North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I understand the idea that they want to "save" non-believers, but why can't they just let it go? If someone wants to burn in hell for being gay, why is it their problem?

That's part their "job", part of the thing they get rewards for, is saving other people and making the world a "better place".

Homosexuality is bad for their idea of what society should be. The notion that homosexuality is a cause of diminished family strength I think has shown to be false simply by looking at the divorce rate amongst heterosexual couples. And also at the fact that the rate of divorce increases with every previous marriage.

I know this doesn't fully address your point, but might clarify some of what textcritic said: They see historically, that societies who engage in/allow this type of activity being destroyed (See Sodom and Gomorrah). They obviously don't want this to happen.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

That seems like a situation where you could take a really large sample and compare outcomes to me. At least in the case of divorced parents, which has been around for awhile. There might not be enough adult children of same-sex parents to get a representative sample yet. (Same sex parent's needing either scientific intervention or adoption to have children, whereas divorced parents just had the kids before they got divorced)

But there would be no way to determine if there was differences because of the situation or because of biology unless the people were twins seperated at birth (which would be a pretty cruel social experiment).

For example: My father played in the NHL, I was raised by both him and my mom until the age of 16 when I moved in with my dad. Now, had I been adopted by a gay couple at birth, maybe I would have been less inclined to join hockey, or to be athletic in general. Maybe. Or is that stuff part of my genetic code and would I be predesposed to that type of behaviour?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by MattyC

But there would be no way to determine if there was differences because of the situation or because of biology unless the people were twins seperated at birth (which would be a pretty cruel social experiment).

For example: My father played in the NHL, I was raised by both him and my mom until the age of 16 when I moved in with my dad. Now, had I been adopted by a gay couple at birth, maybe I would have been less inclined to join hockey, or to be athletic in general. Maybe. Or is that stuff part of my genetic code and would I be predesposed to that type of behaviour?

I'm talking about a large sample, not an individual person, where I agree there are to many factors at play. For example, say you were trying to determine whether children of divorced or married couples are more likely get good grades. Some kids from both groups will have good and bad grades, because some of them are biologically more intelligent or motivated than others, and some will have better teachers, etc.

But in a large, correctly chosen sample of thousands of people in each group, those differences should cancel out as there will be some of each type of kids in each group.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Rathji

...I know this doesn't fully address your point, but might clarify some of what textcritic said: They see historically, that societies who engage in/allow this type of activity being destroyed (See Sodom and Gomorrah). They obviously don't want this to happen.

Many proponents of gay rights will point to the Leviticus passages as the root of Christian opposition to homosexuality, when in actual fact, Romans 1 is really a much more powerful influence:

Originally Posted by The Apostle Paul

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.

"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

"For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

"And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them."

There is a clear progression of thought here in Paul's rhetoric, which really needs to be read as a sort of creation narrative:

First, God created everything and revealed his own divine character through creation. Second, human pride fostered a rejection of God's obvious glory, and produced a psychological impairment. In humankind's diminished intellectual state, they gravitated to forms of idolatrous religion as a cheap form of compensation. Third, the depravity increased and produced homosexual behaviour. Finally, homosexuality gave way to other forms of evil including murder, deceit, and ruthlessness.

Paul's Epistle to the Romans is quite commonly considered the cap-stone of Christian theology, and his doctrinal treatise begins with an account of creation in which homosexuality is presented as a compliment to paganism: the "original sin" which resulted in moral chaos and human depravity. It is a root cause which threatens all sorts of terrible harm; Paul pretty clearly believed it to have been a catalyst in the downfall of civilization.

Is it any wonder why many Christians feel as strongly as they do about the "dangers" of homosexuality?

[Textcritic]

In the end, making moral arguments on the basis of "nature vs. nurture" philosophies is the wrong way of going about these sorts of issues. More and more we are discovering that environmental factors are practically inseparable from bio-chemical or neurological predispositions.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Well it depends what you mean by "moved past it". Do you mean, you've finally changed your tune and agree that gays should have the same rights as anyone? Or moved past it, as in you still believe gay people are inequal, but no longer discuss it?

Not sure what 'finally' changed my tune should mean. I have agreed with gay marriage, not just civil unions for a long time.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Not sure what 'finally' changed my tune should mean. I have agreed with gay marriage, not just civil unions for a long time.

Since we started locking horns

I agree at least 6 years.

[calumniate]

Is it any wonder why many Christians feel as strongly as they do about the "dangers" of homosexuality?

Baffles me all the time. But thanks for the verse from Apostle Paul - probably the scariest slander I've read in a long time. What a wicked list of words:

Fools
Birds, four footed
Senseless
Degrading
Unnatural
Shameless
Penalty
Error
Debased
Wickedness
Error
Evil
Covetousness
Malice
Envy
Murder
Strife
Deceit
Slanderers
Inventors of Evil!!
Rebellious toward parents!

There is zero excuse that Christians should buy into this, or continue to latch on to it in any way or form. (In any case, I know you're just quoting this to make some argument).

