Federal Judge rules Utah's ban on gay marrage illegal. Internet about to explode

[Neverwonagame3]

Much as my parents are fighting against it and I sympathise with them to a degree, in terms of what is likely to actually happen I agree with IglooDude for the most part. There is an exception to the analogy, however- that the Churches will put up a fight for a long time. IglooDude acknowledges this but does not emphasise it enough.

 

[El_Machinae]

Honestly from my point, no one's condemning anyone here.

Well, yes and no. Your first(?) post includes descriptions such a 'hedonism, promiscuity, and deviancy' and was followed by 'alleyways'. The hedonism in a gay marriage is roughly equal (thematically) to straight marriage. Promiscuity is the opposite of marriage. "Deviancy" is a loaded term, to be sure, but it's a strong stance to take on the 'naturalness' of homosexuality. The 'alleyways' was just contemptuous, evocative of filth.

Now, of course, no one thinks you should approve of gay marriages (except as a 'pro-freedom' win, but only in theory). But, your descriptive terms were certainly attempting to conflate gay marriage with something that's NOT gay marriage. Seriously, hedonism, promiscuity, and 'alleyways' were just not appropriate concepts to bring into the thread. 'Deviancy', I'll grant I disagree with, but I can see where the sentiment comes from.

One can be against hedonism, promiscuity, 'alleyway sex' and still be for gay marriage. 'Deviance' is loaded, but outside the theme of the false-conflations.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I am not talking about the policy question of what Christian schools should decide to do. I am talking about whether or not they can admit homosexuals without being hypocrites. I am giving the case that they can't.

Only much like Islam, many Christians no longer follow the scriptures verbatim anymore. Those who do are typically called "fundamentalists".

Many churches now openly embrace homosexuals without making them constantly feel like "sinners". I really don't think they would be all that interested in your own personal opinions in the matter. They might even think it was "hypocritical" for many Christians to incessantly not act like one.

 

[Adjuvant]

Well, yes and no. Your first(?) post includes descriptions such a 'hedonism, promiscuity, and deviancy' and was followed by 'alleyways'. The hedonism in a gay marriage is roughly equal (thematically) to straight marriage. Promiscuity is the opposite of marriage. "Deviancy" is a loaded term, to be sure, but it's a strong stance to take on the 'naturalness' of homosexuality. The 'alleyways' was just contemptuous, evocative of filth.

Now, of course, no one thinks you should approve of gay marriages (except as a 'pro-freedom' win, but only in theory). But, your descriptive terms were certainly attempting to conflate gay marriage with something that's NOT gay marriage. Seriously, hedonism, promiscuity, and 'alleyways' were just not appropriate concepts to bring into the thread. 'Deviancy', I'll grant I disagree with, but I can see where the sentiment comes from.

One can be against hedonism, promiscuity, 'alleyway sex' and still be for gay marriage. 'Deviance' is loaded, but outside the theme of the false-conflations.

Well, that's what it is, to me. I see no difference between "homosexuality and promiscuity" because to "perform homosexual acts" is to engage in promiscuity. I see no difference between "homosexuality and hedonism" because to "perform homosexual acts" is to engage in a hedonistic mentality.

To me, they just "throw many moralistic obligations out the window" and engage in humping whatever seems like would make them feel best. I view all promiscuity and hedonism in this manner. That is how I view the behavior. I can't "be honest" and apologize for feeling that way at the same time.

I admit when I do hedonistic things, like spending 4 hours at a bar spending more money than I should. I don't try to legitimize it though. I don't try to argue "everyone should do this if they feel like it", because it's a stupid thing to do and I'm hurting myself and in the process "hurting god". I don't try to create an atmosphere to encourage young people to "come out and make mistakes against themselves". I don't "normalize" bad behavior.

