Very Sad About All The Gay-marriage Bans

[ArmadilloUCC]

I know I am probably going to make a lot of people mad talking about this.

I am so sad about all these states passing anti-gay-marriage bills. And how people want to make a federal amendment. They say it's to "protect marriage". Protect it from what and from who? How am I a threat to anyone's marriage ? I don't even know these people.

Am a going to personally track down people I don't know and do some kind of hoodoo on them so they get a divorce?

Why are people so scared of me? Why do people hate me so much that they would pass laws to make my family illegal? What have I ever done to anyone of these people?

They say it's about "christian values" but lots of people get married in front of a judge or in a pagan ceremony and they have the same rights as anyone married in a church. I got my union blessed by my ministers in a christian ceremony but i have no rights at all.

What I am really afraid of are the states that passed bans against what they called anything approaching or resembling marriage like civil unions or doomestic partnerships. Does this mean my partner's company can't cover me on her insurance anymore?

 

I am just really sad and tired of being contantly beat on and used as a political symbol and whipping boy. It's getting old. And I'm getting tired

Armadillo

[BrotherRog]

Some observations:

 

1. The GOP campaigned heavily to sway Evangelical and Conservative Christians to vote for them via appealing to their being "the party of moral values."

 

2. What they meant by this, and how others wanted to hear it,

was that they are the party that opposes gay marriages and abortions.

 

3. Yet, from a truly Biblical point of view, banning civil marriages for homosexual couples makes about as much sense as is does to do what we're currently doing; i.e. to allow heterosexual couples to divorce for reasons other than adultery. Also, in several states, heterosexual couples who live together for a certain period of time can opt to be recognized as legally married (e.g. in Colorado). Moreover, from a Biblical perspective, legally denying homosexual civil unions makes about as much sense as legally allowing divorced straight persons to remarry.

 

Denying gay marriages makes about as much sense as doing these things. Alas, we live in a HYPOCRITICALLY "Christian" nation..

 

In case our gentle readers didn't know, each of the things that I've mentioned in these last two posts are equally considered as being sinful according to the Bible (though I'd argue that homosexuality was less egregious to Jesus than divorce was).

 

But, since the majority of Bible readers are straight people, they rationalize their sinful behaviors (remarrige, divorce for reasons other than adultery, premarital sex, etc.) by focusing the attention upon the 5-8% of our population who are homosexual; i.e. straight people make them the scapegoats in order to fool themselves into thinking that they are "righteous".. Disgusting.

[fatherman]

ArmadilloUCC,

 

I want you to know that I stand with you in your sadness over these new amendments.

 

I live in Oklahoma where an overwhelming majority voted in favor of an amendment that 1.) defines marriage to be between one man and one woman. 2.) prohibits giving the benefits of marriage to people who are not married 3.) provides that same sex marriages in other states are not valid in this state 4.) makes issuing a marriage license in violation of this section a misdemeanor.

 

This makes me very sad.

 

I'd also like to express some thoughts on the matter in terms of goverment and politics.

 

I think, that our fellow advocates in Massachussets made an unfortunate error in strategy that may have played a part in this. Because many interpret the U.S. Constitution as saying that any marriage in one state must be recognized by all states, opponents of same-sex marriage believed they must take immediate constitutional action. I think the majority of Americans (possibly even Bush) support civil unions and domestic partnership rights for same-sex couples. I believe that unions are the logical first step for states to take.

 

Their is a problem with civil unions, though. Since they are really designed to be an equal alternative to marriage for gay folks, we have a potential "separate, but equal" legal dilemma.

 

The only solution that I can see that serves all the people fairly is this:

 

We must draw a clearer line between the Church and the State. The State should not be handing out licences for marriage and the Church should not be signing state

licences. As in other countries, the State should offer a civil union license only. Marriage should be offered by the Church or other significant community organizations.

 

As it is now, there is no clear distinction between entering the legal contract of Marriage (and all of its benefits) and the Sacrament of Marriage offered by the Church.

 

God bless you, Armadillo. In the grand scheme of things progress is being made very rapidly; unfortunately, our human lives progress much more rapidly than the grand scheme.