Anyway, I just talked to god and he informed me that homosexuals were:

Kind
Lovely
Caring
Honest
Sincere

Funny how things work

[HPLovecraft]

A voice of reason amongst pastors in NC:

Originally Posted by CNN

At least one black minister in North Carolina captures another neglected dimension to the debate. He opposes same-sex marriage but doesn’t like the energy Christians devote to opposing it.

“He’s the president of the Untied States, not the pastor of the United States,” says the Rev. Fred Robinson, who lives in Charlotte. “America is a democracy, not a theocracy. I’m not going to vote on one issue.”

Robinson says some Christians are better at being against something than for something. Christian divorce rates are just as high as those for secular marriages, he says.

“Our witness is stronger if we actually show that we believe in marriage and lived in and honored it,” he says. “That would be a greater witness than running to the polls to enshrine discrimination in the state constitution.”

And a very interesting perspective on the position that pastors take on gay marriage:

Originally Posted by CNN

Black pastors who preach in favor of same-sex marriage know they may pay a price if they take Obama’s position, says Bishop Carlton Pearson.

Pearson is a black minister who says he lost his church building and about 6,000 members when he began preaching that gays and lesbians were accepted by God.

“That’s the risk that people take,” he told CNN. “A lot of preachers actually don’t have a theological issue. It’s a business decision. They can’t afford to lose their parishioners and their parsonages and salaries.”

Pearson navigates the tension between the Bible’s call for holiness and justice this way:

“I take the Bible seriously, just not literally,” he says. “It’s more important what Jesus said about God than what the church says about Jesus.”

[Daradon]

How long has it been?

On July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world and the first country in the Americas to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide.

Wiki has us at 4th, I thought it was 3rd, but even then we are in distinct company. It's been nearly 7 years and the debate is all but over here. We argue for our neighbors (as we do for many things).

I actually remember it well. The debate was as early as 1999. I will admit, I was split on the issue. I was about 2 years out of high school and still probably way more impressionable than I should have been. (Yeah, my a-holeness didn't kick in till about 22 I was a Catholic kid)

I wasn't against gay marriage at all. I didn't know many people that it influenced. I had one gay classmate in my senior year and he was cool. Lesbians and bi-chicks were still taboo and fun for guys. I harbored no ill will at all to any groups. But I still wasn't sure they should get married.

The Liberal government started throwing around the idea of a national referendum on the issue. It got the country energized. I think mostly because we had just seen another referendum that most of us weren't able to be a part of. Maybe not the actual issue, but people were excited about democracy in progress.

It got really close, if people remember (or if I am remembering something correctly). But then something happened. Chretien who we all knew was leaving, but hadn't officially set the date yet came out and said something. At this time it was one of those bold moves that one in office often does when they know they will be gone. He had wanted his legacy to be about environmentalism, but wanted to get into human rights as well.

He said, and I'm paraphrasing here, if anyone has the exact quote, let er rip: 'We won't have a referendum on the issue because the will of the majority cannot supersede the rights of the minority.'

Well done.

As for me, that's when it clicked. I wasn't on either side at that point, but it just made sense. We wouldn't allow the will of the whites to vote over the blacks. We wouldn't allow the will of the men to vote over the women. We should we allow the will of the close minded straight to rule over the gay?

It not only hit home for me on my opinion then, but it made sense that I had to talk about it and protect it.

It wasn`t just enough to say it was ok, I had to stick up and fight for those that wanted it.

Eventually it took a few more years to pass the actual law, but Canadians were still amongst the first in the world to do it!

And not only that, but we have been one of the strongest forces in promoting equal rights abroad.

So for all of you that still fight, thank you.

And for all of you that are still not convinced, well there are many arguments. We can argument books and tomes and definitions and hypocrisy.

But in the end it just comes down to civil rights. Plain and simple. What is a right for one, should be a right for all.

And part of living in a democracy is fighting for that. Some of us fight overseas for our freedoms, but many of us fight right here for our freedoms. And believe me, with very real consequences. So I will. And we all will.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I'm talking about a large sample, not an individual person, where I agree there are to many factors at play. For example, say you were trying to determine whether children of divorced or married couples are more likely get good grades. Some kids from both groups will have good and bad grades, because some of them are biologically more intelligent or motivated than others, and some will have better teachers, etc.

But in a large, correctly chosen sample of thousands of people in each group, those differences should cancel out as there will be some of each type of kids in each group.

I see your point, and your point that there is not enough adult children of gay couples to get a large enough sample size. But there is definitely plenty of studies done on the effect of divorce on children and the concensus seems to be that there is no statistically significant differences in any traits. (If you want sources for this stuff it'll have to wait until I'm home).

Now I don't want to derail the thread to divorce, but if theres no evidence of change from a major event that happens (generally) in the youth of someones life, I think it would be reasonable to assume that there would be little to no differences when someone is brought up a certain way from birth. It is all they know, and thus is assumed to be normal. By the time the kid realizes theres a difference between his family and that of a traditional one, it won't matter.

