Marriage and other LGBTQ Rights

[kladner]

Originally Posted by jasong

1st Corinthians 6:9, 1st Corintians 6:12 is interesting as well, I recommend, at the very least, reading verses 9-12 before forming an opinion about them.

You are quoting Paul, then, not the source. Why should that hidebound opportunist be given any credence? He (allegedly) never even met Jesus. Whence comes his authority?

As far as that goes, Jesus does not have any writings attributed to him. In fact, we know that all the hearsay which makes up scripture has been sliced and diced repeatedly to conform to whatever currently popular doctrine demands.

If you are going to take the cafeteria approach to allegedly divinely inspired words, how do you manage to claim the right to pick and choose? How do you, personally, know the correct context for any of the stuff you read in many-times-copied-and-translated documents?

Finally, the words attributed to Jesus do not mention morality. They talk about love, consideration of others, and refraining from judging your fellow beings. "Let the one without sin cast the first stone." Please note that this is in a particular case involving morality as specified in the Old Testament.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Has the spiritual landscape changed, or is it in the process of change, on the issue of acceptance of same sex relationships?

The only time the spiritual landscape changed was when Jesus was resurrected, since then we had the Holy Spirit.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by kladner

You are quoting Paul, then, not the source. Why should that hidebound opportunist be given any credence? He (allegedly) never even met Jesus. Whence comes his authority?

I suppose we use him as an authority because we accept him as a wise man, if you want to reject his statements, that's your perogative.

As far as that goes, Jesus does not have any writings attributed to him. In fact, we know that all the hearsay which makes up scripture has been sliced and diced repeatedly to conform to whatever currently popular doctrine demands.

Again, you can believe what you want, but Christians believe the Bible is the living word of God, relevant to all time periods. It is your right to reject this, but this is what we believe.

If you are going to take the cafeteria approach to allegedly divinely inspired words, how do you manage to claim the right to pick and choose? How do you, personally, know the correct context for any of the stuff you read in many-times-copied-and-translated documents?

I most definitely do not take the cafeteria approach with the New Testament. Maybe you are not aware of this, but Christians consider Jesus to be the physical manifestation of God's law. Because of this, His guidance is in the moment and can be altered to fit any particular instance. This is not to say Christians are perfect, it's just saying we have direct access to God whenever we decide we need Him.

Finally, the words attributed to Jesus do not mention morality. They talk about love, consideration of others, and refraining from judging your fellow beings. "Let the one without sin cast the first stone." Please note that this is in a particular case involving morality as specified in the Old Testament.

Jesus ministry lasted three and a half years. Obviously, He needed to focus on the broad points during that time. But He continues to teach us through the Holy Spirit, so we have direct access to His wisdom when we're humble enough to acknowledge it.

If you want to learn about Jesus, you need to go to the source. Christians are corrupt just like everyone else, so condemning Jesus because of Christian behavior is unfair.

Christians are cruel, immoral creatures, but that's precisely why Christ did what He did. If there were even one perfect person other than Jesus, His sacrifice would have been unnecessary.

[Nick]

I like Tom Wright's viewpoint that the Bible is not a list of DOs and DON'Ts but a narrative: this is the story so far, now work out how you should take it further.

For anyone interested enough to read the entire lecture he gave in the US, the full text is available here:
http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm

[Brian-E]

Thanks for replying to my question, Jason. I'm at a loss as to how to proceed with it in the light of your answer, and various people above are doing a much better job at tackling what you write than I can, so I'll bow out here.

Perhaps we also need more people here who identify as Christian and who have no problem with same gender relationships. Nick is one. Are there others here too?

On a lighter note, I love the reply from advice columnist "Dear Abby" to a couple who wrote in complaining about being ostracised by their new neighbourhood in Florida after they failed to accept a two same gender couples in the community. It's the first item in the link below:
http://www.uexpress.com/dearabby/2014/2/19

[kladner]

On a lighter note, I love the reply from advice columnist "Dear Abby"......

That's fantastic! I am amazed that Abby is still kicking around!

[philmoore]

The current author of "Dear Abby" is actually the daughter of the original.

[cheesehead]

"How Christianity gave us gay marriage
The American fight for equality began with distinctly Christian precepts"
http://theweek.com/article/index/256...s-gay-marriage

. . .

... Just flip through the opening pages of everyone's favorite work of secular prophesy — Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Amer.../dp/0226805360

(1835–1840) — and you'll find a provocative alternative interpretation of Christianity's indispensable role in the creation of the revolutionary ideal of human equality. The stunningly rapid rise of support for gay marriage over the past two decades is just the latest in a very long line of victories for that consummately Christian ideal — and it's unlikely to be the last.

Tocqueville begins the introduction to his two-volume study of American democracy by noting that "a great democratic revolution is taking place among us." The 700-page book is his attempt to make sense of this revolution, which was transforming life across the European continent during his lifetime, but which was already far more advanced in the United States by the time of his famous visit in 1831.

