What religion should you be?

[Tragedi67]

Don't laugh ya'll......100% Jehovah's Witness......i was raised that until my mother married out of the faith......95%

Mormon.......eewww poligamy.......didn't celebrate any holidays until my mom remarried........now i'll probably be condemmed to hell for all the sins I've committed........

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Arabess

Well...I'm going by the fact that the Bible states that of ALL sins, he abhors this one the most. I'm assuming He isn't keen on the idea. LOL!

I'll operate under the stipulation that the Bible is indeed the word of God.

 

Arabess, In Leviticus 18:22, it states that homosexual relations are an "Abomination" (hebrew: tow`ebah)

 

In Leviticus 11:10, it states that eating shellfish is an "Abomination" (hebrew: tow`ebah)

 

You're wondering why those sins are equal? It's because "yhetobah" doesn't mean "abomination"--that's an awful translation. Tow`ebah means "ritually unclean" You see, Leviticus is NOT a book about morality. It's a book about rules and regulations for maintaining "cleanliness", written and kept by the Tribe of Levi--if there was still a temple in jerusalem, descendents of this tribe would be the "priests".

 

Eating shellfish is unclean because they lacked adequate capabilities to clean shellfish back then, and it was their view that illness is punishment from God, since they lacked an understanding about pathogens and modern germ theory. Homosexual sex, sex with a menstruating woman, sex with a pregnant woman (All ABOMINATIONS UNTO THE LORD, or more truthfully, tow`ebah) are unclean because they are sex for pleasure. Sex for pleasure was not encouraged among the priestly tribe of Levi. That's not to say they couldn't do it, they just had to be cleansed afterwards before being able to practice religious ceremonies.

 

As times changed, people realized that shellfish was yummy, pregnant wives look for lovin, and as long as you take a shower, you shouldn't deprive yourself of sex during that time of the month. So slowly people stopped believing these were ABOMINATIONS UNTO THE LORD. But their prejudice against homosexuality remained, because hate is easy to practice when you're beyond reproach--like it's easy for a white person to hate a black person becuase he'll never be black, it's easy for straight bible-thumping fundamentalists to hate homosexuals because they're straight.

 

Arabess, by believing that homosexaulity is the sin he abhors most, you're succumbing to prejudicial hatred that transcends truth, because no one bothers to look at original translations and biblical context. I mean, why would they, it's not like they're gay.

[jenny]

further, from my limited experience, those who still think shellfish and pork are *not* ritually clean don't care at all if other people eat them and enjoy them. the foods, i mean.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by jenny

further, from my limited experience, those who still think shellfish and pork are *not* ritually clean don't care at all if other people eat them and enjoy them.

Brilliant.

[morrigan]

100% Liberal Quaker.

 

I had read a long time ago the myth that Buddha died after eating contaminated pork, which was given as a reason why that religion put forth a dietary precaution. The clergy/disciples of many religions often have periods of fasting or restriction.

 

On the other hand, Buddha was said to have condemned the profession of butchers, however, he probably felt there were a great many other things that were worse.

[Arabess]

Originally posted by dyermaker

 

Arabess, by believing that homosexaulity is the sin he abhors most, you're succumbing to prejudicial hatred that transcends truth, because no one bothers to look at original translations and biblical context. I mean, why would they, it's not like they're gay.

 

I never said it was what I believe, nor did I say I didn't believe it.

 

What I said if I were in a homosexual relationship and thought God was against it, I wouldn't try to find a church to validate my union with God's blessing. I wouldn't care.

 

I read a great many sites last night which went so far as to say Jonathan and David and Ruth and Naomi were involved in homosexual relationships. I personally found that to be quite lame. Some of the other points were interestingly valid.

 

It comes down to God saying He is the truth and all man is a liar. If everyone is happy with their version of the truth, so be it.

 

I'm not offended by anyone's belief or translation. I'm not God. I don't have to make any final judgements. I'm ony responsible for my own life.

 

I'm a firm believer in cleaning out my own backyard before looking across the fence at my neighbor. Mine has enough of it's own garbage.....I won't be looking around for a very long time.

