Is your stance on gay marriage in line with whatever faith you practice?

[mixiboi]

There you go folks, the Bible was against slavery before it was cool....But everyone ignored it till oh..wait, they still ignore it...

[DCnPhilly]

Can anyone tell me why Christians are so much more appalled by homosexuality than other sins more clearly defined in the Bible? The book obviously isn't a clearly defined user manual, and the fact that it often contradicts itself (in part because it wasn't written by one person and simply very old) is why these debates run in circles, even among those that share and exact sect of the religion.

I think that secular morality more than any religion decided that slavery was wrong, so its rules on the subject aren't relevant to modern culture. I don't doubt there have been numerous times when the Bible's reference to slavery was interpreted as an indication that it was morally just, just as its depiction of women wad used to treat women as societal equals. Is homosexuality simply the next group to confront the flexible doctrine in the book? Was religious hostility towards freed slaves and women's rights equally appalling to those religious folks when they were the politically charged issues of their time? Is there something sinfully worse about homosexuality than other religious debates in the past, or do we simply perceive it to be because we're not reading about it in history books but living it?

I would like to think that its something people will get over, but as I've mentioned on this and other threads on the subject, homosexuality and gay marriage isn't historically new. It's come up before in many cultures but it seems to have only been met by hostility from modern religions. Are those that insisted that the world is flat more enlightened than the bevy of pre-Christian Great Thinkers that rarely professed homosexuality to be any more or less than human nature?

[Giavella Water]

I remember a lesbian movie calledHeat or something like that was going to open in India and a crowd of Hindus including old grey haired women trashed the theater. Homosexuality is a no no in many if not all mainstream religions and only now in Christian mainstream denominations of the Protestant kind are they cozying up to it.

Some mainstream Jewish Reform denominations are accepting it also but NOT Jewish orthodoxy. It amazes me that most snide remarks from gays are 99% against Christians when Jews ,Muslims And Hindus are opposed to the behavior.

[mixiboi]

Well it mostly because the majority takes a lot of the heat, but believe me, other religions get it as hard as Christianity does in this country in other countries, the movement isn't just a Western thing(no matter what Iran says).


And on what DC said, as Facebook puts it

[FKD19124]

apples and oranges.
Homosexuality is not a race, gender, creed or religion.

Well it mostly because the majority takes a lot of the heat, but believe me, other religions get it as hard as Christianity does in this country in other countries, the movement isn't just a Western thing(no matter what Iran says).


And on what DC said, as Facebook puts it

[FKD19124]

The Bible IS still against slavery.

There you go folks, the Bible was against slavery before it was cool....But everyone ignored it till oh..wait, they still ignore it...

[FKD19124]

It is equal in nature to the five that "cry out for vengence" according to the catechism of the Catholic Church.

(1) Wilful murder - the blood of Abel, [Gen. 4:10]

(2) The sin of the Sodomites, [Gen. 18:20; 19:13]

(3) The cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, [Ex. 3:7-10]

(4) The cry of the foreigner, the widow and the orphan, [Ex. 20:20-22] and

(5) Injustice to the wage earner. [Deut. 24:14-5; Jas. 5:4]

Can anyone tell me why Christians are so much more appalled by homosexuality than other sins more clearly defined in the Bible? The book obviously isn't a clearly defined user manual, and the fact that it often contradicts itself (in part because it wasn't written by one person and simply very old) is why these debates run in circles, even among those that share and exact sect of the religion.

I think that secular morality more than any religion decided that slavery was wrong, so its rules on the subject aren't relevant to modern culture. I don't doubt there have been numerous times when the Bible's reference to slavery was interpreted as an indication that it was morally just, just as its depiction of women wad used to treat women as societal equals. Is homosexuality simply the next group to confront the flexible doctrine in the book? Was religious hostility towards freed slaves and women's rights equally appalling to those religious folks when they were the politically charged issues of their time? Is there something sinfully worse about homosexuality than other religious debates in the past, or do we simply perceive it to be because we're not reading about it in history books but living it?

I would like to think that its something people will get over, but as I've mentioned on this and other threads on the subject, homosexuality and gay marriage isn't historically new. It's come up before in many cultures but it seems to have only been met by hostility from modern religions. Are those that insisted that the world is flat more enlightened than the bevy of pre-Christian Great Thinkers that rarely professed homosexuality to be any more or less than human nature?

[Litter Box]

Looking for moral guidance from the Catholic Church is similar to getting advice on family values from Charlie Manson.
Here is an interesting tidbit.

The Archbishop of Dublin challenges the Church - CBS News

[DCnPhilly]

I remember a lesbian movie calledHeat or something like that was going to open in India and a crowd of Hindus including old grey haired women trashed the theater. Homosexuality is a no no in many if not all mainstream religions and only now in Christian mainstream denominations of the Protestant kind are they cozying up to it.

Some mainstream Jewish Reform denominations are accepting it also but NOT Jewish orthodoxy. It amazes me that most snide remarks from gays are 99% against Christians when Jews ,Muslims And Hindus are opposed to the behavior.