Edited November 4, 2004 by fatherman

[BrotherRog]

Re: my previous post:

 

While I point out the rampant and shameful hypocricy of our legalistic "Christian" friends, in reality, Christianity is about love, compassion and Grace. Due to life experience and societal change, most denominations now allow couples who are living togther before marriage to get married in their churches; most denominations now allow their members to divorce for reasons other than marriage; most denominations allow their members who've been divorced to remarry. Not because they "dismiss" the Bible, but rather, they interpret it as Jesus did; i.e. graciously and nonlegalisticly.

 

Would that more demoninations would cease their hypocritical double standards which deny the right to marry to their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters - thereby relegating them to lives of celibacy.

 

But again, in regard to civil marriages in our secular society, American citizens really have no good grounding to deny same sex civil marriages/unions by appealing to their "morality" while at the same time condoning divorce, remarriage, etc.

 

Alas, gay-baiting has become the new race-baiting. It is tragic that appealing to people's baser predjudices is what it takes to win elections.

[Oak]

I know I am probably going to make a lot of people mad talking about this.

I am so sad about all these states passing anti-gay-marriage bills. And how people want to make a federal amendment. They say it's to "protect marriage". Protect it from what and from who? How am I a threat to anyone's marriage ? I don't even know these people.

Am a going to personally track down people I don't know and do some kind of hoodoo on them so they get a divorce?

Why are people so scared of me? Why do people hate me so much that they would pass laws to make my family illegal? What have I ever done to anyone of these people?

They say it's about "christian values" but lots of people get married in front of a judge or in a pagan ceremony and they have the same rights as anyone married in a church. I got my union blessed by my ministers in a christian ceremony but i have no rights at all.

What I am really afraid of are the states that passed bans against what they called anything approaching or resembling marriage like civil unions or doomestic partnerships. Does this mean my partner's company can't cover me on her insurance anymore?

 

I am just really sad and tired of being contantly beat on and used as a political symbol and whipping boy. It's getting old. And I'm getting tired

Armadillo

I mean it is difficult, feeling rejected is difficult

 

From an European point of view, "these things are awful", even conservatives in Europe don't act in such a way..

 

According to the laws "Marriage is a contract".. Most of countries in EU (France, Switzerland .. ) have set up contracts , of "civil union"..

 

But in France the State is separate from the religions, a pastor is not a civil servant,

 

Anyone can have the ceremony he wants in his own church, if he is gays, in a gay friendly church (there are some in Paris..)..

 

This question must not be a political stance, cannot be..

 

Conservatives doesnot like the word "Marriage" for homosexuals, ok let us call this "Civil Union"..

 

 

And the words, are separate..

 

I hope all people will find comfort and help in christian communities..(idealist ??)

 

The laws in Europe give rights to families (married or not..), the opposite would be segregation..

 

Church has been separate from State during centuries ..It is a good reason..

 

Bashing a minority is the best way to destriy democracy, in Europe

- Hitler was bashing Jews, Gays, Tziganes, and we know what has happened ..

 

After gays ? Who will be bashed ? Sentenced ?

 

- Jews ? Catholics ?

 

It looks like a witch trial (no proof .. only an inquisitor)

 

"First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me." Martin Niemolle, Pastor and German resistant of the WWII

 

After Gays ? Single Mothers ? Who?

[Oak]

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Some observations:

 

1. The GOP campaigned heavily to sway Evangelical and Conservative Christians to vote for them via appealing to their being "the party of moral values."

 

2. What they meant by this, and how others wanted to hear it,

was that they are the party that opposes gay marriages and abortions.

 

3. Yet, from a truly Biblical point of view, banning civil marriages for homosexual couples makes about as much sense as is does to do what we're currently doing; i.e. to allow heterosexual couples to divorce for reasons other than adultery.  Also, in several states, heterosexual couples who live together for a certain period of time can opt to be recognized as legally married (e.g. in Colorado). Moreover, from a Biblical perspective, legally denying homosexual civil unions makes about as much sense as legally allowing divorced straight persons to remarry.

 

Denying gay marriages makes about as much sense as doing these things.  Alas, we live in a HYPOCRITICALLY "Christian" nation..

 

In case our gentle readers didn't know, each of the things that I've mentioned in these last two posts are equally considered as being sinful according to the Bible (though I'd argue that homosexuality was less egregious to Jesus than divorce was). 

 

But, since the majority of Bible readers are straight people, they rationalize their sinful behaviors (remarrige, divorce for reasons other than adultery, premarital sex, etc.) by focusing the attention upon the 5-8% of our population who are homosexual; i.e. straight people make them the scapegoats in order to fool themselves into thinking that they are "righteous".. Disgusting.