[abbyroadme]

1. Liberal Quakers (100%)

[carla]

Born, Baptized, Raised and Confirmed Roman Catholic. Ha.......(39%)

Sorry Dad I told you it was more like an excercise class, sit, kneel,stand,kneel,sit,stand,walk,kneel,sit, stand

I going to be damned to hell for sure now that I am 100% Neo-Pagan.

96% Unitarian Universalism

[Pyrannaste]

100% Unitarian Universalism

[BlockHead]

moimeme

You see, rush, people who want to encourage hate take the Bible and rape it. They find one line or a small paragraph and they use it like a weapon against others but they conveniently leave out the truth of what else is in that chapter. And people who are too lazy to find out for themselves, people who let others think for them, believe these bad people that this is what the Bible says. The bad people expect that nobody will actually go read the Bible for himself and find out the truth.

You are no different.

 

moimeme

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showthread.php?postid=107509#post107509

Colossians 3:22

Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Col 3:22-25

Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism.

This is more like a message of hope for slaves.

 

moimeme

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showthread.php?postid=107509#post107509

Finally, the words of Jesus:

Matthew 7:1

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged.

 

Luke 6:37

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

Matthew 7:1-5

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

I don’t think any other line is taken out of context as much as this one. This is about hypocrites. Luke 7:37-42 is the same message except longer.

 

 

I think your Bible references are bull****.

Too bad, I don’t have time to refute them all.

[HokeyReligions]

Cool site. I fall under the Universal Unitarian category.

 

I also looked at one of my old posts about religion and homosexual marriage. I stand by what I said then.

 

Like it or not, religious beliefs and practices have a lot to do with it, and so does politics. For someone whose God has told them that homosexuality is a sin, it will never be okay to have same-sex marriages. It is an affront to their God and their beliefs. Even if it is not their personal business - it does have an impact (financial, social, ethical, moral, etc.) on all parts of society.

 

Homosexuals and their supporters have spoken out and fought back against prejudice and demand tolerance, if not acceptance, from everyone. However, if a Christian or anyone who has firm religious beliefs that homosexuality is wrong, or a sin, or deviant, speaks up in protest of gay rights, they are labeled a bigot and ridiculed, sometimes they lose their jobs, sometimes they are the victims of violence. Their views are not accepted or tolerated. They have every right speak their mind, and protest - and yet they are punished when they do. Instead of creating harmony and actually progressing our society away from civil unrest, it is just swinging around so that those who were victims are now the aggressors, and those who were aggressors are now victims. People fear retribution from individuals, and also from society in the form of lost jobs, etc.

 

If the government wants to legalize gay marriage - then the spouses need to be bound to the same laws and taxes that other married couples are bound to. If they are a higher-risk for STD's because of their lifestyle, then their insurance premiums should be higher -- just as they are for smokers vs. non-smokers. I think that stats still show that gay men are at a far higher risk for AIDS then others? Maybe that has changed recently--I don't know. But if a valid marriage license is societal proof that two people are committed to each other, thereby a lower risk for STDs, then their premiums should be lowered. But that would hold true for single straight people too. There are some insurance carriers and companies that are beginning to structure their premiums on these issues.

 

It doesn't matter what the government does - if a religion does not sanctify a marriage no piece of government paper is going to change that. And for any of you who want to tell me that God does not condemn homosexuality -- how do you know to which God I am referring? Do you speak for all facets of the Christian faith? If you do, then why has not all facets changed to your way of thinking? No one can speak for every church or religious practice, and just because someone claims that they are right and that all churches are wrong, does not MAKE that person right--no matter how much they can back-up their claims with text and interpretations from those who believe like they do.

 

Here are some links to a site that I found interesting. For the record. I am agnostic and don't believe that homosexuality is a sin, because I don't believe in sin and even from my fundamentalist upbringing in the Christian faith - I see no 'proof' of a sin and no damnation by God for homosexuals.

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/homosexu.htm

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_divi.htm

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marj.htm

 

Major disagreements exist between Roman Catholic and conservative Protestant beliefs, and between those of conservative and liberal Protestants. This lack of consensus is so extreme that sincerely and devoutly held beliefs by liberal Christians may well be considered blasphemy by conservatives, and vice-versa. Many of these very divergent beliefs and practices can be traced back to two related fundamental assumptions: the nature of the Bible, and how to interpret its writings.

