Why christians should NOT support the ban on gay marriages.

[dnuggett]

Since you have, then why not come back with an answer to the cluess statements I made to prove me wrong?

I already have. The only statement I said you were clueless on was the one below, and I have already responded to it. How are you claiming the religion cannot withstand because of "newness"? And the only reason it functions is from rebellion? You have it backwards my friend. Those who wish to include gays in marriage rebel against the laws of certain jurisdictions. Other gays are lawfully married. Those who attempt to get married in a jurisdiction where gay marriage is not recognized are rebelling. Christianity and the government certainly aren't rebelling against them. The authority and law is already there, and they want to go against it. As for those areas where it is legal there is no rebellion against law from gays just a change from tradition. To me rebellion is going to change geographically based on law. I suppose you could say there is a rebellion against Christianity's belief system but those who chose to partake in gay marriage and consider themselves Christian don't see it this way and consider themeselves mainline or liberal Christians. So rebellion is probaby not the correct context here. I don't think it is really possible to rebel (in the strict sense) against religion in this country, as there is a clear seperation of religion and state and each religion and it's view points are afforded protection under the Constitiution. That being said if a Constitutional amendment is passed (which I don't think it will) then gays will be rebelling yet again in their attempts to ignore law and go ahead as they please. How much "newness" has there been since the dawn, and for some reason this issues "newness" is to too much? The issue on gay marriage is just another issue, and one that does not put a dent in my faith or religion.

I think too may people are confusing an individuals right to speak up and attempt to change laws as doing so in the face of humanity or in the face of gays. It's a belief system, and those (and yes this includes the president) who believe have a right to speak up and a right to lobby Congress to get the laws changed, and if that means a Constitiutional amendment then so be it. In the end the will of the people (majority) will win, and certain groups with less a voice will lose. That's they way it always has been and always will be.

by AEnigmaWI: Fundamentalist Christianity (or any fundamentalist religion) is a rigid, fragile structure that cannot withstand the onslaught of "newness" that the world is throwing at it.

by dnuggett: You don't understand Christianity then. There has been a whole lot of "newness" since Jesus has died and resurrected, and it has survived very well despite all those changes.

 

[TechBoyJK]

anyways, homesexuality is wrong. An eye for an eye, a dick for a dick.

 

[AEnigmaWI]

verall reply:

The fact that fundamentalist Christianity has survived and is still around does not in any way negate the statement that it cannot withstand newness the world throws at it. It survives by resisting newness with strict rules for life and by attempting to explain all newness from within it's own context. Lots of people do this same thing. When things change so much that the rules don't make sense, then people just forget to practice certain things. Christianity cannot change with the world unless it chooses to reinterpret its teachings to function in the current time period. Many varieties of Christian faith have done this. The fundemantalists will not. That is the point, not so much that Christianity is dying, or that it has not following etc.. Maybe rebellion isn't the best word, because it implys some level of exploration that fundamentalist Christianity certainly does not have (when thought of as rebelling youth, or rebellious people who seek change etc.)

dnugget said, "In the end the will of the people (majority) will win, and certain groups with less a voice will lose. That's they way it always has been and always will be." I beg to differ with that statement. The groups who have less voice must convince those with more that they need to be heard. We gave women the right to vote at a time when they had very little voice in the government. We abolished slavery at a time when almost no black person was taken seriously as a peer to a white one. This country does not funciton on majority rule.. it was specifically set up not to sway with the whims of the majority in fact. A pure democracy would, but we are a representative democracy. Part of the rationale for this was that whole Plato idea of the majority being plebians that were not necessarily of the right level of education to be making decisions for the country. (heavily euphamized). We can lobby our representatives as minority or majority, and it is up to them to make laws in an ethical manner with this input. I certainly hope that minority groups have a voice in our government. If you really think they should have none, then well, nothing much to say about that.

The relative "newness" of gay marriage isn't really the point I was trying to make. There are all kinds of things that challenge fundamentalist Christianity. This is but another, as was abortion, drinking, women's rights, etc.. I am saying that with each issue, the government has made the correct choice (IMHO) and fallen on the side of secular ethics in the interest of the larger populace. I am hopeful that this issue will have the same result.

Finally, there are several references to the "gays" ignoring laws etc., and being rebellious. If one is presented with a structure in which they fundamentally do not fit, then I think rebellion is to be expected. I think it's really important to remember that a lot of people don't give a whit about Christian rules for their life, and there really isn't any reason why they should. As a Christian, you can tell them about the rules, but I really hope we as humans can move beyond the whole force people to live as my religion thing. It would be a much more peaceful world if we could methinks.

 

[EXman]

I just read the last three posts and see a lot of ownage going out by AEnigmaWI

sounded to me as he wants it in da pooper!

fundamentalist Christianity

why can't you say Christianity? Even the middle and middle left Christians believe a man should not lay with another man.

To clear up the butt is for pooping comment for all those out there equating it with oral. Ask yourself do you want a prick in your pooper? so Do you?

if you do then go ahead and suck it too

anyways, homesexuality is wrong. An eye for an eye, a dick for a dick.

LoL :Q ouch

 

[AEnigmaWI]

to above by eXman:

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: AEnigmaWI
to above by eXman:

given EXman propensity to talking about "poopers" we should just call him Exlaxman

 

[EXman]

Yup Exit only!!! any guys wanting anything else up there better be getting checked for pollups or something... "Using the whole hand there doc?" Fletch Moon River:music: