|
Post by Mister Buch on Jul 27, 2012 2:09:54 GMT 1
Hmm.
I didn't know any of that.
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Jul 27, 2012 5:40:29 GMT 1
Lily - If it were as simple as that, I think most people wouldn't have a legal issue with it, regardless of religion. But the legal issue of spousal benefits (AKA, it's all about the money) as well as the issue of homosexual families adopting children are the big kickers that I've been told about.
Again, I have no legal issue with the option, but my belief is that homosexuality is wrong (as are many things in the world today).
Linders - You have a pretty good point there. By supporting those lobbies, Chik Fil A stuck it's neck out. That doesn't sound like something Paul would advocate. Therefore they lose their right to be upset if the bet goes sour. I don't think the kid's meal toys is all that big an issue, chances are Cathy never had a hand in that decision.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Jul 27, 2012 10:34:36 GMT 1
, but my belief is that homosexuality is wrong (as are many things in the world today). Hi Clint. Thanks for that. Thanks for taking the time to point that out. Because that really started off my day right.
|
|
|
Post by Lily Ariel Linders on Jul 27, 2012 10:37:30 GMT 1
Lily - If it were as simple as that, I think most people wouldn't have a legal issue with it, regardless of religion. But the legal issue of spousal benefits (AKA, it's all about the money) as well as the issue of homosexual families adopting children are the big kickers that I've been told about. Again, I have no legal issue with the option, but my belief is that homosexuality is wrong (as are many things in the world today). On the topic of the spousal benefits, I don't see why a gay couple should be denied the benefits a straight couple would benefit from. As for the adoption of children (or, in the case of some lesbian couples, one partner having a child using a donor and the other partner adopting as a second parent), my thought is that any child raised by two loving parents is well off. If one child is raised by a gay couple (male or female, no matter) who loves and respects each other and the child, and another child is raised by a straight couple who is on the verge of messy divorce and treats each other badly (even if they do not directly treat the child badly), then... which child is better off? I'd rather have parents who love each other, regardless of each parent's gender. And, as for the right or wrong of homosexuality - again, I do not want to spark a heated debate or make anyone mad at me so please don't hate me but I simply cannot understand... I really can't comprehend why it would be wrong... I've always believed that love should win, regardless of gender, race, social status, anything else... maybe I'm just a hopeless romantic, but... to me, love is love... As for the many things wrong in the world today, I do believe there is a lot wrong. Abuse, rape, torture, murder, home invasions, war, oppression, racial discrimination... those are what I see as wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Jul 27, 2012 10:39:24 GMT 1
Clint is a Christian. And I'm going to walk away from this.
EDIT from a few months in the future -- Oooooh no, you're not.
|
|
|
Post by Lily Ariel Linders on Jul 27, 2012 10:41:55 GMT 1
As I mentioned, I don't want to start a fight... or make anyone hate me... I just find the whole thing very very confusing.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Jul 27, 2012 12:08:43 GMT 1
The kids meal toys was not a big issue...until Chick a Fil A lied about it. As adversarial as the issue is in the States no one would have batted an eye on the matter. But oops, they made up a story and even concocted fake Facebook accounts to back it up. Now it's news. Idiots.
Spousal benefits is not "all about the money." Sure it helps, but why does a straight couple get them but a gay couple does not. That is discrimination and guess what bud, there is no more validation needed to fight it than that under the US constitution. And please don't pull out that old chestnut about the procreation angle. There are more than enough childless straight couples to debunk that.
Children of straight people who would not or cannot raise their own children need good loving homes. Restricting that on this basis alone approaches madness. I would think that gay folk, or anyone who adopts for that matter would make fantastic parents given the number of hoops you need to jump through to do it, as opposed to a straight couple that only need to (at a minimum) put in about 5 minutes work and carry a kid to gestation for nine months often by accident and resentment. You see where I'm getting at here? Adoptive parents need to work for it, need to justify it and show they can do it. All a straight couple needs to do is show up with the right gear and it's done. Next.
You believe that homosexuality is wrong Clint. Fine. I think discrimination is wrong when it it has no basis outside of belief.
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Jul 27, 2012 14:36:14 GMT 1
The two arguments I mentioned were ones I have heard against homosexual marriage. As stated before, I don't share the same belief. Straight couples aren't known for a perfect track record with kids, and they thoroughly abuse the monies available for them if they get the chance.
Oh come now. You're a big boy. Surely people have disagreed with your sexual preference before. I'm not going to lie to assuage anyone's feelings, and I like to think that I don't make an ass of myself about the fact that I believe them. As I pointed out, I believe a lot of things that go on are sin. This doesn't mean I judge you and condemn you.
Linders - So far as I know, I've supported nothing of that sort. Please let me know if I imply that I do.