</span>

3. Yet, from a truly Biblical point of view, banning civil marriages for homosexual couples makes about as much sense as is does to do what we're currently doing; i.e. to allow heterosexual couples to divorce for reasons other than adultery.  Also, in several states, heterosexual couples who live together for a certain period of time can opt to be recognized as legally married (e.g. in Colorado). Moreover, from a Biblical perspective, legally denying homosexual civil unions makes about as much sense as legally allowing divorced straight persons to remarry.

 

In fact in doesnot make sense at all, Europe has christian nations too, and these nations were christians before USA appear..

 

With a long tradition , a long transmission - the second century of the church at least -(ca a nation be more christian than Italy ? Or Spain ? or France ? Ireland ? Sweden ? Germany ? UK ? Finland ?)

 

There are conservatives , I suppose you have heard about Buttiglione and his statements (against gays, "women role it at home"), he has had to dismiss his role of Comissioner and representative of the EU..

 

A president bashing gays had to resign.

 

When the discussion about "the christian roots of Europe " came on the table, the President of Eire, Poland, Italy, Portugal, Spain have agreed for another way to relate to "the common spiritual heritage" and in these nations people have a deep commitment to christianity..

 

We can have a rela commitment to the christian roots of our countries and having another attitude the so-call "biblical attitude" is not "biblical at all"..

 

Either ?

 

- Why people don't enslave Mexicans or Canadians ? (enslaving his neighbours ..it is biblical)

- And people who wear clothes with two different materials ? (it is biblical to lapidate or to burn them ?)

- So people who cut the edges of their beard ? (it is biblical)

- And raped girls will they have to marry the man who has raped them? (dt 28)

 

It could be a joke

 

 

The "biblical" stances are not christian at all ,

- denying even the simple messages rules found by christian thinkers about the christian attitude in politics

- refraining evil AND promoting justice

 

- denying the message of Jesus Christ, restricting the christianity to a set of rules..

Edited November 5, 2004 by Oak

[anglican_01]

note: The GOP campaigned heavily to sway Evangelical and Conservative Christians to vote for them via appealing to their being "the party of moral values."

 

 

i agree with the post topic - it is very sad that the government, currently under the administration of the Party which bills itself as the party of 'limited government' continually expands government into the family life and bedrooms of ordinary Americans - this party only thinks of governmental limits when things interfere with the wealthy accumulating more and more wealth off of the backs of the working class and the poor. As for the suggestion that gay marriage will destroy the 'sacred' institution of marriage, if one popular pop starlet can get married and 48 hours later have it all undone through an annullment, there is no 'sacred' inistitution of marriage. The christo-fascists who came out in force to support this un-christian war-making deceitful Administration were voting their own 'christian' prejudices - however history is on their side as the christian Church has traditionally offered to the poor, marginalized, and the outcast nothing but invective designed to keep them in servitude to the Establishment - little more than bigotry, homophobia, and mysogyny flow from the poison pens and hate-filled pulpits of these christo-fascists! i find it striking that when those in power speak of Jesus' message most often the parts about scattering the proud, bringing down rulers from their thrones, lifting up the humble, filling the hungry with good things, and sending away the rich empty-handed receive scant attention - continuous calls from the Right to return to 'biblical morality' and the 'word of God' are usually calls to make a return to some oppressive law arising out of the ancient world which had no sense of democratic values nor real worth of human life - hence their bizarre fixation, with biblical justification, of how gay marriage will destroy civilization as we know it...it is a very sad state of affairs how Americans choose to demonize fellow Americans...

[DCJ]

if one popular pop starlet can get married and 48 hours later have it all undone through an annullment, there is no 'sacred' inistitution of marriage.

Just because someone abuses the institution, doesn't mean the institution doesn't exist. The fact that you pointed out Ms. Spears' shenanigans shows that there is indeed a bright center to marriage that she is farthest from, to use Star Wars parlance.

christo-fascists ... un-christian war-making deceitful Administration ... 'christian' prejudices ... bigotry, homophobia, and mysogyny flow from the poison pens and hate-filled pulpits of these christo-fascists!

it is a very sad state of affairs how Americans choose to demonize fellow Americans...

Couldn't have said it better myself...

