News and Events => Opinions & Editorials => Topic started by: Chloe on February 17, 2012, 10:13:04 AM Return to Full Version
Title: Five Reasons to Oppose Gay Marriage
Post by: Chloe on February 17, 2012, 10:13:04 AM
Post by: Chloe on February 17, 2012, 10:13:04 AM
Having become more "politically involved" of late, saw this in Republican email inbox and simply couldn't resist. Actually I feel the debate on "marriage in general" is getting wayyy out of hand especially as it seems to only relate to "privileges" afforded. Mind I am NOT in agreement at all with the following but was curious what others think on the topic at hand.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/02/17/five_reasons_to_oppose_gay_marriage (http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/02/17/five_reasons_to_oppose_gay_marriage)
Quote1) Gay marriage is incompatible with Christianity (and for that matter, Islam & Judaism). If someone asks you why you oppose gay marriage, the only thing you really have to say to explain it is, "I'm a Christian."
God doesn't condemn anyone for who he is; so if you're attracted to the same sex, that absolutely, unconditionally doesn't make you bad, evil or "un-Christian." On the other hand, let me note that I do consider hating, tormenting, or bullying people because of their sexual orientation to be distinctively "un-Christian" behavior. As Billy Graham has said, "God will not judge a Christian guilty for his or her involuntary feelings." However, God has drawn a clear line in the sand when it comes to homosexual acts. If you're gay, you're not allowed to act on it. If that seems harsh or unfair to you, well, sorry, but you'll have to take it up with God. It's His rule. ( yea! RIGHT ! )
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination." -- Leviticus 18:22
(ie: indeed one could alternately easily interpret this as "not lie with more than ONE" )
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/02/17/five_reasons_to_oppose_gay_marriage (http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/02/17/five_reasons_to_oppose_gay_marriage)
Title: Re: Five Reasons to Oppose Gay Marriage
Post by: spacial on February 17, 2012, 12:15:01 PM
Post by: spacial on February 17, 2012, 12:15:01 PM
I've tried to read the original piece and frankly it doesn't make any sense.
The presumptions are one thing. The unsubstantiated claims are one thing. The vitriol is one thing. But the writer seems more concerned about 'proving' his position than reaching a considered conclusion.
The presumptions are one thing. The unsubstantiated claims are one thing. The vitriol is one thing. But the writer seems more concerned about 'proving' his position than reaching a considered conclusion.
Title: Re: Five Reasons to Oppose Gay Marriage
Post by: Kreuzfidel on February 17, 2012, 03:42:03 PM
Post by: Kreuzfidel on February 17, 2012, 03:42:03 PM
I'm sure he could also find plenty of Christian "reasonings" that justify the burning of "witches".
Title: Re: Five Reasons to Oppose Gay Marriage
Post by: Stephe on February 17, 2012, 10:28:38 PM
Post by: Stephe on February 17, 2012, 10:28:38 PM
Quote from: Kreuzfidel on February 17, 2012, 03:42:03 PM
I'm sure he could also find plenty of Christian "reasonings" that justify the burning of "witches".
Well we ALL will burn in hell for eating shrimp.
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/ (http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/)
Title: Re: Five Reasons to Oppose Gay Marriage
Post by: ToriJo on February 19, 2012, 09:46:38 AM
Post by: ToriJo on February 19, 2012, 09:46:38 AM
I get that garbage too.
This idea that there was ever a universal Christian way of doing things in this country is insane and incorrect. One needs only look back to the people who came to America to flee other Christians who persecuted them. Or back to the controversy of JFK getting elected - as a Catholic.
It's a wedge issue. It's essentially supporting people's prejudice (because it supports their prejudice, they won't look at it too hard), giving it a religious coating, affirming that "Yes, you aren't a bigot, you're a wonderful person for hating gays," and tying it to a particular political party. It's not that different than other wedge issues. It's designed to fire people up ("YOUR CHILDREN WILL BE EXPOSED TO GAY!") to get them out to vote for the "defender of the faith," which is whatever closeted gay politician that is running as Republican at the time.
(Oh, the Democrats do it too - they just pick different issues)
But I'm *REALLY* wanting to sponsor a ballot initiative to bring back the Biblical definition of marriage. If I had a funding source, I'd do it (I need signature gatherers!). Essentially, "Amendment to amend constitution to include 'Marriage is defined only as the types of marriages the Bible supports as god-sanctioned.'" If these right wingers want Biblical marriage, I say go all the way: Polygamy (one man, many women), child marriage (well, we already have that in New Hampshire - 13 year old girls and 14 year old boys can marry, unless they are gay in which case they have to wait until 18), cousin marriage in all 50 states (it's recognized everywhere today, but not legal to enter into everywhere), and no divorce except for Biblical reasons (which don't include spousal abuse). If people want Biblical marriage, that's what they should get - not this watered-down one man/one woman stuff. :)
This idea that there was ever a universal Christian way of doing things in this country is insane and incorrect. One needs only look back to the people who came to America to flee other Christians who persecuted them. Or back to the controversy of JFK getting elected - as a Catholic.
It's a wedge issue. It's essentially supporting people's prejudice (because it supports their prejudice, they won't look at it too hard), giving it a religious coating, affirming that "Yes, you aren't a bigot, you're a wonderful person for hating gays," and tying it to a particular political party. It's not that different than other wedge issues. It's designed to fire people up ("YOUR CHILDREN WILL BE EXPOSED TO GAY!") to get them out to vote for the "defender of the faith," which is whatever closeted gay politician that is running as Republican at the time.
(Oh, the Democrats do it too - they just pick different issues)
But I'm *REALLY* wanting to sponsor a ballot initiative to bring back the Biblical definition of marriage. If I had a funding source, I'd do it (I need signature gatherers!). Essentially, "Amendment to amend constitution to include 'Marriage is defined only as the types of marriages the Bible supports as god-sanctioned.'" If these right wingers want Biblical marriage, I say go all the way: Polygamy (one man, many women), child marriage (well, we already have that in New Hampshire - 13 year old girls and 14 year old boys can marry, unless they are gay in which case they have to wait until 18), cousin marriage in all 50 states (it's recognized everywhere today, but not legal to enter into everywhere), and no divorce except for Biblical reasons (which don't include spousal abuse). If people want Biblical marriage, that's what they should get - not this watered-down one man/one woman stuff. :)