense - and have the justified suspicion that it's backed up by nothing more than the desire to continue to discriminate against gays.

quote:

---

And besides, I'm only me, it's not as if I have half a dozen others here agreeing with me and escalating the tone as is being done by my opponents. The tone really does sound vicious to me.

---

I would have to say that it was not so long ago that you said that you wanted to strangle me - and the only reason was that I disagreed with your opinion - an opinion that made no sense to me and that you could not support. Now THAT sounds far more violent than anything said here.

quote:

---

In the case of Catholicism I'm trying to expose a PERSECUTOR.

---

Except that you aren't, are you ? You post conspiracy theories but no real evidence. It looks more to me like you are trying to BE a "PERSECUTOR"

quote:

---

Yes, I know you'll just turn it around against me because you have no ability to judge these things.

---

Yawn. The evidence is to the contrary.

quote:

---

OK,, I give up, I'm the persecutor, I'm the evil one, nothing I say has any value, I get it. Christianity is the enemy of the world, not Catholicism, not gay marriage, none of that, no, just Christianity. I get it.

---

You think that I consider you to be a good Christian ?You think that I consider the Catholic Church to be blameless, just because I object to vicious and baseless attacks on it ? There's a lot wrong with Catholicism but it's nowhere near as bad as you say.You don't get it at all.

I'd like to make something clear. I usually take a wide definition of Christian including pretty much anyone who's prepared to assent to the basic doctrines. That's why I said that I don't consider Faith a good Christian. Which of course she ignored.But if we're going to talk about what makes a good Christian then adherence to doctrine is surely not the most important issue - and I'd be surprised if there were more than a few items of doctrine that had to be believed.In Christianity you don't get saved by saying that you believe in Sola Scriptura - or even really believing it. Adherence to the teachings of the Gospels - such as "Judge not, lest ye be judged" would surely seem to be more important than that or even the Trinity or the Virgin Birth.

quote:

---

I believe that there is essentially a spectrum
on the far left you have license and freedom...all things are permissible...we are free in Christ to live our lives as we feel. On the far right is legalism. Thou shalt do this and not do that.
There are numerous rules.

---

I think that on the far right there is a lot of hypocrisy. "I can do as I like but YOU must follow the rules" comes closer to describing a lot of them. Often the "YOU" isn't even a member of the Church.

quote:

---

So what does it mean to love? Does perfect love include boundless tolerance? If my teenager is in church and is making out with his girlfriend in the back pew, am i to giggle and turn the other way? Am I to go and rebuke them? Am I to ignore what to me is a fleshly act which would embarrass us all in the Lords presence? My point is this: What should and should not be allowed in church?

---

In the case we're discussing that's up to the church, isn't it ? If they choose to marry gays in some sense they can (it won't be recognised as a legal marriage unless the law allows it, though) - if they choose not to, then they don't have to, even if gay marriage becomes legal. The whole thing is about marriage as a legal institution.Faith's silly fear-mongering is just silly fear-mongering - no matter how much she hates the First Amendment she and people like her still benefit from it's protection. Although it is somewhat ironic that the reason that she hates the First Amendment is so that Christians - as the majority - can claim special Government privileges for themselves. Which puts a rather different complexion on her arguments, doesn't it ? Not only do are they a transparent excuse for fighting the idea of gay marriage - they are pretty obviously false and rely on a double standard, too. And THAT is a major reason why we conclude bigotry on her part. If the reasons she gives are obvious excuses they can't be her real reasons at all.Likewise vague references to incest and polygamy - without any real argument to explain the relevance - are rightly seen as signs of bigotry. Because they are so obviously an attempt at "guilt by association" - a smear rather than an a real argument.If you want to convince me that you are not a bigot in opposing gay marriage then you need to offer honest, rational reasons for doing so. I don't see much of that. In fact I don't see ANY of that.

quote:

---

The key here is how well you know them. People whom we have known for years we can rebuke...in love. If our best friend is an alcoholic and it is killing them, we can and should say something...offer help.

---

I've seen much the same thing as dwise and it apparently isn't necessary to know the offender at all. It's enough to consider them a Christian.

The point of the article is that a bigot is making a transparent attempt to cover up his bigotry. And the part you quote is just more evidence of that. The evasion of the real issues is so obvious.

quote:

---

Thats not the point. The point is the behavior. Perhaps the question should be framed as this: Should society have a right to suggest appropriate behavior?

---

Is it ? I think that there's far more to it than that. What do you mean by "suggest" ? What do you propose as an appropriate response to people who do not follow the suggestion ? Do you recognise any limits to the right of society to "suggest" in this manner ? Indeed, how does this idea apply to gay marriage? would seem a rather important point that your question doesn't address.Here's a question that I think better reflects the issue. In a just society, should minorities be entitled to fair treatment ?I say YES. And for that reason gay marriage should be legal.