I tend to agree with R.G. on #99. I'm not all that interested in arguing it, but each time you change the definition of the institution, the institution itself changes. How people function within it also changes, as we have seen as divorce laws and their mechanics have been streamlined. No one really knows how gay marriage will change marriage, but it would be short-sighted to say that it won't. At best we don't know.

If nothing else, cultural traditions are being lost. Some applaud it and say that those traditions were meaningless anyway, but to others they had meaning. Some of the most social, liberal nations in the world have populations that oppose homosexual marriage, so we can't characterize it as a local problem with American conservatism.

If this many people around the world feel strongly about it, we need to at least take their concerns seriously, and show them the same respect that is being demanded of them.

and he struggles greatly to find romantic companionship, sincerely attempting to be "straight," but I fear that it may never happen

I don't understand how anyone could think this would ever be possible. There are an unlimited amount of analogies you could use to illustrated this. How do to 'change' what you prefer... what you're attracted to? Personally, I can't stand the taste or smell of onions. This hampers me a great deal when it comes to the food I choose, since most cooks use onions pretty regularly. I was in Korea for 2 weeks awhile ago, and I was going to take it as an opportunity to try and 'get over' my hatred for onions. I tried REALLY hard. I was at the point of throwing up many times... but was unable to even stomach the damn evil little things. Let's say I WAS able to overcome my hatred for onions. Do you think I would ever be able to turn that into a love for onions? Would onions ever be one of my favorite things? q

Sorry about the double-post

So...you're equating homosexuality to mental illness?

Umm, no.  I also refer to near sightedness.  Last time I checked that wasn't a mental illness.

 

"Umm, no. I also refer to near sightedness. Last time I checked that wasn't a mental illness."

But it is still a "defect", which kind of goes against the spirit of your argument, I think. That was the whole reason I started talking about "cure", earlier, and got jabbed for it...

Jesus said:

"I come not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it."

As far as what stays and what goes, it is pretty much dependant on your flavor of Christianity. I know people who are Christians and hold to a great deal of Jewish law; diet, sabbath, and such; and I know Christians that appear to come from a different planet in terms of "law".

No different than any other religion, I guess.

< did you read my post? What you are overlooking is saying "Christian" is like saying "Buddhist". It depends on what denomination of Christianity you are talking about.

If you are asking my personal opinion, I think that Jesus changed the reaction to sin more than the definition of sin. That was my point previous. What homosexuals do sexually is between them, their partner and God. What they do politically is my business because it is my nation, too.

To me, Jesus removed that whole "priest class" hedge between God and the average person, which also removes the right to impose the "rather horrific instructions" you refer to. Like stoning the prostitute that people often refer to. No one is sinless, so no one really has the right to condemn people and enact bibilical law.

I don't see anything in Jesus' teachings, though, that would suggest we shouldn't express our values when taking part in the political process, though. People tend to confuse the condemnation of sin with the condemnation of the sinner. I can't be holier-than-thou to homosexuals, because I am no "cleaner", but I certainly can't acquiesce and say that what they do isn't sin. That would be denying MY religion to save their feelings.

This isn't an issue of Christians condemning fouls sinners, it is an issue of two groups in conflict over whether it IS sin or not. People just can't tell the difference between condemning someone, and condemning the acts the commit.

So there are choices to be made that will lead one toward homosexuality, but they are not conscious "I think today I'll become gay" choices. Homosexuality is an unintentional, unforeseen by-product of a long series of other choices made during one's early development, as influenced by one's genetic heritage. By the time you become sexually aware, your preferences have already been set. And since you don't understand how they have been set, there is no methodology for changing them.

Very well put. There is a fine line between choice and genetic pulses, making it difficult to fathom either. I don't believe anyone would wilfully change his or her orientation just for the hell of it, though, I trust, those caught up in that kind of environment and on the fence could conceivably make a choice; still, it cannot rule out the deep-seated impulse telling them that they are different and thus constricted by the lonliness of the closet.

Well if you care to read the entire thread you will see that I mentioned superannuation.

I think at this point, anyone has the right to skim through this thread and even skip some parts if they want to...

did you read my post? What you are overlooking is saying "Christian" is like saying "Buddhist". It depends on what denomination of Christianity you are talking about.

Exactly. Thus my confusion. A Christian telling me, "I take the Bible literally," is meaningless to me because I have heard so many different interpretations on that statement.

That's what confuses me about Christians when they say, "I take the Bible literally." Do they take every word and passage literally? Are there parts of it that override other parts? If you say that Jesus telling us to love our neighbors as ourselves overrides the rather horrific instructions in books like Leviticus, does it not follow that such precedence of Biblical entries would apply to condemnation of gays?

Yes, I take th Bible literally...as in Jesus 'literally" uses parables, analogies, and examples to make his points. The Old Testament does the same, but it's not as explicitly stated as such. The creation stories in the Old Testament are nice stories to show the point that God created the universe because He cares about us. Plus, remember He was talking to people in <2000 B.C., before anyone understood science. Do you think anyon would have understood His message if we was like, "Listen up, 4,000 years from now, you're going to invent this thing called radiochronometry. Then, you will see how I created your planet, starting with a molecular cloud, then setting off a nearby supernovae to create a shock wave strong enough to set off the gravitational collapse..."

In fact, back then there wasn't even a thing called "billion", so they wouldn't understand the true age of the universe. He chose instead to stick to just "In the beginning"."

You just have to respect my right to vote how I want.

I respect every person's right to vote, but I oppose every attempt to impose religious belief on our laws, and if the only opposition I can offer is with MY vote, then so be it.