That's an unfortunate side effect of political correctness. Many on the Left are reluctant to criticize anyone but the main ingredient in the main ingredient in the melting pot, and in this case its Christians. I personally don't believe that I need to be forgiven for being gay, anymore than having premarital sex or eating bacon on Sunday, but at least Christianity offers forgiveness. Many other religions aren't as kind to their sinners. Christianity had its dark days and let's hope those never return, but I don't think those calling for stonings represent the majority of modern Christians, they're just the loudest. I think many gay people misguidedly view other religions as partners in a marginalized society, while the reality is many are even more disgusted by homosexuality than the loudest Christian. It's funny, and a bit sad, that Liberals can demonize the entire Christian faith based on a few fringe sects and orthodox beliefs, but the moment one criticizes Judaism or Islam, its racism or bigotry. In my opinion, they can all be pretty ugly, judgmental, and should keep their opinions within their congregations.

[OldMama]

We also tend to use adjectives to differentiate those at one end of a spectrum in Judaism and Islam but Christians are not described as such with the same frequency. For example, people will say "Orthodox Jews" or "Hassidic Jews" or "Radical Muslims" to differentiate the beliefs and practices of those groups from their more mainstream brethren. On the other hand, Christians are lumped into one big group more frequently. The fact is that there is a huge spectrum of beliefs among Christians. As an Episcipalian, I tend to use more specific terms when describing groups within Christianity, such as using the specific denomination or a term like "fundamentalist Christian."

There are enormous differences among people identifying with a particular religion and we need to acknowledge those differences before making blanket statements.

[DCnPhilly]

We also tend to use adjectives to differentiate those at one end of a spectrum in Judaism and Islam but Christians are not described as such with the same frequency. For example, people will say "Orthodox Jews" or "Hassidic Jews" or "Radical Muslims" to differentiate the beliefs and practices of those groups from their more mainstream brethren. On the other hand, Christians are lumped into one big group more frequently. The fact is that there is a huge spectrum of beliefs among Christians. As an Episcipalian, I tend to use more specific terms when describing groups within Christianity, such as using the specific denomination or a term like "fundamentalist Christian."

There are enormous differences among people identifying with a particular religion and we need to acknowledge those differences before making blanket statements.

Amen, OldMama.

On a related note, a long time ago in high school a Mennonite girl was explaining a lot of her beliefs, including her take on homosexuality. I know with the various Mennonite denominations beliefs can vary dramatically between groups. With her's, they had absolutely no concern for those who weren't Mennonite. It's not as if they disrespected US or thought we were hellbound, but that their beliefs didn't apply to anyone who wasn't Mennonite. I always thought it was ironic that what many consider a radical fringe of Christianity is, at least in this case, one of the more tolerant. For the record, she's still Mennonite, knows I'm gay, and supports gay marriage. Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but there are a lot of people out there who lead me to believe this is a cultural hurdle and not the roadblock many fundamentalist hypocrites would like us to believe. The truth is, most people don't care about things that don't affect their immediate lives, like gay marriage. I have to wonder why those staunchly opposed to gay marriage feel that they are so vested in the subject.

[MarketStEl]

We also tend to use adjectives to differentiate those at one end of a spectrum in Judaism and Islam but Christians are not described as such with the same frequency. For example, people will say "Orthodox Jews" or "Hassidic Jews" or "Radical Muslims" to differentiate the beliefs and practices of those groups from their more mainstream brethren. On the other hand, Christians are lumped into one big group more frequently. The fact is that there is a huge spectrum of beliefs among Christians. As an Episcipalian, I tend to use more specific terms when describing groups within Christianity, such as using the specific denomination or a term like "fundamentalist Christian."

There are enormous differences among people identifying with a particular religion and we need to acknowledge those differences before making blanket statements.

You may note that I referred to "conservative Christians" in my post on this thread.

After all, ordination of openly gay priests and bishops - we haven't even gotten to the marriage part yet - is splitting our denomination in two as well; we can also speak of "conservative Episcopalians."

[borntochill]

That's an unfortunate side effect of political correctness. Many on the Left are reluctant to criticize anyone but the main ingredient in the main ingredient in the melting pot, and in this case its Christians. ... It's funny, and a bit sad, that Liberals can demonize the entire Christian faith based on a few fringe sects and orthodox beliefs, but the moment one criticizes Judaism or Islam, its racism or bigotry. In my opinion, they can all be pretty ugly, judgmental, and should keep their opinions within their congregations.

I've encountered plenty of people who many would consider to be "liberal," and my reading includes publications that some here whine about having a liberal bent like the New York Times. Neither liberals I encounter in person nor the writers I read in the New York Times "demonize the entire Christian faith based on a few fringe sects." Could you show us examples in the Times, or other well-known purportedly liberal publications, where you see this bias? When discussing the efforts against against marriage equality, they tend to use terms like "the religious right" or "fundamentalist groups". So do the liberals I personally know.

