SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN BANS ON GAY MARRIAGE IN US

author=bulmabriefs144
While what amerk said is okay, it sort of follows the assumption that well, this is not acceptance but lukewarm tolerance. Further, homosexuality is not a sin. Yes, you heard that right. It's not.

My point wasn't to start a debate on religious beliefs, or whether or not it is a sin to be homosexual or to act upon the impulses. My point was to CashmereCat's post about being "against the institutionalization and normalization of it".

The bible shows a lot of things to be a form of sin, but then requires every Christian to recognize they are sinners themselves, not to judge others, to show love for one another, to respect government authorities and pay them their dues, and to even love our enemies when they trangress against us, and most certainly not to become too proud or view yourself as holier than others.

The focus isn't on one aspect of human life or even one particular area of potential sin, but on your life as a whole, and how you conduct yourself amongst others. As a Christian, none of us can truly say we are found favorable in God's eyes. We hope we are, and we try to follow examples placed before us, but nobody will really know until the day we are judged. Many of us Christians may be in for a shock.

To make another point: the bible also speaks against people who defile the flesh, and many believe that means God is against cigarettes and drugs, but I'm pretty sure many Christians smoke cigarettes or pot. Does this mean that somebody who believes smoking is bad is being lukewarm? Hmmm... I hope not, because I tend to smoke once in awhile myself, and I have had many friends in my life (some who smoke and some who don't).

Regardless, though, my primary point still stands. Marriage in a religious ceremony is about the sanctity of marriage, and I respect a religion's position if they choose not to marry a gay couple. However, religion has no place in politics, and a government should not be biased against a group of people just because it doesn't stack up to their own beliefs, which this ruling now addresses.

Can we have a fun LGBT Topic that doesn't devolve into arguments?

author=RedMask
Can we have a fun LGBT Topic that doesn't devolve into arguments?

No we can't. If that were the case, the thread would be over already. Discussion is not a bad thing.

Also this technically didn't need to devolve into arguments at all. One guy made a comment and everyone chose to acknowledge him. When he could have been ignored. Its not like opponents of the ruling have a leg to stand on anymore. And its not like religious beliefs are going to be curtailed by going "shame on you." Short of taking said party into a room and beating it out of them or whatever. And that's not going to happen, so although I respect the emotions and opinions of the thread-goers here, I simultaneously don't see what the point of engaging the matter was. Nor do I understand why opponents of the ruling had to come into the LGBT thread and voice dissent. That could have been it's own thread.

Regardless, the move to this conversation was a choice made by the viewers of this thread. So short answer: No.

Please don't turn this thread into an argument about religion. If you want to talk about religion that belongs in its own topic.

But you're trying to change the subject. This is how threads like this always get derailed. We had three pages of discussion in this thread, then someone caused a ten page derail. This keeps happening because we keep letting it happen and keep taking people's bait, and vociferously defend peoples' right to derail topics. This is how we kept letting Max derail something like three feminism threads. And then we wonder why topics like this always end up locked.

People are more than welcome to talk about religion, it certainly seems there's interest, but it needs to go in it's own thread, not here. Thanks.

I've been struggling on whether to write a response to many of the things said here, but I have failed, for exactly for the same reason Solitayre suggests -- that it would bring up an extended discussion on religion, and the such, on a thread where it is not relevant. However, I would like anyone who would want to have a discussion about such things, that they'd initiate one with me via private message, because I would be very much interested.

But what I do want to re-iterate is that my beliefs of the sinfulness of homosexuality stem from a God-centric point of view, rather than a humanistic point of view, and this is why we are at odds. Even still, I believe that myself and everyone should conduct themselves with love towards each other, valuing good concepts such as kindness, love and peace, no matter how different our ideals may be. Just because I don't agree with something, doesn't mean I won't stand up for you if you're being attacked, or that I don't want the best for you. It's OK to think I'm bigoted or condescending... in reality, I am tolerant of beliefs that are different to my own, I just don't agree with them. Again, if anyone wants to PM me on such matters, they may.

author=slash
http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/06/26/presidential-candidates-reaction-gay-marriage/

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said the decision “tramples on state’s rights” and could “pave the way for an all-out assault” on religious liberty.

“Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that,” Jindal said.

This is the issue I have with that. The USA was built on religious freedom, so yes, it's natural for religion to pop up in discussions from time to time. However, it was also built on the foundation that religion would not be controlled by government, and that there would be a separation of state and religion.

A lot of people view marriage as being between man and woman established by God. However, state rights has nothing to do with God. It has everything to do with the country we live in, the policies in place, and treating each of our fellow citizens as equals. God never established that a straight married couple could file joint taxes but a gay couple couldn't. The government came up with that rule. God also never demanded licenses to be established for married couples; that was all government.

Jindal's comment shows that he's allowing his beliefs to persuade his duties and actions, when he should be removing religion from the equation, as his position would require. That doesn't mean he has to change his beliefs, but he should be stable enough to follow the constitution and not allow religious beliefs to interfere with government matters.

Basically, when it comes to the rights of the people, these should be handled equally as part of government policy without religion trying to define who deserves such rights.

author=Corfaisus
You can find the church and their sermons at: http://aboutfaithbible.com/#/media
As of this post, the relevant sermon ("In Times Like These") isn't available, but should be shortly. I also noticed yesterday that, at times, he sounds a bit like Heath Ledger's Joker.

Just thought I'd take this opportunity to say that the "In Times Like These" sermon is now available. http://aboutfaithbible.com/media.php?pageID=6

I'm not sure if it's handled better or worse than is to be expected of someone who's afraid of losing their livelihood.

many of you are failing to realize by arguing that "the bible says don't wear mixed fibers" or what have you, you're insinuating that Christians are required to be kosher and follow those primarily jewish laws/restrictions. wearing mixed fibers and eating shellfish isn't something Christians have to acknowledge, because they do not follow many of the rules that are in the old testament. at least know the scripture and it's context before arguing for/against it...

gay parents also literally will never be on the level of pressuring and forcing-to-live-their-lifestyle that straight parents will be. gay people go through that shit. they know what it's like having your parents wanting you to be straight, there's no reasonable expectation of your child being gay...

and liberty, having queer friends literally does not absolve you from being bigoted or hating them. just like having black friends absolves you from being racist/racially discriminating. i have christian friends b/c i was one formely but on the topic of homosexuality they say "love the sinner, hate the sin" which really isn't accepting that part of me and they'd vote against same-sex marriage if they could.

@ ppl saying queer is offensive. queer is a re-claimed word that queer ppl originally intended to be a positive label but had since developed a negative connotation. it is being re-claimed by younger lgbtq+ people since it's use as an insult has been on the decline, and is an inclusive umbrella term.