Evangelicals less tweaked about Homosexuals?
It used to be that gay marriage was the big scary thing that the Republicans (Bush and Rove) could use to galvanize the reborn or evangelical vote. The fear of, for example, two men saying I do, promising to love each other forever and having a kick ass yet tasteful wedding party, might just have cost Gore and Kerry the elections.
Now there are signs that this Christian community has become more diverse and maybe less focused on the traditional hot button issues (abortion and gay marriage). There are growing concerns about the war, torture, the environment and social justice – not very Pat Robertson or Dr. Dobson like.
A recent poll by Beliefnet showed that 80-percent of respondents saw reducing poverty as "very important", where as only 49- percent chose stopping gay marriage.
It seems also that the younger generation is not as judgmental, threatened. They probably all have seen old episodes of Will and Grace or the Ellen show; they probably all have a friend who bought a Rufus Wainwright or a Scissor Sisters CD.
Jim Wallis, an influential progressive evangelical stated "The religious right, their dominance is finished, their monologue is over. They have a voice, but they're not the only voice now."
What is happening when even a former Republican sports star ( a profile not known for pro-gay pronouncements) is calling for a change in the guard? My new hero, Charles Barkley, in an interview last week, on reasons why he is supporting Obama:
"I've got great respect for Sen. McCain, great respect, but I don't like the way Republicans have taken this country," said Barkley. "Every time I hear the word 'conservative,' it makes me sick to my stomach, because they're really just fake Christians, as I call them. That's all they are."
"I think they want to be judge and jury," Barkley said. "Like, I'm for gay marriage. It's none of my business if gay people want to get married. I'm pro-choice. And I think these Christians; first of all, they're not supposed to judge other people. But they're the most hypocritical judge of people we have in the country. And it bugs the hell out of me. They act like they're Christians. They're not forgiving at all."
We here on Yahoo Music have a very diverse crowd. I wonder what our Christian readers think.
First from a strictly scientific stand point, homosexuality is impossible to explain. According to the laws of evolution, this gene (if real) would have ceased from existing due to it's inability to be passed from parents with this "dominant" trait to their offspring. After all, nature in itself proves this by not having any homosexual partners in any other species on the planet.
However, if the Bible is true, then we must all acknowledge that their are consequences to our actions. We are all responsible for our actions and I'll be the first one to stand up and admit that I am not perfect. There is only one that is perfect and that is Christ.
This whole debate must begin with admittance that we are all sinners. This isn't me judging anyone; I'm simply stating a fact. We've all at least heard of the 10 commandments. No one reading this can honestly say that they have not broken at least one of the commandments. I, myself, have broken many and I can acknowledge this because it is the breaking of God's law that led me as a tutor to Christ.
There is hope for all of us, that while we were all sinners Christ died on the cross for our sins. There is hope for all of us because God showed His love for each of us by giving us his only Son, that whoever believes in Him will have everlasting life.
The bottom line: Unfortunately all sin is punishable by death. I thank God every day that there is a way provided for me that I do not have to face death without my Savior. Jesus was clear in saying that "No one comes to the Father but through Me." As someone earlier stated, Jesus is the way, the truth, and the only way to everlasting life.
Thank you to all the Christians who stood up for their faith. I encourage everyone reading this to read their Bible daily. God has a plan and a purpose for each of us.
So which world view is correct? If we live a life that isn't Christ centered and there isn't a God, then there will not be any consequences eternally. In addition, living a life for Christ in this same scenerio would not help one eternally but it would still help one to live a healthier, happier life here on earth. However, if there is a God and the Bible is indeed true, then those who do not live a Christ centered life will face an eternity of suffering, based on judgement by a Holy God, not human. So we're all ultimately faced with one decision-What do we have to lose by not accepting Christ in our lives? It's God's purpose that all sinners be saved from eternal suffering, regardless of the sins they have committed in their lives.
I would entertain a debate on his topics, but there are so many other things to comment on. I will say that people who call themselves "liberal" are labeled as such because they are fighting for rights that they feel are opressed. I will also say that people who are labeled conservative, are labeled such because they are fighting for rights they feel are threatened by allowing others more freedom.
but my question is, what does one person's freedom of choice have to do with those who do not want that choice? If you don't want to do it, DON'T CHOOSE IT. but I do not believe it is practical to impose your preferences upon the demographicly diverse population of America.
As for laws? We legally decided that 18 was the age of Adulthood. That's why sleeping with a minor is illegal. And this is only recently decided as America still practiced marying their daughters off after their first period up into the early 1900's - for you men out there, that happens around 13 or 14.