 

 

Here are two of the three common ways of approaching the Bible:

 

CT: Conservative Christians (Fundamentalists and other Evangelicals) generally base their interpretation of the Bible on four basic beliefs:

1. The writers of the Bible were inspired by God.

2. The Bible is inerrant. That is, when the 66 books were originally written, God prevented the writers from making any errors whatsoever.

3. The official canon of the Bible was chosen by church leaders in the 4th century CE from among many heretical works, under God's guidance.

4. All passages in the Bible are equally valid and are useful as a spiritual guide; the "Word of God" is totally consistent, and was as valid at the time of Adam and Eve as it is today.

5. Each passage of the Bible should be interpreted literally where possible.

6. English versions of the Bible are reliable translations, particularly the King James Version (KJV).

 

LT: Liberal Christians (e.g. many members of the United Church of Christ, the United Church of Canada, the liberal wings of the Episcopal Church and other denominations) view the Bible differently. Many of its leaders and ministers have accepted the findings of theologians such as the Jesus Seminar, using techniques of Biblical Criticism. Liberal theologians view the Bible as having been written by authors who promoted differing religious views, reflecting the evolution of religious thought over about a 10 century time span. Some beliefs include:

1. Being human, the authors sometimes made mistakes.

2. Some forgeries have been added by unknown authors.

3. Accidental errors in copying.

4. Some parts of the Bible should be ignored and are not suitable as a guide to modern living. Such as: laws regulating slavery, passages restricting the roles of women, ordering genocide, torturing prisoners, raping female prisoners of war, specifying the murder of religious and sexual minorities, requiring the burning of some prostitutes alive, etc.

5. The Bible contains much material copied from neighboring Pagan cultures and pre-Abramic beliefs.

6. Bible passages have to be interpreted according to the beliefs of the writers and their culture; they may not be valid today. (e.g. Paul's comments restricting women's activity in church conflict with modern ideas of giving equal treatment to men and women).

7. The early Christian church was divided into many differing traditions: (e.g. Jewish Christianity, Pauline Christianity, Gnostic Christians). The books of the Bible were chosen in the fourth century CE from among about 50 gospels, hundreds of epistles, many infancy stories, many books of revelation etc. on the basis of their conformity with the successful orthodox position. Other books were suppressed, yet contain much valuable material.

8. They study the books of the Christian Scriptures in chronological order, to detect how a particular belief might have developed through time. They compare accounts in different biblical passages in order to determine how they compare and conflict.

9. Modern versions of the Bible are reasonably accurate translations of the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, but still reflect the prejudices of the translators, and the belief systems of the religious institutions which sponsored them. Older translations, like the KJV, are less reliable because the translators had less complete knowledge of Hebrew, and had access to fewer ancient manuscripts.

10. Recent findings of the physical, social and medical sciences have shown that some parts of the Bible cannot be considered accurate. (e.g. the creation stories, mental illness caused by demon infestation, concepts of the structure of the universe, etc).

11. They reject the religious intolerance, acceptance of slavery, suppression of women, civil governing by dictator or priestly class, etc. of the Bible in favor of the acceptance of diversity and democracy.

[brashgal]

100% Reform Judaism - Jenny - maybe I should look into converting...

 

32% Roman Catholic which I was raised but no longer practice

[moimeme]

However, if a Christian or anyone who has firm religious beliefs that homosexuality is wrong, or a sin, or deviant, speaks up in protest of gay rights, they are labeled a bigot and ridiculed,

 

That is not the point and never was. It is fine to have one's own beliefs but the right-wing christians think that they have the right to force others who do not share their beliefs to live according to their beliefs. That, Hokey, is the problem.

 

You can be as anti-gay as you want, but you must understand that you do not rule the world, you are not all men, that your country is ostensibly a secular nation (hah!) and therefore that your beliefs must not be foisted upon others who do not believe as you do. The people who get criticized are those who try to force everybody to live according to their fundamentalist beliefs.