[ArmadilloUCC]

All I want is to have the same legal rights given to everyone who gets married.

There is no "gay agenda" that says a church would have to marry gays.

The gay marriage issue is not about religion or christianity, it's about legal rights.

I want the same legal rights given to someone who goes to Vegas and gets married by Elvis. I was married in a church. It was a christian ceremony, but it is not legal.

I still do not understand why my legal rights would be such a threat to people?

How am I a danger to anyone? I am a pretty boring person, really. the worst danger I pose is someone eating my cupcakes, which I burned terribly.

[DCJ]

ArmadilloUCC, I understand your frustration... Allow me to try to offer an explanation:

 

It seems we need to go back and determine what the ultimate purpose of marriage is. It's not merely to unite two people (gay or straight) that love each other... What would be the point in keeping two people together if things didn't work out? Marriage is concerned primarily with children. The primary reason to keep two people together, to keep the family intact, is to preserve the home for their children. Since it takes a man and a woman to create a child, it stands to reason that a father and a mother is the best possible basic unit for raising children. If you define marriage in terms of an adult relationship, you're implicitly saying that any adult arrangement (polygamists don't want to be discriminated against either) is equally sufficient for raising children, and this is clearly not the case, as I demonstrated above.

 

Hope that helps...

[fatherman]

DCJ,

 

In your opinion, what kind of relationship is described in the The Song of Solomon? How do you interpret the scripture 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.' ?

 

What would be the point in keeping two people together if things didn't work out? Marriage is concerned primarily with children. The primary reason to keep two people together, to keep the family intact, is to preserve the home for their children.

 

This statement reflects an attitude toward marriage that I believe is a common, underlying problem of many doomed or failed marriages (especially those with children). The marriage (not the children) must be the cornerstone of the family. Why is this? Because God gave us to each other to support each other and love each other. A marriage should be something that sustains it's participants. When parents continually put their children's needs above the needs of marriage, the marriage will eventually collapse and it will then be even harder to meet the needs of the children. It is very difficult to be a good parent if you don't have a partner of some sort supporting you.

 

Concerning marriages with no children...in my opinion, the love and support of a life partner is one of God's greatest gifts. So when you wrote:

It's not merely to unite two people (gay or straight) that love each other

 

you are saying that one of God's greatest gifts could be described as "mere".

 

In answer to your question

 

What would be the point in keeping two people together if things didn't work out?

 

Because "they are no longer two but one flesh". If you didn't like the shape/appearance of your arm, would you be willing to cut it off to be relieved of the sight of it?

Edited November 17, 2004 by fatherman

[Socius]

Marriage is concerned primarily with children. The primary reason to keep two people together, to keep the family intact, is to preserve the home for their children. Since it takes a man and a woman to create a child, it stands to reason that a father and a mother is the best possible basic unit for raising children.

 

Is the problem then with society's structure in that it does not allow a couple of the same sex to nurture a child in a positive manner? If so, is it not part of the church's responsibility to be involved in changing societal structures in order to help couples of the same sex to better nurture their child, rather than continuing promoting homophobia amongst the people. Also should not the church assist in the homosexual debate by promoting amongst homosexuals the responsibility to commit to one partner. If homosexaulity has been seen as unfit to raise a child it is probably because the constant partner swaping in its culture. The partner swaping that goes on is probably due to society's reluctance of recognising homosexuality. But there is no reason to suggest why a homosexual couple in a stable relationship can not provide a healthy environmnt for a child. A heterosexual parent that constantly swaps partners is not a stable environment for raising a child either, but I hardly ever hear much complaints about that.

[DCJ]

How do you interpret the scripture 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.' ?

Actually, I referenced that passage in another thread when I pointed out that Jesus affirmed the sacred union between a man and a woman.

 

The marriage (not the children) must be the cornerstone of the family.

I agree... and this should be done, as you pointed out later, in order to preserve the integrity of the family (which includes children).

 

What would be the point in keeping two people together if things didn't work out?

Because "they are no longer two but one flesh".

Far from trying to trivialize the marriage institution, my purpose was to show what its ultimate purpose is according to God, which is given a few verses before the "one flesh" line: "be fruitful and multiply". Even though having a life-partner is a blessing, it does come back to children.

[fatherman]

So are you saying that folks who cannot or do not wish to have children should not marry? I've never understood this particular argument againster gay marriage. Gay folks are the exception, they just want the legal right to marry who they choose. No one is saying that gay marriage should usurp hetero marriage as the norm.

