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.
Civil Union will always be less than marriage. No matter how you write the law, it will always be "almost" marriage, marriage with an asterisk, marriage at the kid's table.
But, you will say, you are talking about marriage as a social convention, or as a legal contract. What about marriage as a religious ceremony? How can you dismiss the importance of that?
Well... easy. And I'll tell you why: Because we already do that. In any state in this country right now, I can walk into a town or city hall and (after fulfilling residency requirements and testing negative for certain diseases) get a marriage license. I can then take that license to a Justice of the Peace, a CIVIL official, and get married. That's a legal marriage, and no church was involved.
If we let atheists get married and call it marriage; if we let secularists get married without a church and call it marriage, then the argument that marriage in our society is a religious ceremony as well as a civil one is immediately and completely refuted and debunked.
'
The truth is, governments and churches have always had different ideas of what marriage means. The government is concerned with the civil part of it, and the church is concerned with the religious part of it. And, as far as our government is concerned, no religious acceptance is required for two people to get married.
So, with this, I say: Marriage already is two things, and extending it (on the civil side only) to homosexuals does not force anything on religions who would oppose it. The religions, after all, are free to recognize the marriage or not.
Sorry for the length of this. I will now return to my corner and be quiet again.
The reason I oppose Right wing fanatic evangalist christianity is because it goes against my beliefs AND my constitutional rights! You have no right to limit my freedom because of your religious beliefs! You probably support bush's war against the Taliban, yet you would support a christian theocracy because it coincides with your religious beliefs. Get of of my America and take your hypocrasy with you. We are here because we desired religious freedom. Who do you think you are to force your beliefs on me?
cheers, jill
Say it ain't so.
xoxo - Michelle
There will be life after Yahoo. I'm certain of it. Nothing this good can be kept down for long.
All together now: Happy trails to yoooooou, until we meet again.....
(Roy Rogers? Wow. Now THAT is seriously uncool.)
I'm not going to let this line go without comment, though. Someone earlier stated: "After all, nature in itself proves this by not having any homosexual partners in any other species on the planet."
That's a tired and long ago proven falsehood. Same sex couples have been noted in many species and under completely normal conditions. Read Konrad Lorenz's "On Aggression" and see how he writes of geese who mate for life sometimes form same sex partnerships. That book was published in the mid 70s. Lorenz was an honored animal behaviorist who observed homosexuality and bisexuality in many species. The question is not whether it serves any evolutionary function (a completely heterosexist approach), but rather what evolutionary function does it serve? Clearly, the genes have not been worked out of the gene pool, so what positives do homosexuals and bisexuals bring to a society? That's what should be asked, addressed, and observed across species.
Thank you Jill and Michelle for the swell forum.
I can tell by your posts that you already have a full life, my friend. I am glad for the time we had and I know people like you, Jill, and Michelle are a force for good in this world. It has been a pleasure to share and get to know you. Take care. I'll leave a light on in the window for you...
I wonder what Music User thinks of Lefty's comments in post #76, "And a final comment or tonight. If Yoda thinks he is the Jedi master of christian belief and is somehow empowered by his bible, tell him to come on over to my place where we'll stone him to death for cutting the hair on his temples. I think if he feels americans should live by his beliefs, he should be willing to die by mine."
Wow, you have to love the liberal mind. The ability to articulate, insightful, objective, issue oriented commentary is virtually unexcelled.
I didn't comment too much on here but I loved reading. As someone from way out back in an isolated country on the other side of the world I loved reading your opinions. It helped me with getting my mind out of this conservative town, giving me hope that there's more to the world than what I see everyday.
I'm gonna miss it.
And to Jill -- we'll all ride to hell and back for you. It's not all good -- the last two days have shown us that. There's a lot of work yet to be done.
