The Glade 4.0

No more of an agenda than the other members of these forums.

Apparently there is a sizable group of Americans who do not agree with you.

Heh...are you serious? I can't tell whether you are serious, or trying to make some joke. If you are making a joke...I don't get it. If you are serious...thats about the worst example I've seen of taking a quote out of context I've seen on this board. Whats the point of doing something like that? Its so obvious that no one would fall for it, unless you are hoping people didn't actually read my post.

A sizable group Americans that don't understand the separation of church and state.

A sizable group of Americans who understand they have a right to determine what laws they will live under.

If you don't like it, Lenas, then convince enough people to get out there and vote your way. That's simple enough.

And we've now come full-circle to the first page of the thread.

Sounds like that works out best for everyone involved.

Except, unfortunately, for the people who have to wait for the older generations to die off before they get the equality so long overdue, and so richly deserved. But I take comfort in knowing that it's coming. "The arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

One of the great things about our country is that, in fact, the majority is not supposed to be able to do just whatever it darn well pleases. So no, the majority doesn't have carte blanche to pass laws with impunity. Supposing that the U.S. were to suddenly become overwhelmingly vegetarian, would it be just for this sizable group of Americans to pass laws forbidding the consumption of meat?


I wonder if you'd be so quick to toss out statements like this if your position were the minority position. If/when the time comes that the majority supports gay marriage, are you still going to espouse what amounts to a "might makes right" mentality?

In any case, I'd still like to know what you think of government recognition of Buddhist temples.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Then you argue for dictatorship, those on high dictating what laws you will live under whether you like it or not.




If I live so long, I expect to be in the minority on this issue someday. Nothing for me will change, my opinions and attitudes will remain as they are. The majority can drive me into meeting other worshippers in the sewers if they wish. Christianity has survived this and much worse.

Buddhist temples are a perfect example of my attitude about the majority, if ya think about it. In the Constitution, freedom of religion is (supposedly) guaranteed. Whether I will or not, Buddhists have the same guarantees I have, and the people agree to living under that law. The same will be said of homosexual marriage should it ever come to pass. I'll still be a vocal critic, but if that's the choice of the people.... *shrug*

We'll deal with whatever consequences it brings as they come.

The mind boggles at what gymnastics it must take for you to arrive at this conclusion.



No I don't. I got my views from reading, researching and (amazing as it may seem) praying about it.

It is, however, cute to watch you try to protect yourself from having to confront the fact that there are other, better views than yours.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

This position is just as absurd as Beryllins. Only the most absurdly rabid evangelicals (and by that I mean less than 10,000 of them) would advocate something like that.

The only reason you're "pretty sure" of this is that you don't like religion, and it's easier to dislike it if the people practicing it are horrible monsters.



No, you're pretty much not following from his posts since he hasn't claimed that one person's sin justifies sinning against them. As for this "group", how much do you know about them? I'd be willing to bet it's like 2 people.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It takes no gymnastics, just a simple, plain reading of Scripture. The OT prohibition was to prevent male-on-male rape?

Leviticus 20:13:


So you argue that God would have rape victims executed? You would argue that is just? Maybe you'd like to read, research, and pray some more. Just a suggestion.

Do you advocate the execution of homosexuals? I ask because you take the scripture so literally.

Absolutely not. While I view the law of God as unchangable (what was an abomination to God then is an abomination to Him today), I understand that the penalty part of that verse applies only to the nation of Israel when they were living under Mosaic law as the law of the land.

It would take longer than I care to, to discuss whether the penalty should still be enforced in present-day Israel, but to give a quick summation to a long argument with two sides, in my opinion, I'd say no, it should not.

No, I argue for a government of limited power -- a government which restricts its citizens' freedoms as little as is necessary.


You really didn't answer the question; you just reiterated the current state of the law. Perhaps I wasn't entirely clear. I'm asking you whether you believe this ought to be the law. That is, if you could change it, would you?

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

But you argue that government deny the people the right to decide what laws they will live under. It's inconsistent.



No, I would not change it. Christianity has nothing to fear in the arena of ideas.

Not at all. You may govern your own life however you wish. You may not dictate how other people live theirs except inasmuch as it is directly necessary to the preservation of your basic rights. There is no right to make other people do what you want. In other words, if you wish to voluntarily place yourself under the strictures of sharia law, so be it. But you are not within your rights to force others under it.