 

[Cutlass]

Meh. It's the tide of demographics that will sweep all but the most futile pockets of resistance out of the way. Rightly or wrongly, a few decades from now opposition to gay marriage will be viewed in the same light as opposition to mixed-race marriage is today. The interesting thing to me is, ten years ago the political (and religious) leaders could have seen the writing on the wall and angled the debate toward getting government out of the marriage business, rather than manning the barricades against government recognition of gay marriage. But, they made their choice, and now that the water level is rising around their thighs, it's too late. Soon it'll only be a fight within individual churches, and a sudden outpouring of 'no true Scotsman' fallacies will be upon us.



And at that point, polygamy will probably be next up to bat.

I think the polygamy law is up to bat now. Which, I think, in a number of ways will be even more interesting than the gay marriage fight. We'll be seeing a different coalition of people looking at it.

But it seems to me that in the end, the same legal principle is involved. That is, the right to be left alone, so long as your actions are not harming others.

 

[Camikaze]

Much as my parents are fighting against it and I sympathise with them to a degree, in terms of what is likely to actually happen I agree with IglooDude for the most part. There is an exception to the analogy, however- that the Churches will put up a fight for a long time. IglooDude acknowledges this but does not emphasise it enough.

It's not like 'the Churches' are immovable, so I wouldn't be all that pessimistic. In Australia, the Uniting Church is already largely on the pro-same-sex-marriage side (as it was at the forefront of gay ordination in Australia). To be clear, the official position, I believe, is still that there is no liturgy developed for performing a same-sex marriage ceremony, and that although ministers can conduct ceremonies blessing a same-sex relationship, they can't call it 'marriage'. This position is partly ascribed to the tension between the more liberal attitudes of many (see the UnitingJustice submission to the Inquiry into the Marriage Equality Amendment last year) and the conservatism of traditionalists and growing multicultural congregations; a tension that will be managed with time. Although the Anglican and Catholic hierarchy are quite obstinate in comparison, I kinda doubt their opposition would be everlasting. They aren't immune to inevitable change.

 

[timtofly]

Paul says that They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. This implies that there is nothing wrong with what they do- if a ruler's job is done properly, they are punishing wrongdoing as they should.

How does this fit with the idea that Christians cannot force people to go against their wills? Why should Christians have this unique restriction DESPITE the fact there is nothing wrong with it?

There is a difference between secular and the body of Christ. Paul is referring to the secular. That some laws are common sense between humans is a good thing. However, if the secular does not establish the laws that a Christian thinks necessary, that does not mean God has failed. It just means that God is longsuffering. If a Christian attempts to force such laws on the secular, they are not doing God's will, but circumnavigating it. If the secular determines such laws are necessary, then it is God working, not the body of Christ. Even groups of Christians have become secularized and have allowed themselves to justify certain acts. If Christian cannot keep such laws, how are they going to justify forcing them on the secular? One can voice their opinions and even vote in a free democracy, but they cannot do much if society does not conform to their expectations. It seems historically that homosexual desire is the last step when God's chosen people go down the road to becoming secular. It is hardly fair to blame it on secular society.

Paul also says that we are to judge those who call themselves Christians are refuse to associate with hypocrites, but are not supposed to judge those who do not choose to associate themselves with the Church.

The idea that secular governments are all ordained by God seems to contradict the direct statements which God himself is quoted as making to the prophet Hosea:

Plenty of the Church Fathers (particularly the early ones, before Constantine legalized the faith and men like Augustine started providing rationalizations to support state power) were clear that it was totally inappropriate for any Christian to take a position in a secular government which might involve either killing others or issuing commands that lead others to be killed. Many made exceptions for men who were conscripted into the army (others, like Tertullian, did not), but not for those who freely volunteered to be officers or executioners.

There are of course several biblical passages which seem to support anarchism. Jotham's Parable of the King of Trees seems to imply that the only men who would seek power over others are both wicked and incompetent. His half-brother Abimelech, the first king of Israel, was certainly not a righteous man. When the people begged Samuel for another king, he was pretty dead set against the idea. The bible portrays God as giving them a king only as punishment for their sin of wanting such a government.