 

Concerning commandments to be fruitful. Gay folks do have kids. Those that can give birth often do. Those who wish to have kids but cannot are usually denied adoption as an alternative. With as many kids that need a home, it is a shame that potentially wonderful parents are turned down because of their God-given sexuallity.

 

In time, the laws will change. Folks have found all kinds of arguments (including Bible-based) to justify their perspectives about who should marry who. It was illegal for protestants to marry catholics, blacks to marry whites, slaves to marry at all. The only criteria for marriage (as offered by the state) will be that the applicants be consenting, single, adults.

Edited November 18, 2004 by fatherman

[DCJ]

So are you saying that folks who cannot or do not wish to have children should not marry?

Not at all, they just may be missing out on one of God's greatest blessings. Thankfully, those who cannot have children can sometimes adopt.

 

Gay folks are the exception, they just want the legal right to marry who they choose.

I understand... however, marriage isn't always about our desires. Some marriages are arranged. I may want to marry a married woman or three women, but I can't. The parameters are very strict: a man and a woman are united to form the cornerstone of a family and possibly raise children. I know this answer is probably unsatisfying.

 

Concerning commandments to be fruitful.  Gay folks do have kids ... it is a shame that potentially wonderful parents are turned down because of their God-given sexuallity.

I guess we should refer back to Genesis to see that's God's plan is for a man to be united to his wife for the said fruitfulness. Men and women forming families and producing children are the building blocks of civilization, which is why the state has an interest in preserving this unique arrangement. Allowing for certain unfortunate circumstances (like divorce), the Bible and biology tell us that a mother and father are crucial ingredients for producing and raising children. Again, I apologize if this is unsatisfying, and I don't want to offend.

 

It was illegal for protestants to marry catholics, blacks to marry whites, slaves to marry at all.

Just because society had a wrong prejudice then, doesn't mean that we suffer from the same irrationality now. The circumstances are different. There is no difference between white/black or Protestant/Catholic when it comes to marriage. Ethnicity and religion have no bearing on marriage. Gender, however, is fundamental to marriage, because marriage has always been about a man and a woman.

 

The only criteria for marriage (as offered by the state) will be that the applicants be consenting, single, adults.

But why discriminate against polygamists?

[Socius]

I understand... however, marriage isn't always about our desires.

 

The reality is however, there are people that do have a closer physical attraction and connection to others of the same sex. The reality is homosexual couples do meet the needs of each other and complement each other as heterosexual couples do. The reality is homosexuals are just as committed to one another as heterosexuals are. The reality is denying a person their sexual orientation is unhealthy for that person and contributes to problems, in some cases suicide. The reality is that in many cases marriage is about our desires (1 Corinthians 7:36).

 

One needs to consider that during NT times homosexuality was not part of the vocabulary and that the behaviour often translated “homosexual” in Scripture was a behaviour that was seen as threat to the social structures of the time. When Paul condemns homosexuality for example, he was not thinking of the act in regards to relationships, he was thinking in terms of uncontrolled behaviour that was disruptive to that community. Paul would probably not have known nor understood homosexual behaviour in a manner that two of the same sex could be in a long term committed relationship. Because of this "homosexual" behaviour was condemned. For Paul’s time the social implications were different, serving a different purpose. Paul did not intend to create further barriers between social groups.

 

But why discriminate against polygamists?

 

Good point considering polyamy is found in the Bible (Gen. 4:19-25; Gen. 26:34-35; Gen. 28, etc, etc). One also wonders why 1 Timothy 3:2 specifically says that the overseer should be the husband of only one wife. Why? How many wives could one expect him to have? Yet Christians are adamant that polygamy is wrong. Are conservatives thinking progressively on this issue?

 

And what if we Christians go as missionaries to a culture where polygamy is accepted? Do we force them to gave up their spouses despite the fact that that particular social structure may depend on polygamous marriages for their livelihood?

[fatherman]

All the arguments I've read on this thread are valid and thoughfully expressed. The truth on this matter in regards to Christians and issues relating to homosexuallity is that there is no easy resolution. Progressives site innaccuracies in Biblical translations, different cultures and times, science, and their gut feelings. Conservatives site the inerrancy and consistency of the Bible on this issue, natural order, and their gut feelings.