Then this is where I find your position to be inconsistent. Buddhism was an arbitrary example, and perhaps not the best one since not all sects of Buddhism precisely deify Buddha. A more appropriate example might be, say, Zoroastrianism. I don't mean to place words in your mouth, but would I be correct in saying that you are opposed to Zoroastrianism in the abstract? That is, you would categorize the practice of it as something that is sinful -- that leads people away from the True God. Nevertheless, you do not oppose its legal status which -- as far as the law is concerned -- is equal to that of Christianity.

In and of itself, that isn't the inconsistency. The inconsistency that I see is that in the above situation, you make a distinction between your moral convictions about other religions and your legal convictions about them. That is, you understand that advocating that these things should be legal is not the same as advocating for the things themselves. To say that Buddhism or Hinduism or Voodoo ought to be legal is not the same as saying that any of these things are good, moral, Godly, or healthy for an individual or for the nation.

Which is why I don't understand your position on gay marriage. I don't see how it's any better or worse than worshiping a false god. If anything, one could make the argument that false religions are worse. Idolatry, at least, made the short list of 10 commandments. Your argument is essentially that we should oppose the legalization of gay marriage because it "normalizes" something which is sinful, and therefore subjects the nation to, well, the wrath of God in so many words. I could argue the theology of that, but let's just take it at face value. If what you say is true, then we should be equally opposed to those laws which "normalize" non-Christian religions. There seems to be no particular reason for why you treat these two things differently.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Stathol, you ask the wrong question, as pertains to homosexual marriage, then, because there is no official recognition of Buddhism or any religion (supposedly). That's different than recognizing homosexual marriage. Apples and oranges.

The official recognition (by law) of it's religious status is the tax examption thingy. This does go against the bible.

The official recognition (by law) of homosexuality is marriage. This also goes against the bible.

Tax exempt status is not limited to religious organizations; it's not an official recognition of status, except to say that said organization remains outside the tax laws. Outside the perusal of gov't.

It goes farther than that. By incorporation of the 1st amendment, states are bound to it as well. So above beyond the tax laws of non-profit organizations, churches are also exempt from zoning laws, for instance. Then there are additional issues like confessional privilege, etc.

But if it makes it any less apples-and-oranges to you, what I would actually advocate is the removal, in its entirety, of governmental involvement in marriage. I believe there is no rational justification for it to be involved, and any religious justification for the government to control marriage (however it defines it) has no place outside of theocratic societies.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

I was trying to decide whether I wanted to respond to this or not, but an explanation is in order.

You know, watching your friends crowd into a car and go for a drive is lots of fun. Watching them laugh and joke and have a good time is something anyone would relish - right up to the point that the car plunges down a 1,000 foot cliff and they all die in a fiery crash. Suddenly it ceases to be fun, and you just don't want to see it.

It's like watching the glutton mentioned earlier. If you love that person, you try to help them understand their behavior is self-destructive. Sometimes, love isn't about patting people on the back and saying, "Go on, have a good time! Do whatever you want to do." Sometimes, love is about telling people what they need to hear, even if they don't want to hear it. Sometimes, you have to be willing to endure anger and hatred from those you love. But you do it anyway, because you love them. And just as you do it for people you love, you do it for a nation you love.

So yeah, I could sit here and say, "Go ahead and make homosexual marriage legal. Have a good time! Do whatever you want to do." I could do that, but I won't. I just won't do it. And maybe God will require of me that I watch the nation fall down the cliff. Maybe He will spare me that; I don't know the details of what will come. I know I don't want to see it.

I (as well as Coren) have advocated that for some time now.

Just classify everything as a civil union and some churches can do gay marriage and other will say god hates fags. Then we can all be happy to never discuss this bullshit again.

Berry, gay people are gonna be gay regardless of the recognition by folks like you. People should be free to makes those choices, however. Freedom is supposed to be what this country is about. Even god gave us the freedom to makes choices. They've already made their choice on gayness the marriage thing is purely for legal reasons (and benefits that I don't agree with anyway). So they've already damned themselves in your eyes, so what's the difference?

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Because they are not damned until they stand before the judgment seat of God. I have not given up on anyone who still draws breath. Nor is there a person living whom God will reject, if he/she repents and comes to God in faith.

I assure you, there will be people who practiced homosexuality living forever in the city of God. And they'll be welcome, by God and by me. And we'll sit around and tell stories of what God led us through to get there. I suspect that we'll wish there was something more we could have said to those who are missing.

Hubris is the cardinal sin, and Heaven has no place for those who presuppose their own salvation.

_________________