[jenny]

hokey, thanks so much for the site! it was great. i read through - i think i mostly agree with the third way of interpreting the bible. (the one not listed in your post) i've bookmarked it for future reference - there is so much on there that i did not know!

 

as a side note,

 

gay men do currently make up the largest demographic of known AIDS cases, (though that is changing with the high rate of infection in african nations) but that is no indication of causality or higher risk, necessarily. that is to say, you could charge higher rates for someone *with* AIDS or an STD, but not, logically, the demographic overall.

 

 

insurance is calculated by more certain and demonstrable probablity ratios: you cannot assume that sexuality is causally indicative of promiscuity nor of disease. (the Red Cross got in serious trouble because of this issue, actually, it's an interesting case). you *can* assume that smoking always damages the body; it can be objectively proven. ergo, the analogy is false.

 

finally, STD demographics and AIDS demographics are quite different - if we increased in approximation with demographics, every single 25-36 year old in america would face higher rates.

 

sorry, forgot to add: it is acceptable to calculate insurance by biological factors, but not by volition factors. sexuality may be inate, but chosing to have any unprotected sex is not.

[HokeyReligions]

Originally posted by moimeme

However, if a Christian or anyone who has firm religious beliefs that homosexuality is wrong, or a sin, or deviant, speaks up in protest of gay rights, they are labeled a bigot and ridiculed,

 

That is not the point and never was. It is fine to have one's own beliefs but the right-wing christians think that they have the right to force others who do not share their beliefs to live according to their beliefs. [color=red]Then why is it right for homosexuals to force their beliefs on others? Use your same sentence above and substitute 'homosexual' for right-wing christian. [/color] That, Hokey, is the problem.

 

You can be as anti-gay as you want, but you must understand that you do not rule the world, you are not all men, that your country is ostensibly a secular nation (hah!) and therefore that your beliefs must not be foisted upon others who do not believe as you do. The people who get criticized are those who try to force everybody to live according to their fundamentalist beliefs.

 

That goes both ways. Fundamentalist christians (or any other religious group) have just as much right to try to pursuade others to their view or way of thinking or belief, as do the homosexuals --who are trying to force their own view, way of thinking, belief on fundamentalist christians. THAT is the point I've been trying to make.

 

YOU do not rule the world either. Being forced to accept something that is against ones moral and religious beliefs is NOT what the USA is all about. There are many, many people who believe that homosexuality is a sin and those who participate in it will go to hell. They don't march in rally's, they don't call people names, they don't bash individuals. They simply exist alongside them because they consider them sinners just like everyone else. Some sins, like murder, a person goes to jail for. Some sins, like adultery, are not crimes. I do NOT agree with anyone who wants to make the practice of homosexuality a jailable offense. But I support the right of everyone in the US to stand up for what they believe in, including lobbying for law changes. I don't see them wrong for believing in the doctrine of their Church if their church preaches that homosexuality is a sin. I don't think anyone has the right to go into a church and tell them that their whole belief system is wrong, that they don't know what the Bible says or means, and then demand that they change their belief becuase it's the current societal standard.

 

In many cases it almost seems as though homosexuality is becoming more than an individual sexual preference, but almost a group or religion/church in its own right.

[moimeme]

the homosexuals --who are trying to force their own view, way of thinking, belief on fundamentalist christians

 

No, Hokey, they aren't. They don't care what people believe. They just want their rights as humans.

 

Being forced to accept something that is against ones moral and religious beliefs is NOT what the USA is all about.

 

I beg to differ. There are people who believe quite sincerely that the white race is superior and that people of other races should be slaughtered or deported. They even consider this a religious belief. Your government legislates against this sort of belief. When people in your country believed that taking the same bus or attending the same school as people of different races was immoral, your country's government forced them to behave otherwise. Bigotry MUST be legislated against by governments.

 

Again, you can believe what you will, but you cannot force the beliefs on others. Homosexuals are not saying that men who are not homosexual should be forced to marry; if they did, you would have a point. However they don't and you don't.