Historically, Amererica has become MORE conservative on matters of sex and marriage, not less. The recent generation, possibly due in part to the vast number of us going to college and experiencing more than the local socialization of our families and comunities, are simply trying to re-establish the early attitudes towards a person's wish to be treated equally, and not be persecuted for their choices.
as for my commentary on using God's wisdom and God's laws, and God's values to determine the path for an entire nation?
well, our country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution in their own land.
Our founding fathers established America with a specific design towards the separation of church and state so that religous beliefs would not be used to persecute them again.
now our country is using religous beliefs to persecute our citizens, and some are activly trying to use their religous dogma to shape the laws of our country so that they can legally persecute and descriminate, and dehumanize, and marginalize populations of their fellow Americans.
What happened to the original intention of America? Religious freedom for all. A country free from persecution by religous leaders and ruled by rationality rather than faith?
No one can say our founding fathers weren't Christian. They all held their beliefs and followed the practices of the day. Whether it be a 40 year old man marrying a 15 year old girl, or owning slaves to work the plantations.
They were God-Fearing Christian men who knew what religous persecution felt like and wanted their country to be safe from that.
I am tipping my hat to you. Very well said and I liked your approach. May I raise one point I think was inconsistent? I like your analogy about "liberals" versus "conservatives." I think it was a bit one sided.
Goldwater was certainly a strong conservative, but hated any mixing of religion with politics and had little use for those who sought to impose their religious beliefs on others.
I think both liberals and conservatives will feel that their rights are threatened and someone is trying to impose their will on them since they disagree with the basic assumptions about core principles like the role of government and the separation of church and state. I do not think it reasonable to say that liberals are fighting for rights because they feel oppressed and conservatives are just interested in limiting the freedom of others to choose behaviors. Many conservatives would say, stop making me pay for your choices.
I think you are really adding value to the discussion, but let's face it. There are just as many far left zealots as there are far right zealots. To me they are just the opposite sides of the same coin.
You also say that Christians are most hypocritical judge of people we have in this country? I would like some hard core evidence, please.
As I said previously, there is no credible scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetically determined. It is my belief (the liberals will at least allow me a belief I hope ... being vigorous champions of my right to say what they believe)that homosexuality is a chosen behavior. As such, I do not believe that society needs to alter thousands of years of tradition to accomodate someone's (and a rather small group of someone's at that) decision to behave in a particular manner. The mantra of liberals and homosexual activists is that, "how does a marriage to a same sex partner harm or dilute the efficacy of a heterosexual marriage?". Perhaps it doesn't but neither does the practice of consensual incest (brother/sister, parent child, brother/brother) that may be practiced in some families harm or dilute the efficacy of other traditional families. Is it morally right for society to prohibit the incestuous family from engaging in this behavior in the privacy of their own home? I realize this will be viewed as another "straw argument" but my point is simply that when we are going to adjust the moral plumbline of a society, who will define the new standard? If we do not accept that there is a absolute standard of moral behavior given to us by God, then we are relegated to setting our own standards and shiould this be done family by family, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city, state by state, nationally, globally, etc.? Your standard of morality may not be my standard of morality and what makes your standard better than mine or vice versa?
I suspect that everyone who has read this thread will agree that there will never be agreement on a standard of morality. These deabtes rarely change anyone's mind because of the difference in value systems but it has been stimulating to read the opposing views. I know that I will not change anyone's mind on this thread any more than someone will change mine. I'moutahere
Same-sex marriage may help the American society in the way that it promotes diversity and acceptance. Believe it or not, I do accept these people and I do not hate them. I accept them for who they are, I just do not support homosexual acts.
Isn't that what we're all trying to do here? Trying to get people to see things the way we see them?
What I found out is that civil unions do not have the same legal equality as a marriage does. Some, possibly many, believe that accepting a civil union instead of a marriage will prevent them from ever gain full legal equality.
It's sort of like freeing the slaves but allowing endentured servitude.
and not allowing them to work in white establishments, use the front door, vote, etc, etc, thereby preventing them from learning other marketable trades and forcing them to continue working the land, and in the houses.
granted racial equality is a lot better now in many respects, but it's been a long, hard, bloody, and violent battle to get there.
It would be nice if we could learn from history and not have to do it again. Because that is where we're headed.
If people like Fanny May and Dr. King and others didn't exist and fight tooth and nail for full equality, they never would have gotten it. If they had settled for a legal bone, if they had given up, if they had compromised, then the people they were fighting for would not be where they are today. They're still fighting too, but on they're on better ground than they would be without the other trailblazers.