Well I started this to point out the ridiculousness on both sides of the line, and ended up seeing that the one side stuck its hand out and got back a stump. An enlightening and interesting thread if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Jul 27, 2012 14:46:13 GMT 1
The two arguments I mentioned were ones I have heard against homosexual marriage. As stated before, I don't share the same belief. Straight couples aren't known for a perfect track record with kids, and they thoroughly abuse the monies available for them if they get the chance. Oh come now. You're a big boy. Surely people have disagreed with your sexual preference before. I'm not going to lie to assuage anyone's feelings, and I like to think that I don't make an ass of myself about the fact that I believe them. As I pointed out, I believe a lot of things that go on are sin. This doesn't mean I judge you and condemn you. Linders - So far as I know, I've supported nothing of that sort. Please let me know if I imply that I do. Well I started this to point out the ridiculousness on both sides of the line, and ended up seeing that the one side stuck its hand out and got back a stump. An enlightening and interesting thread if you ask me. No room for misinterpretation there. In my view the notion of tolerance for something you feel is wrong is still stating an opposition, even if you accept that it should happen. Sometimes things really are that black and white. I could go all sorts of nasty places with this to illustrate the point but if you think something is wrong then the moral thing to do is oppose it. I don't actually think you are an immoral person so one of these 2 parts needs to be changed for me to reconcile what you are trying to say. Either you do not think homosexuality is wrong, but is something that you yourself would not partake in (rather like me actually) but recognize that it's existence is not an abhorrent thing and are therefore cool with gay marriage then great I recall my previous post. If you cannot accept that homosexuality is not an abhorrent thing then at least explain how your non opposition to it makes sense. Morally. Right now it's not computing to me and this is a major source for how I am incapable of accepting that you are not against it. Moral people have a hard time accepting immoral behaviour. Hence my confusion. Vertigo has me on my ass today so I'll be online in one shape or another for most of it.
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Jul 27, 2012 15:21:36 GMT 1
Aha. I have an answer to this. Faith is not politics. It shouldn't be involved at all. Gay marriage is predominantly a political issue. The Constitution & Bill of Rights as written have no barrier to the idea whatsoever. Granted, Madison might have been a little floored by the idea, but the document was created with no interest in the private life of it's people. They can assemble peaceably/ worship/ live without fear of soldiers stealing their houses. Based on my understanding of history, there is no reason for any legal opposition to what anyone wants to do in their personal life. Those powers have changed somewhat, as powers of the gov't do (particularly in drug regulation) but I still see no basis in law for homosexual marriage to be banned (with the provisos I've mentioned before).
Morally, I believe that it is a sin. How does this fit in with the above? The fact that I don't consider this world my home. I'm passing through on my way to a better place (that's not to say I'm not enjoying my visit). When one is passing through a country, it's not polite to insult that country and demand it do as you say.
Too often Christians have gotten caught up in the politics of their lives and miss the point of their faith. They care more about what two other people do in the bedroom than starvation on the streets. The issue of the Pastor's horrible smoking habit is of more priority than the sharing of why they believe.
Christ never advocates adopting a political party. Peter never advocates protesting in front of the idolatrous temple. Paul never shouted down his opposition and condemned them to hell for disagreeing with him. I forget which one of them wrote it, but there's a verse that goes "If possible, so long as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." (Google says that it's Paul in Romans 12:18.) (and the "men" is humans)
So I don't make an issue out of Gay marriage. So long as no one demands that I perform the service, it's fine by me. Heck knows that the straight marriage record ain't perfect. Abortion is more tricky, but we'll save that for another time, eh what?
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Jul 27, 2012 15:57:26 GMT 1
You are a rare man who can manage to reconcile faith without dabbling in the political side. I think we have a morsel of common ground here.
With that I'll drop it for now.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Jul 28, 2012 0:59:21 GMT 1
Clint, you're also a rare man who can call another man's sexual orientation immoral and then claim not to judge him.
I'd love to hear how you tidy that one away.
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Jul 28, 2012 4:27:26 GMT 1
Clint, you're also a rare man who can call another man's sexual orientation immoral and then claim not to judge him. I'd love to hear how you tidy that one away. It's not up to me. I can't condemn anyone to hell any more than I can lift them to heaven. Romans says "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Where does that put me? I'm part of "all". I have sinned. Heck I do it all the time. So if I tell the forum I believe something is immoral, I'm not firing a laser to cut all of you down to size. I'm already out of the running, save for Christ's forgiveness. What one does with one's own problems/lack of them is between one and God.
|
|
|
Post by Warhammer Gorvar on Jul 28, 2012 9:13:32 GMT 1
You see...this is why i worship Crom!
|
|
|
Post by Lily Ariel Linders on Jul 28, 2012 10:50:05 GMT 1
Clint, you're also a rare man who can call another man's sexual orientation immoral and then claim not to judge him. I'd love to hear how you tidy that one away. It's not up to me. I can't condemn anyone to hell any more than I can lift them to heaven. Romans says "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Where does that put me? I'm part of "all". I have sinned. Heck I do it all the time. So if I tell the forum I believe something is immoral, I'm not firing a laser to cut all of you down to size. I'm already out of the running, save for Christ's forgiveness. What one does with one's own problems/lack of them is between one and God. Maybe "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"... but all that tells me is that God expects more from humanity than humanity can actually give. By the understanding I have of the whole "Christ's Forgiveness" thing, anyone who does not earn His forgiveness is going to Hell... well then, won't Hell be a very very over-populated place? Or does Christ just forgive anyone who asks for it no matter how bad of a person they are? What bothers me about that is that a person who is a pedophile or a rapist or a murderer can claim on their deathbed that they "repent" and Christ will forgive them and they end up in heaven... right alongside the poor innocent victim they raped / murdered. They don't even have to mean it, they can just say it to a priest and all is forgiven. I don't like that. And I still don't understand the 'immoral' and 'wrong' about being gay... is bisexual condemned by the same knife? For example - I myself have a boyfriend. I am in a straight relationship, and very happily so - I love Linders, and we're happy together. However, before he and I got together, I was not limiting my seeking of a relationship to just men - and the reason I am with Linders is not just because he is a man, he just happens to be the person I fell in love with. There have been times I have been very attracted to certain women, and if I was not with Linders, I might be dating a woman. Does that make me immoral? Or is the fact that I am in a straight relationship now 'exonerate' me?
|
|