 

anyone has the right to go into a church and tell them that their whole belief system is wrong

 

What they are being told is that they are welcome to believe what they will, but allow others to do the same. They want everyone to believe as they do, even though it is a religious belief and your country is supposedly secular.

 

I fail to see why this is so difficult to understand. Nobody claims that the government 'forces' Catholics to 'believe' in abortion because it allows people who think abortion is ok to get abortions, now do they?????

 

This is exactly the same sort of case, but because it is homosexuality, people are trying to legitimize bigotry by cloaking it in this bogus argument that beliefs are being 'forced' on them. They can continue to believe whatever they want, but they SHOULD NOT DENY THE SAME RIGHT TO OTHERS.

[dyermaker]

There is this illusion that if gays marry, they're destroying heterosexual marriage. When black people marry, do they destroy the white marriages? The worst that could happen is that they're given rights, they start to marry, start adopting children, and start raising a new generation of people who aren't so homophobic.

[HokeyReligions]

Originally posted by moimeme

the homosexuals --who are trying to force their own view, way of thinking, belief on fundamentalist christians

 

No, Hokey, they aren't. They don't care what people believe. They just want their rights as humans.

I do not accept this because my experience is otherwise. I've seen my friends crying with hurt and frustration because their parents church won't accept them. They ARE trying to change the beliefs and practices of others. At least SOME gays are - certainly not all. Just as SOME christians are trying to eliminate or segregate homosexuals.

 

[

b]Being forced to accept something that is against ones moral and religious beliefs is NOT what the USA is all about.[/b]

 

I beg to differ. There are people who believe quite sincerely that the white race is superior and that people of other races should be slaughtered or deported. They even consider this a religious belief. Your government legislates against this sort of belief. When people in your country believed that taking the same bus or attending the same school as people of different races was immoral, your country's government forced them to behave otherwise. Bigotry MUST be legislated against by governments.

 

There are people in every country who believe that their race is superior! This is not unique to the USA! And lets talk about what is going on now, not what was going on in the 1960s.

 

The religious practices of some in this country are harmful to people. Legislation against the slaughter of animals, or handicapped people, etc. is a criminal offense against our laws and not a religious statement. In a country that embraces so many different religious beliefs, laws to protect those who would be hurt by the practices of others must be enforced, while allowing other practices that may be offensive to continue. Unless the country adopts one religion and one set of practices, there is no possible way to enforce the rights of all without infringing on someone elses beliefs. Don't get today's civil rights confused with yesterdays actions.

 

Again, you can believe what you will, but you cannot force the beliefs on others. Homosexuals are not saying that men who are not homosexual should be forced to marry; if they did, you would have a point. However they don't and you don't.

 

Many homosexuals are forcing their agenda on those who do not wish to participate. They are trying to force people into believing that homosexuality is just find and dandy by God and that their lifestyle should be accepted by all. Fundamental christians are saying the opposite. Many homosexuals are trying to tell fundamentalist christians (FC) that their children should be taught in school that homosexuality is okay, when the FC's do not want their children taught that way because it conflicts with their religious beliefs and with their concerns about what should be taught in school in regards to sex education. There IS an agenda here.

 

anyone has the right to go into a church and tell them that their whole belief system is wrong

 

What they are being told is that they are welcome to believe what they will, but allow others to do the same. They want everyone to believe as they do, even though it is a religious belief and your country is supposedly secular

 

I fail to see why this is so difficult to understand. Nobody claims that the government 'forces' Catholics to 'believe' in abortion because it allows people who think abortion is ok to get abortions, now do they?????

 

This is exactly the same sort of case, but because it is homosexuality, people are trying to legitimize bigotry by cloaking it in this bogus argument that beliefs are being 'forced' on them. They can continue to believe whatever they want, but they SHOULD NOT DENY THE SAME RIGHT TO OTHERS.

 

I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. Homosexuals are free to believe anyway they want, but they SHOULD NOT DENY THE SAME RIGHT TO OTHERS.

[moimeme]

There are people in every country who believe that their race is superior! This is not unique to the USA!

 

So? It doesn't make it right.

 

And lets talk about what is going on now, not what was going on in the 1960s.

 

It goes on this very day. Posters here have confirmed their own experiences.