With that in mind, wouldn't a Civil Union do the same thing? We could make legal requirements like age of consent, no bigamy, incest, and so on. Then go before a civil official with your witnesses and swear or affirm your commitment and sign on the dotted line. If this bestows all the functional benefits of marriage, but it is rejected because it simply is not being called "marriage" then I think your like the gold miner who curses all the silver ore for getting in his way of reaching the gold vein.
I am a Christian, and for those of you that see that label and write me off, read on.
I have a hard time with the evangelical church in general fighting with issues and not the cause. It's like putting a petty issue in the crossfire instead of attacking the disease at it's root, and no I am not calling homosexuality a disease, so don't even go there.
As far as I have been able to tell from my reading of the bible, we are supposed to LOVE all people, even our enemies. So it makes no sense in fighting another group because their ideals are different. That to me is anti-christian. I will live my life as my testimony, and I will not shove something down someones throat and brainwash them with flowery music and an alter call where I leave them there to try to figure out what just happened.
"homosexuality still spreads disease, that alone makes it unacceptable.how about a society where children are safe in a park,school,church-etc from pedofiles(a version of homosexuality)" I have a small child, and I want to protect him at all costs from anything that would hurt him. Does that mean I don't let him run outside for fear he is going to scrape his knee? This to me is another example of issue fighting, not fighting the cause of things. Oh I would be remiss to not say I got kanker (sp?) sores from kissing... a girl (I'm a boy). So it appears straight lovin spreads it just the same. Unsafe sexual practices spread diseases, and even safe ones have a risk, no matter your gender preference.
I am tired of the religious right, I am tired of the intollerance. I think it's funny that one of their "victories" came about getting Howard Stern off the air. Well guess what. When and if Christianity is no longer the "moral" compass of America and your shows get taken off the air because the public wants it off, what will you say then? You set that one up all by yourselves. That is ignorance.
I feel like I'm rambling so I'll stop. I really do hope that the true Peace of God is with each of you. Jesus died for the ignorant too...
Lance
I am about to get out of my realm of practical knowledge on this though since I haven't talked to enough people to consider myself informed.
There are only two reasons to believe that the Bible is the word of God. In fact, there are only two reasons to believe ANYTHING.
Either you WANT to believe it.
Or the preponderance of evidence, or the reliability of testimony, indicates that you HAVE to believe it.
So far, I have encountered no preponderance of evidence, and no suitably reliable testimony, that would mean I HAVE to believe that the Bible is the word of God.
And, if you'll please excuse my bluntness, people like yourself certainly don't make me WANT to believe it.
You may or may not want to think about that.
I'm thinking a little radically with what I'm about to say. My disclaimer is that this is more to stir thought than anything else... but regarding the separation of church and state, and on the assumption that the word "marriage" was originally a church word, we could take all legal rights away from the word "marriage" and give them to "civil union".
grandfather in "civil union" status to all currently married adults, and then require all further couples to apply for a "civil union" license in order to receive the legal benefits.
Then churches could continue to rule over marriage, but there would be no legal status associated with that union, and only "civil unions" would bestow legal benefits. Then, the value of the word itself would be more apparent, and we could argue of placing too much value on semantics.
your question also touches on a point of discension between moderate liberals and the more extremists....of which I don't think there is an easy answer....
if the two were equal it would be soley a question of semantics....asking someone to give up the idea of ever getting married could be construed as cruel. We are indoctrinated with the concept of marriage and what that brings to us regarding companionship, love, support... from an early age. Many people dream of getting married, of finding a partner and "living happily ever after". The practicality of this doesn't always happen, but the dream is still there.
As things stand now, a certain demographic is being required to give up their idea of marriage and the possibility of that dream, or metamorphisize it into something else so that they can believe they have what they always wanted even without the word.
I think it might be short-sighted to play down the value of semantics in this case.
words have meaning and power. "marriage" had many connotations long before the debate about same-sex unions.
This is a question of the basis of law. I want to live in a constitutionally limited republic, that guarantees personal liberty. I do not want to live in a theocracy. I would rather not see any law that restricts personal liberty.
Do you want to live in a theocracy? Be careful, what you wish, it might come true.
I think you spoke eloquently about the power of words and the idea of a dream deferred, but I still feel like there has to be some flexibility on both sides for any real change to happen.
If you want the civil and legal rights of marriage and can get them by a Civil Union, then it seems to me that is a good starting point. I have no doubt that things would move in the direction you describe, but change is a process, not an event and we should move in successive approximations to reach your long term goal.
If people say I want it and I want it all right now, I think that actually shifts many moderates into the conservative camp and undermines the long term goal instead of advancing it. I understand that for some, it's give me marriage or give me nothing. I just think you need to build bridges and create alliances to advance change and taking extreme positions actually moves your goal to a more distant point in time.