I would just like to point out that in Hosea 8 it is referring to God's chosen people who went against God and set up their own governing authority. The secular cannot go against God since God has already let them follow their own will. So God is not contradicting himself when Paul talks about the secular.

it's actually a little astonishing this stuff needs to still be explained but i guess people are really good at tying themselves in knots to rationalise their unfounded and indefensible feelings

It seems to me that both sides feed the fire in this debate. And it seems that both use God in their reasoning.

You don't feel it's "anything". You don't believe it, so the only purpose in your use of it is to demean it as with sarcasm or cynicism.

If ideas are based in belief alone, then all sides in this debate are running on hot air and nothing more.

 

[Adjuvant]

If ideas are based in belief alone, then all sides in this debate are running on hot air and nothing more.

Yes, well, my point was, using god or jesus in his argument, when he doesn't believe in god or jesus, makes his argument a bit lacking at best, or certainly an intentional expression of irreverence. It's "taking a shot" at the belief itself, which should be countermanded.

If you "slap me across the face" verbally, then say, "aww Jesus says forgive, bro", I'm twice as likely to verbally "punch the person 5 times as hard" and deal with it later in confession, because I do sin, but at least later I can admit I transgressed.

Gay marriage normalizes transgressions against god as if no sin was committed. It's as much a mockery as putting a pig in a wedding gown and marrying that. That's just how it is. People can circle-jerk-around legitimizing whatever they feel they need to, to look themselves in the mirror, but the truth will always be the truth.

 

[Cutlass]

Yes, well, my point was, using god or jesus in his argument, when he doesn't believe in god or jesus, makes his argument a bit lacking at best, or certainly an intentional expression of irreverence. It's "taking a shot" at the belief itself, which should be countermanded.

If you "slap me across the face" verbally, then say, "aww Jesus says forgive, bro", I'm twice as likely to verbally "punch the person 5 times as hard" and deal with it later in confession, because I do sin, but at least later I can admit I transgressed.

Gay marriage normalizes transgressions against god as if no sin was committed. It's as much a mockery as putting a pig in a wedding gown and marrying that. That's just how it is. People can circle-jerk-around legitimizing whatever they feel they need to, to look themselves in the mirror, but the truth will always be the truth.

God can handle his own transgressions without any assistance from mortal government.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, that's what it is, to me. I see no difference between "homosexuality and promiscuity" because to "perform homosexual acts" is to engage in promiscuity. I see no difference between "homosexuality and hedonism" because to "perform homosexual acts" is to engage in a hedonistic mentality.

Oh, sure. We know that there's this mindset. So, because you're conflating homosexuality with 'bad' things, your mindset deserves a label. This is why 'homophobe' or 'heterosupremacist' were considered; the 'homophobe' is more appropriate when there are attempts to conflate homosexual behavior with filth, I think. 'Bigot' kicks in when you express the idea that gay people deserve fewer rights. "homosexual behaviour and promiscuity" is a pretty sloppy conflation, because, if nothing else, there's an obvious difference between monogamous homosexual behaviour and promiscuous homosexual behaviour, else we'd not be able to distinguish them.

It's hard to dissociate nearly any sex from hedonistic undertones. Clearly, sex can be a love-building activity, but that's commonly a side-effect to the expression of evolved physical instincts. One can certainly have hedonistic sex within marriage, but it remains hedonistic. And, I'll say that it's patently false that gay sex cannot also be a love-building activity.

Yes, well, my point was, using god or jesus in his argument, when he doesn't believe in god or jesus, makes his argument a bit lacking at best, or certainly an intentional expression of irreverence. It's "taking a shot" at the belief itself, which should be countermanded.

Yes, it's taking a shot at the belief, but it was a counter-argument to someone who originally justified their behavior using Jesus as an example. There are better ways of emulating Jesus. The fact that one cannot actually heal lepers in a way akin to the way Jesus did potentially indicates that they cannot also mimic Jesus's authority. It unseats the statement that he's behaving in a 'Christlike' manner, and thus gets to condemn people. It's the claim to authority that's being mocked. Keep in mind, my entire potshot is unmade if C_H were capable of healing lepers in a way akin to what Jesus was described as doing.