 

Homosexuals are free to believe anyway they want, but they SHOULD NOT DENY THE SAME RIGHT TO OTHERS.

 

Well, they're not, Hokey. You are completely incorrect in this. The only thing that is being 'denied' to others is bigotry. And yes, some people will cling stubbornly to their rights to be bigots, but that offends all of humanity. And I will continue to hope for an end to bigotry - 'forced' or otherwise - because that is fundamentally wrong.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by HokeyReligions

Many homosexuals are forcing their agenda on those who do not wish to participate. They are trying to force people into believing that homosexuality is just find and dandy by God and that their lifestyle should be accepted by all.

So? Should the KKK have a right to incorporate their hatred into the curriculum?

Homosexuals are free to believe anyway they want, but they SHOULD NOT DENY THE SAME RIGHT TO OTHERS.

No homosexual can change the way you think, unfortunately. In the end, every human is the arbiter of their opinion. The reason homosexuals are vocal, right now, is because they are being oppressed. Fundamentalist Christians are insisting that they don't receive rights that others do. THAT is a denial of rights, not expression of opinion.

[HokeyReligions]

Originally posted by dyermaker

So? Should the KKK have a right to incorporate their hatred into the curriculum?

If it is their belief - they have the freedom to attempt to do so. Just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean I have any right to change it. I can protest it if I want, but thats all I can do.

 

No homosexual can change the way you think, unfortunately. In the end, every human is the arbiter of their opinion. The reason homosexuals are vocal, right now, is because they are being oppressed. Fundamentalist Christians are insisting that they don't receive rights that others do. THAT is a denial of rights, not expression of opinion.

 

You know that lobbists and people en masse CAN and DO influence and change the way people think and change their religious practices too. The proof is all around if you look back over the history of humans.

 

I have never, ever denied that homosexuals are being oppressed. FC's have EVERY RIGHT to lobby and protest against homosexuals. Just as homosexuals have the same rights to march and lobby for their benefits too! Its EQUAL rights and not bigotry. Bigotry is not hiring the homosexual because they are homosexual. It's not in a religious belief system. The distinction for many -- including FCs and homosexuals is not clear yet. Its a very fine line and its pretty blurry. No one that I know of can argue wholly on one side of it.

 

Homosexuals and their supporters are shoving marriage and civil union down everyone's throats. They (and I do not mean all homosexuals) are insisting that government recognize homosexual marriages with all the rights and privledges thereof. (I don't have any problems with that) Many FCs see this as the first step in forcing the basic christian church to also recognize homosexual marriages, which goes against their core beliefs. I can see their point even if I don't agree with it.

 

FCs are expressing their opinons and the strength of their religious convictions, by protesting homosexual unions. Denying their rights is one way to look at it -- but the rights of homosexuals has to be clarified in the written laws and that has not happened yet--its still in progress. Even once the laws are changed and legally homosexuals have the same civil rights as heterosexuals, there will still be a lot of discrimination and dislike and probably hatred too for homosexuals. That will exist for at least a couple of generations before homosexuals are accepted by most of society.

 

I understand what most of you are saying, and believe it or not, I think we are on the same page as far as the rights of homosexuals, but I don't think I'm getting my point across very well as far as FCs and the bigotry issue.

 

Homosexuals are free to believe anyway they want, but they SHOULD NOT DENY THE SAME RIGHT TO OTHERS. I am not incorrect on this. Being offended by someones belief is not the same as a criminal offense. Christians are known for trying to convert others to their beliefs - that is not going to change, its just part of the faith. How many people/tribes/countries have received christian missioneries who came to teach the "Word of God" and convert those heathens into Christianity? Countless millions. Its just part of the faith - get used to it. More branches of the same tree will break off and take root and under their umbrellas homosexuals will flourish and be able to marry. Others will remain unchanged. Those who remain unchanged are not bigots - they believe in their interpretation of the bible. Let them and quit trying to change them. When they lobby for laws to protect their belief that marriage is for a man and a woman, march next to them and lobby for marriage to mean two consenting adults of any sex. There IS room for both without one side accusing the other of bigotry or ignorance, when it is more a matter of religious belief.