What am I saying? This isn't goodbye, just moving to a new town.
if you have an abusive man that claims to be a Christian you'r option is Christian counseling. fix the problen-don't go crazy! as far as that confession goes i presume you are talking about catholics. we true Christians pray directly to God through Jesus who is our only intermediary. confessing to a man-any man-priest or otherwise is useless. no man has the authority to forgive sin, and any abuse is sin.as far as you'r last line goes that is just plain offensive and not needed. we get your point without being disrespectful.it seems you havn't met any real Christians or are judging us all by a very few who are always chosen-wrongly-to represent all of us.we are human too and we all can make mistakes. really, havn't you done something you later regret even though you knew better at the time? you also did not mention extenuating factor(s) such as alcoholism or some mental problem. you also didn't say why any woman would get with an abusive man in the first place.
simply put don't blame GOD for our failures and inability to live up to HIS standards. the Bible states that we are all born in sin, it is something that we Christians fight our whole lives-at least the vast majority do, instead of giving up and embracing sins like homosexuality. we are each challenged differently-with some it's greed or lust or drugs. we will all be judged for how we treat each other.
"Yahoo has decided to...let us go", I don't understand how Yahoo decides who stays and who goes. Did we, the commentors, break some rules we were unaware of? Did they expect the blog topics to only be about music? I subscribe to your myspace blog so I hope you continue there.
This topic was very eduational, I was surprised by how many people still live there lives by the strict interpretation of a book written almost 2000 years ago when we were a pre-industrial society and our intellectual and scientific evolution was unimaginable. Don't get me wrong, I live by the bible but apply it to life in 2008. I think I'll go read a few verses from the bible I keep on my Iphone. :-)
See you on MySpace.
If I had to come up with a lone gunman theory, I'd guess it involved a posting on Hello Kitty and her friends. ("We're running a family friendly site here!") By the way, Jill, I couldn't stop laughing when I saw that graphic. I seem to be in an ongoing battle with the humor impaired of the world. I suspect you are as well.
" you also didn't say why any woman would get with an abusive man in the first place"
Did you really truly write that?????
Try working in a battered women's shelter..... then maybe YOU can tell ME why.
I have had many emotions during this blog. Some of these people give me hope, some make me angry or frustrated.you are the first that made me sad. by your own admission you have lost your way-traded the light for darkness.I hope you will come back to the light before the end.
I may be wrong but it seems that a great deal of these blogs involve the word "fair", as in this or that is not fair. To the best of my knowledge "fairness" is a purely human concept and does not occur in nature. Further i'm pretty sure this concept is not promised in the Bible.I use this assertion to combat racism. You do not get to choose your parents, gender, ethnicity, country of origin, or the era in which you were born.These days you are lucky to get born at all.
One of our greatest problems-and blessings-is "free will". The ability to choose who and what you are can be a blessing or curse.God has defined sin for us, He wants us to reject sin and embrace Him.Sadly some people think that is too much to ask. Sin is attractive, if it was ugly and hateful it would have no takers. I try to be as analytical as possible regarding what I do, say, and believe.Salvation is a free gift, the price has already been paid. Simple obedience to your creator shouldn't be too much too ask. I live here and now too, and I know how loud the distractions of the world can be. Some philosophies of the world are very attractive, note the success of cults. Kool aid anyone? We should all pray for discernment, the ability to tell good from evil. The much ballyhooed "openmindedness" is all well and good to a point, after which it can become a liability.Computer people know all about worms, virususes, spyware etc. and put up filters to keep this crud from damaging our data. Our brains should be no different. Garbage in garbage out, an old saying that is still as true as ever.
ed
Dimedropepr 05 also stated, "But no tax breaks for polygamists! Clearly, tax breaks for marriage are clearly defined between two people. Anything else would be fiscally unnatural". What could be more fiscally unnatural than what our politicians do with our tax money now? California (among several other states) have defined marriage to be limited between two heterosexual adults unrelated by blood. If that definition can be rewritten with the stroke of a judge's pen (as it was in Massachusetts and soon may be in California), why is so hard to envision the tax laws being revised? I do believe, however, that Congress is unlikely to pass any legislation that would reduce the amount of taxes levied on the population. A more likely result would be to eliminate any tax benefits for married people (traditional or otherwise) ... all under the guise of "fairness" and "equality" of course.