 

[Formaldehyde]

God can handle his own transgressions without any assistance from mortal government.

It never ceases to amaze me how many Christians still seem to be completely oblivious to the notion of a secular state. This nation was largely founded by those who came here to escape similar religious persecution in their own country by those who thought their own interpretation of the Bible must be correct. But it didn't take long before they were inflicting their own personal sense of morality on others by enacting laws that have nothing whatsoever to do with secular matters.

It wasn't until the courts finally ruled that sodomy laws were unconstitutional only 10 years ago that they finally disappeared from the 14 remaing backward states.

 

[Adjuvant]

Yes, it's taking a shot at the belief, but it was a counter-argument to someone who originally justified their behavior using Jesus as an example. There are better ways of emulating Jesus. The fact that one cannot actually heal lepers in a way akin to the way Jesus did potentially indicates that they cannot also mimic Jesus's authority. It unseats the statement that he's behaving in a 'Christlike' manner, and thus gets to condemn people. It's the claim to authority that's being mocked. Keep in mind, my entire potshot is unmade if C_H were capable of healing lepers in a way akin to what Jesus was described as doing.

You're mistaken. You've taken "acting in a christlike manner" as something it's not, and run with it, spun it to mean what you want. Your argument of "mimicing Jesus' authority" is not what is happening, simply for the basis you describe it thusly.

I don't blame you for it. It's a common. If you look again, I don't mention god or jesus before they're mentioned in this thread. I reply to what I consider insults to my religion, and subsequently get pigeonholed, but that's ok. I'm pretty familiar with that fight.

 

[useless]

Well, that's what it is, to me. I see no difference between "homosexuality and promiscuity" because to "perform homosexual acts" is to engage in promiscuity. I see no difference between "homosexuality and hedonism" because to "perform homosexual acts" is to engage in a hedonistic mentality.

To me, they just "throw many moralistic obligations out the window" and engage in humping whatever seems like would make them feel best. I view all promiscuity and hedonism in this manner. That is how I view the behavior. I can't "be honest" and apologize for feeling that way at the same time.

I admit when I do hedonistic things, like spending 4 hours at a bar spending more money than I should. I don't try to legitimize it though. I don't try to argue "everyone should do this if they feel like it", because it's a stupid thing to do and I'm hurting myself and in the process "hurting god". I don't try to create an atmosphere to encourage young people to "come out and make mistakes against themselves". I don't "normalize" bad behavior.

"Bad Behaviour" How is homosexual conduct bad behaviour? Congrats on trying to condemn and shame people because they happen to be of a different sexual orientation from you.

 

[Adjuvant]

It never ceases to amaze me how many Christians still seem to be completely oblivious to the notion of a secular state. This nation was largely founded by those who came here to escape similar religious persecution in their own country by those who thought their own interpretation of the Bible must be correct. But it didn't take long before they were inflicting their own personal sense of morality on others by enacting laws that have nothing whatsoever to do with secular matters.

Oh? Can you make a pleasant discussion about secularism without using Christianity as your "whipping boy"? Of course you can't, because you're not about secularism, rather about being "anti-christian" and "funny".

You have not said one thing productive this whole conversation which didn't involve some ridicule of belief from the "other side of your face". I bet you don't give 2 rats asses for or against gay marriage, you just want to jump a christian.

Admit it, boy.

 

[Adjuvant]

"Bad Behaviour" How is homosexual conduct bad behaviour? Congrats on trying to condemn and shame people because they happen to be of a different sexual orientation from you.

There we go with free use of "condemn" and "shame" again. I'm stating a position. Said position makes you re-examine. Having to re-examine "hurts" you. Ergo, somehow, in your twisted mind, I'm intentionally trying to hurt you.

I don't know you. If I saw you're hungry, I'd probably do something to feed you. If you were crying and needed a hug, I'd probably hug you. I'm not taking anything from you.

edit: anyway, the part "having to re-examine hurts you" should speak volumes to you. You should ask yourself why that is, and get back to me.