 

I think that MOST homosexuals are not trying to change the church, but are lobbying for the legality of civil unions with the same rights and restrictions as any federally recognized union or marriage. But just as there are zealots within any community of people, there are also zealots in the homosexual community who do NOT want to stop at civil unions and want to force changes in churches or religious practices too. Not all homosexuals want to get married at a JP - many who believe in God also want to get married in church and with the blessings of God, so they ARE trying to change some churches to accept them. This is what I have experienced with my friends and their friends.

[moimeme]

zealots in the homosexual community who do NOT want to stop at civil unions and want to force changes in churches or religious practices too

 

A. Churches should not be havens for bigotry

 

B. Even if there are such 'zealots', their numbers are few and therefore they should not be made the focus of this issue.

[jenny]

homosexuals are not asking to restrict christians' rights to get married.

 

that's what it comes down to for me.

 

in canada, the supreme court is not asking for churches to reconcile with the real law, and the salient brief includes language to make sure the rights of religions are not violated. i quoted that aspect of the brief to arabess in another thread, i think.

 

it is much the same way in the US, as far as i understand. they simply want use of the word and the privileges (and responsibilities, as you have noted) that accompany that word.

 

of course anti-gay christians should have the right to express themselves. of course gays should have the right to marry freely. the two goals are not in contradiction, here, actually. let gays joyfully marry while these particular christians angrily protest outside of weddings. fair enough.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by HokeyReligions

You know that lobbists and people en masse CAN and DO influence and change the way people think and change their religious practices too. The proof is all around if you look back over the history of humans.

It depends on the strength of your conviction. No amount of bigotry could convince me that I'm intrinsically wrong, either in my religious position, or my support of equal rights.

I have never, ever denied that homosexuals are being oppressed. FC's have EVERY RIGHT to lobby and protest against homosexuals. Just as homosexuals have the same rights to march and lobby for their benefits too! Its EQUAL rights and not bigotry. Bigotry is not hiring the homosexual because they are homosexual. It's not in a religious belief system. The distinction for many -- including FCs and homosexuals is not clear yet. Its a very fine line and its pretty blurry. No one that I know of can argue wholly on one side of it.

Just because people are given equal rights to assemble and lobby doesn't grant any legitimacy whatsoever to their cause.

Homosexuals and their supporters are shoving marriage and civil union down everyone's throats.

Silent, friendly objections rarely bring about any social change.

They (and I do not mean all homosexuals) are insisting that government recognize homosexual marriages with all the rights and privledges thereof. (I don't have any problems with that) Many FCs see this as the first step in forcing the basic christian church to also recognize homosexual marriages, which goes against their core beliefs. I can see their point even if I don't agree with it.

I've never heard any homosexual argument (And it's all that has been in the news locally, it trumped Iraq and replaced the recall election) asking that churches grant validity to homosexual marriages. These gays are seeking rights from a government, not a religion.

Homosexuals are free to believe anyway they want, but they SHOULD NOT DENY THE SAME RIGHT TO OTHERS. I am not incorrect on this.

Homosexuals, and those who crusade on their behalf, are pointing out that their beliefs are full of hatred and prejudice, but I don't think they're trying to take away the freedom of speech. I've seen no one say that FC's shouldn't have a right to bitch and moan about this, only that their bitches and moans are wrong.

There IS room for both without one side accusing the other of bigotry or ignorance, when it is more a matter of religious belief.

When that religious belief, or interpretation thereof, is bigotous or ignorant, such accusations are, in my opinion, warranted.

 

 

I think it's time for a lighthearted repost:

 

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/agenda.html

[BlockHead]

dyermaker

When that religious belief, or interpretation thereof, is bigotous or ignorant, such accusations are, in my opinion, warranted.

Another crusade. This is the holy land and we’ve come to take it. Why? We are doing it because you are a bunch of ignorant bigots. We tried to be nice, and that didn’t work so we are using force.

Forget freedom of speech and freedom of religion because you are a bunch of ignorant bigots.

 

 

This is like reinterpreting the constitution to fit your own believe system. “General welfare” refers to socialism even though those ideas didn’t exist at the time.