While there are cetainly Jewish and Muslim bigots, I think the reason you hear less about them when discussing anti-gay bigotry is because they are but bit players in this country in organizing against marriage equalty. Muslims and Jews each comprise about 2% of the US population. A recent survey found 81% of American Jews in favor of marriage equality, well above the 50% of Americans who favor it.

Insofar as national presence or political influence, I am aware of no past or present Jewish or Islamic equivalent to individuals and organizations like Anita Bryant, Focus on the Family, Jerry Falwell, Pat Buchanan, Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council, Liberty Council, or the Traditional Values Coalition. The Catholic Church leadership actively organizes against marriage equality and, with 68.5 million registered members, it is the single largest religious denomination in the United States. Hardly a "fringe sect."

[Jay from Philly]

I believe in gay marriage for all the usual arguments. I also believe that polygamy should be legal between consenting adults. I cannot believe all the bigoted statements I hear directed at Romney and Mormonism by so called fair minded people who would scream and pop a vein if the same things were said against Muslims.

A man who wants more than one wife is by definition certifiably insane. Put the straitjacket him right after the ceremony to the second wife is concluded

[Jay from Philly]

marring a son & mother is unnatural act. Do I believe 2 men/woman having sex is unnatural, absolutely. but hey, you can do as you please. who cares what wild animals do?

2 women (if they are attractive) having sex is hot.

[Jay from Philly]

Amen, OldMama.

On a related note, a long time ago in high school a Mennonite girl was explaining a lot of her beliefs, including her take on homosexuality. I know with the various Mennonite denominations beliefs can vary dramatically between groups. With her's, they had absolutely no concern for those who weren't Mennonite. It's not as if they disrespected US or thought we were hellbound, but that their beliefs didn't apply to anyone who wasn't Mennonite. I always thought it was ironic that what many consider a radical fringe of Christianity is, at least in this case, one of the more tolerant. For the record, she's still Mennonite, knows I'm gay, and supports gay marriage. Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but there are a lot of people out there who lead me to believe this is a cultural hurdle and not the roadblock many fundamentalist hypocrites would like us to believe. The truth is, most people don't care about things that don't affect their immediate lives, like gay marriage. I have to wonder why those staunchly opposed to gay marriage feel that they are so vested in the subject.

Setting aside that those who REALLY hate gays are all gay themselves, it's easy to condemn a behavior you know you won't take part in. Unlike say, adultery, where a straight man may understand what it's like to tempted by another woman, they'll never find another man attractive.

[MarketStEl]

Setting aside that those who REALLY hate gays are all gay themselves, it's easy to condemn a behavior you know you won't take part in. Unlike say, adultery, where a straight man may understand what it's like to tempted by another woman, they'll never find another man attractive.

Well, the Kinsey 0s won't. Everyone else, it's a roll of the dice.

[DCnPhilly]

I've encountered plenty of people who many would consider to be "liberal," and my reading includes publications that some here whine about having a liberal bent like the New York Times. Neither liberals I encounter in person nor the writers I read in the New York Times "demonize the entire Christian faith based on a few fringe sects." Could you show us examples in the Times, or other well-known purportedly liberal publications, where you see this bias? When discussing the efforts against against marriage equality, they tend to use terms like "the religious right" or "fundamentalist groups". So do the liberals I personally know.

While there are cetainly Jewish and Muslim bigots, I think the reason you hear less about them when discussing anti-gay bigotry is because they are but bit players in this country in organizing against marriage equalty. Muslims and Jews each comprise about 2% of the US population. A recent survey found 81% of American Jews in favor of marriage equality, well above the 50% of Americans who favor it.

Insofar as national presence or political influence, I am aware of no past or present Jewish or Islamic equivalent to individuals and organizations like Anita Bryant, Focus on the Family, Jerry Falwell, Pat Buchanan, Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council, Liberty Council, or the Traditional Values Coalition. The Catholic Church leadership actively organizes against marriage equality and, with 68.5 million registered members, it is the single largest religious denomination in the United States. Hardly a "fringe sect."

Fair points. I'll add that Islam and Judaism tend to be more concerned with the actions of Muslims and Jews, while Christians tend to concern themselves with the actions of everyone.

[RittenhouseGirl]

Churches and their "views" have me fed up. Sexuality doesn't belong in church and I don't need to know what other people are doing in bed. When the heck did this come into play?

I was raised old-line Episcopalian and I no longer go to Episcopal church because they were always throwing gay sexuality in our faces. In the past few years the Episcopal Church got into the business of "allowing" openly gay clergy and now transgender clergy. Why even discuss it? I go to church to pray and be with fellow Christians. That's it.

I was a financially contributing member of Holy Trinity Episcopal Church on Rittenhouse until the new assistant priest a few years ago introduced herself by writing a letter in the church newsletter saying that she is in a happy openly gay relationship, living with her partner. That was it for me. I don't need people flaunting their sex lives in my face, espcially my clergy.

The numbers of people going to Episcopal church has dwindled because of things like this and their financial stability has also declined because their contributors have dwindled.

[mixiboi]

This is why organized religion sucks, people get upset over letters being sent to them...letters!