 

[timtofly]

Yes, well, my point was, using god or jesus in his argument, when he doesn't believe in god or jesus, makes his argument a bit lacking at best, or certainly an intentional expression of irreverence. It's "taking a shot" at the belief itself, which should be countermanded.

If you "slap me across the face" verbally, then say, "aww Jesus says forgive, bro", I'm twice as likely to verbally "punch the person 5 times as hard" and deal with it later in confession, because I do sin, but at least later I can admit I transgressed.

Gay marriage normalizes transgressions against god as if no sin was committed. It's as much a mockery as putting a pig in a wedding gown and marrying that. That's just how it is. People can circle-jerk-around legitimizing whatever they feel they need to, to look themselves in the mirror, but the truth will always be the truth.

I have been assured that the secular will not force the body of Christ to conform to their ways. And if they do, and we are burned to the stake or something less harsh, then we are just following after Jesus, and the promise that we would be persecuted. If a Christian is physically violent, confessing it as sin is completely missing the point. The damage done will only be remedied if the person you hit forgives you. They are the one's who received the wrong doing, not God.

 

[El_Machinae]

You're mistaken. You've taken "acting in a christlike manner" as something it's not, and run with it, spun it to mean what you want. Your argument of "mimicing Jesus' authority" is not what is happening, simply for the basis you describe it thusly.

I don't blame you for it. It's a common. If you look again, I don't mention god or jesus before they're mentioned in this thread. I reply to what I consider insults to my religion, and subsequently get pigeonholed, but that's ok. I'm pretty familiar with that fight.

Well, remember, I was replying to C_H's assertion, not yours. And how is "healing lepers through faith" not behaving in a christlike manner? It certainly would be. It's also certainly not an insult to the religion to suggest that such behaviour would be commendable or acceptable. I mean, I don't think you can heal lepers through faith, but I think we both share that opinion.

Now, it's my opinion that gay marriage does not conflict with Christianity. It does, however, conflict with some people's reading of the Bible. And, if you can sniff homophobia or bigotry in their surrounding arguments, it's easy to figure out why they read the Bible that way. But, it's my opinion that the Bible also supports the contention that Christians can (through faith, yada yada) heal lepers. If one cannot do so, then it's tough to say that they're sufficiently 'understanding' of God's wishes to engage in 'Christlike' condemnations. They're just all too human.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Oh? Can you make a pleasant discussion about secularism without using Christianity as your "whipping boy"? Of course you can't, because you're not about secularism, rather about being "anti-christian" and "funny".

Poor persecuted Christians in a country where they are an overwhelming majority of the population. How many times have we heard that utter nonsense in this forum before?

Your own rhetoric hypocritically stopped being "pleasant" long ago. When are you going to stop using homosexuals as your "whipping boy"?

 

[useless]

There we go with free use of "condemn" and "shame" again. I'm stating a position. Said position makes you re-examine. Having to re-examine "hurts" you. Ergo, somehow, in your twisted mind, I'm intentionally trying to hurt you.

I don't know you. If I saw you're hungry, I'd probably do something to feed you. If you were crying and needed a hug, I'd probably hug you. I'm not taking anything from you.

You implied that committing homosexual acts is "Bad behaviour". What part of that isn't condemning those that commit said acts? With that one sentence, you've basically condemned and are trying to shame (regardless if that was your intention) an entire group of people, who you know nothing about, who want nothing to do with you, haven't hurt you and are just trying to live their lives.

I'm not re-examining jack crap.

"having to re-examine hurts you" should speak volumes to you. You should ask yourself why that is, and get back to me.

And what should it say to me? Why don't you come out and make clear what you think it should say. It doesn't hurt me because homosexual activity is in anyway inherently bad (which it isn't), it hurts because you think im bad based upon something thats as arbitary as who i decide to sleep with, which by the way, is still none of your business and should really be none of your concern.

 

[Farm Boy]

Admit it, boy.

And how on earth does busting out ''boy'' in this context, like a lingering tumor of the Jim Crow south, aid you point in any fashion other than pointing out that the arguments against homosexual marriage are a grotesque caricature of the same?