 

To change DCJ's mind would require a change in his fundamental Christian beliefs (a hard thing to ask)

 

To change my or Socius' mind would require a change in our fundamental Christian beliefs (just as hard a thing to ask).

 

The middleground that remains is a genuine love and respect for gay folks.

 

The problem that remains is whether or not DCJ's and other's fundamental Christian beliefs should be the basis for Federal or State Law in this country. Because the only basis for denial of a gay person's right to marriage that I've heard is a religious belief that homosexuallity is a sin and therefore wrong.

 

Should divorce be illegal? What about consumption of shellfish? What about the covetting of our neighbor's wife or property (that one even made the top ten!)

[DCJ]

The problem that remains is whether or not DCJ's and other's fundamental Christian beliefs should be the basis for Federal or State Law in this country.

Or, should the other side's beliefs be imposed by judicial fiat.

[fatherman]

Exactly! No easy solution for this.

[Oak]

Exactly! No easy solution for this.

Exactly!  No easy solution for this.

 

The solution can be found easily, the UNO protects human rights and the declaration of human rights has some article about marriage.

 

 

Article 12 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 16 Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

 

Article 12 and article 16 protects people .

 

Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

 

A marriage contracted in Holland or in France is protected by international laws , even on the territory of USA..

 

And the cases can be submitted to the "International Court of Human Rights "In LaHaye..

 

Marriage can contracted in Canada or Europe, the Government of a State, if this state wants to stay in UNO, under rules, protection and legitimacy must have these rules inforced..

 

International Court of LaHaye has sentenced people like Milosevic (Serbian dictator), Bogdan Bogdanovitch..

 

There is a good judicial basis for gay marriage , contracted in other countries , be recognized.;

[RevsBox]

I will admit, there is a lot of hypocracy in various churches. Anywhere you have human beings you will have this. However, that cannot change the validity of the Word of God. God does hate divorce. He has spoken against divorce and remarriage. And He has said that homosexuality is an abomination against Him.

 

Most Christians -- even the conservative, fundamental Christians -- have nothing against the person of the homosexual. It is the lifestyle we do not condone. Personally, I have had a number of friends who are homosexuals. I enjoyed their company and their friendship, however, I am strongly against their way of life. Biblically, it is wrong. God never intended people to mate with the same sex. Just as He never intended people to mate with fish, horse or tree.

 

Churches are not perfect. Regardless of what church you attend, you will certainly find people who will say one thing and do another. You will see that inside the church and you will find that outside of the church. People are like that. But that does not change what God has said. That also does not change what God expects of us. His word is true! We must abide do our best to abide by what He says, regardless of what other people do, or don't do.

[BeachOfEden]

As a straight person myself I'd have to agree sadly that this statement someone here made,

 

"But, since the majority of Bible readers are straight people, they rationalize their sinful behaviors (remarrige, divorce for reasons other than adultery, premarital sex, etc.) by focusing the attention upon the 5-8% of our population who are homosexual; i.e. straight people make them the scapegoats in order to fool themselves into thinking that they are "righteous"..."

 

Is true.

 

It kinda reminds me how the fundamental Protestants lables ALL Judeo-Christian faith groups that are 'NOT' Evangelical or Fundamental Protestnats as "cults'< this way they make theirselves feel more righteous then everyone else.

[BeachOfEden]

See new thread here intitled, "Homosexuality,christianity & Anal Sex, Christianity, Orientation & Sex, Health."

[Realspiritik]

Armadillo,

 

This message is channelled to you from Jesus.

 

"Friend, you just gotta try to hang onto the Truth that God made you beautiful and perfect. There's no shame whatsover in being homosexual. You and I and all the angels know that, including God the Mother and God the Father (but don't try to pin too many labels on the words "Mother and Father" -- it's more complicated than it sounds). Thank you for being a teacher, for reminding us all that sacred sexuality within a loving, committed, monogamous relationship (legally married or not) is one of the most beautiful things we can experience. When I lived as Jesus 2,000 years ago, I was married early in my adult life. Later, we divorced, and I entered into a spectularly loving partnership with another adult soul, despite the fact that no religious or civil authority would marry us. I'm not saying I was gay. I'm not saying I wasn't. I'm saying it didn't matter one way or the other because my partner and I treated each other with love, respect, faithfulness, and trust. Best regards, and best of luck to you and your partner."

 

Love Jesus