[Gozer]

You know what’s not funny? Hate. You know what’s also not funny? People going on hate-filled rants. However, you know what is funny, people going on hate-filled rants that make so little sense that they sound like someone took the worst comments from a political message board, mixed all the words around, translated them to Japanese, and then translated them back. And that’s what happened at a council meeting in Lincoln, Nebraska and it resulted in one of the craziest videos you’ll see this week.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/terri...gay-rant-ever/

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I see your point, and your point that there is not enough adult children of gay couples to get a large enough sample size. But there is definitely plenty of studies done on the effect of divorce on children and the concensus seems to be that there is no statistically significant differences in any traits. (If you want sources for this stuff it'll have to wait until I'm home).

Now I don't want to derail the thread to divorce, but if theres no evidence of change from a major event that happens (generally) in the youth of someones life, I think it would be reasonable to assume that there would be little to no differences when someone is brought up a certain way from birth. It is all they know, and thus is assumed to be normal. By the time the kid realizes theres a difference between his family and that of a traditional one, it won't matter.

Wallerstein, Judith S. (1991). The long-term effects of divorce on children: A review. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30(3), 349-360.

This study showed moderate to severe clinical depression in over one-third of the children of divorced parents 5 years after the divorce.



A British study indicated that children of divorced parents are 3 times more likely to become teenage parents.

Andrew J. Cherlin, Kathleen E. Kiernan, and P. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale, “Parental Divorce in Childhood and Demographic Outcomes in Young Adulthood,” Demography, Vol. 32, (1995), pp. 299-316


I'm glad everything worked out for you, but that's not necessarily the norm. I think it also depends a lot on how amicable the divorce was and how old the child was when it occured, although I don't have time to look that up just now.

And I do apologize for derailing the thread.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Many proponents of gay rights will point to the Leviticus passages as the root of Christian opposition to homosexuality, when in actual fact, Romans 1 is really a much more powerful influence:



There is a clear progression of thought here in Paul's rhetoric, which really needs to be read as a sort of creation narrative:

First, God created everything and revealed his own divine character through creation. Second, human pride fostered a rejection of God's obvious glory, and produced a psychological impairment. In humankind's diminished intellectual state, they gravitated to forms of idolatrous religion as a cheap form of compensation. Third, the depravity increased and produced homosexual behaviour. Finally, homosexuality gave way to other forms of evil including murder, deceit, and ruthlessness.

Paul's Epistle to the Romans is quite commonly considered the cap-stone of Christian theology, and his doctrinal treatise begins with an account of creation in which homosexuality is presented as a compliment to paganism: the "original sin" which resulted in moral chaos and human depravity. It is a root cause which threatens all sorts of terrible harm; Paul pretty clearly believed it to have been a catalyst in the downfall of civilization.

Is it any wonder why many Christians feel as strongly as they do about the "dangers" of homosexuality?

I really never did get why Paul is an apostle, he never met Jesus, he claimed God spoke to him but why does that make his heavily jewish influenced pronouncments the word of God? never could understand why, other than the obvius excuse it gave the church to become non jewish.

I have always thought that the church wuld have been better ff theologically if they hadn't adopted him as an apostle, just treated him as an early bishop.

[Azure]

To me, no matter what personal or religious views I held, once I began looking at the issue as the government interfering in the lives of private citizens, it was easy to support gay marriage.

I just don't think the government should have the power to withhold two consenting adults from getting married.

[FlamingLonghorn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMANMIe0ZZI

[troutman]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Wallerstein, Judith S. (1991). The long-term effects of divorce on children: A review. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30(3), 349-360.

This study showed moderate to severe clinical depression in over one-third of the children of divorced parents 5 years after the divorce.



A British study indicated that children of divorced parents are 3 times more likely to become teenage parents.

Andrew J. Cherlin, Kathleen E. Kiernan, and P. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale, “Parental Divorce in Childhood and Demographic Outcomes in Young Adulthood,” Demography, Vol. 32, (1995), pp. 299-316


I'm glad everything worked out for you, but that's not necessarily the norm. I think it also depends a lot on how amicable the divorce was and how old the child was when it occured, although I don't have time to look that up just now.

And I do apologize for derailing the thread.

I think there is a lot of new research that shows where a couple divorces amicably, and where the children have maximum contact with both parents, children of divorce are just as happy and well-adjusted as other children.

It is essential that the legal system (courts and lawyers) work to resolve matters collaboratively as much as possible, and not through litigation. Parents that put the interests of their children first, do a great service. Joint/shared custody is becoming the norm, and should only be departed from in unusual cases.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Thankfully we've now had an ignorant slut weight in on this issue.

Call he ignorant, but it's stupid to call her a slut. Your credibility just took a dive. What, because her daughter had a baby out of wedlock? C'mon.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Call he ignorant, but it's stupid to call her a slut. Your credibility just took a dive. What, because her daughter had a baby out of wedlock? C'mon.

See its one thing if she just has a baby out of wedlock, its another that she preaches hardline Christian views while breaking most of them herself. I admit slut was harsh, but she is someone who craves attention, and if she's been having sex regularly since she was 16, its not a stretch to imagine shes been having sex regularly with other men.

[Ozy_Flame]

Bristol Palin with hardline Christian views? Say it ain't so!

I just want to pinch her chubby Republican cheeks and say "aww, that's so cute."