For Tocqueville, the march of equality was upending age-old institutions and moral habits "in all the Christian world." It was a "providential fact," by which he meant that there was nothing anybody could do to stop it.

The ultimate source of the democratic revolution — the motor behind its inexorable unfolding — is the figure of Jesus Christ, who taught the equal dignity of all persons, and declared in the Sermon on the Mount that the last shall be first and the first shall be last, and that the meek shall inherit the earth.

These are among the most subversive teachings ever uttered — and according to Tocqueville, Western civilization has been working out their logic for the better part of two millennia, as political communities have applied Christ's egalitarian teachings in stricter and stricter terms.

First, the rigidly hierarchical order of the Roman Empire assimilated and transformed Christ's message, creating a series of stratified Christian aristocracies that ruled Europe for centuries. But by the 11th century, the clergy, which "opened its ranks to all, to the poor and to the rich, to the commoner and to the lord," had gained political power. In this way, the principle of equality began to "penetrate through the church to the heart of government."

Over the next 700 years, as Tocqueville tells it, "a double revolution" transpired: "The noble has fallen on the social ladder, and the commoner has risen; the one descends, the other climbs. Each half century brings them nearer, and soon they are going to touch."

They already did touch in the United States, the world's first nation settled by egalitarian Christians (the Puritans) and explicitly dedicated in its founding documents to the principle of universal human equality. Where France required a violent revolution to overturn recalcitrant elements within its social order and advance the cause of equality, the United States merely needed to declare and secure its independence from a foreign power, before allowing the egalitarianism already implicit in its habits and institutions to flower and flourish.

Tocqueville was fascinated by the question of what democracy in America would look like, because he thought it was inevitable that the rest of Western civilization would soon follow it in building societies dedicated to equality. But he was also filled with "a sort of religious terror...by the sight of this irresistible revolution that for so many centuries has marched over all obstacles, and that one sees still advancing today amid the ruins it has made."

Roughly 80 years before the fictional lords and ladies of Downton Abbey begin to realize it, Tocqueville understood that the world of aristocratic privileges was slipping away and would soon be reduced to ruins. That is what inspired his religious terror.

The same terror grips opponents of gay marriage today, as the Christian principle of equality overturns and transforms the Christian tradition's historic understanding of what a marital partnership is and can be. In this sense, at least, opposition to gay marriage parallels

http://theweek.com/article/index/256...being-a-racist

an earlier generation's opposition to interracial marriage. In both cases, the opponents of change are attempting to stand against the march of equality. In both cases, the opponents will fail.

By all means, let's ensure

http://theweek.com/article/index/240...igious-freedom

that the religious rights

http://theweek.com/article/index/256...being-a-racist

of these opponents are protected. But let's also hope that they will eventually follow Tocqueville's example in recognizing that a major reason why equality always wins is that the new order is always more just than what preceded it. This is why Tocqueville counseled resignation and acceptance rather than a reactionary response — because, he concluded, trying to "stop democracy...[is] to struggle against God himself."

None of this means anything as crude as "Christ wants gay marriage." But it does mean that we live in a culture in which reformers who successfully claim the mantle of equality inevitably triumph — because those who oppose equality find it impossible to gain public traction for their own side of the argument.

Equality always wins. And equality became the lodestar of Western culture thanks to Christianity.

[Brian-E]

Thankyou for the above article cheesehead. It's a very interesting take on what is going on, and I particularly hope that jasong finds the time to read it and comment.

My reaction, though I am aware of heavy prejudice and bias in myself which makes is hard for me to accept ideas which deviate from my own preconceptions, is to reject the article's suggestion that Christianity is (still) the motor behind social reform and the move towards equality. However I can and do accept that (1) mainstream religion was this motor until quite recently in history, and Alexis de Tocqueville (of whom I had never previously heard!) probably had it spot on at the time he was writing, and (2) that nowadays attitudes within a mainstream religion change as a result of some members of that religion being involved in the (secular) move towards equality, and the participation of those religious members is obviously a necessary condition for the whole religion to make that move.

[Brian-E]

http://www.sfgate.com/technology/bus...er-5252503.php

People who espouse anti-gay views die younger than those who don't, found a sure-to-be-controversial study in the February issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

One aspect that I cannot resist commenting on arises from the following:

The researchers wanted to make sure they were really seeing a link between earlier death and anti-gay prejudice — not something else that might be associated with being anti-gay — so they controlled for variables that could have confounded the results, including age, income, education, marital status, gender, religiosity, and even racial prejudice.

One variable which could not possibly be taken into account, of course, is repressed homosexuality. I think it's quite feasible that same sex attraction which you don't, for whatever reason, reveal to anyone else (and possibly not even acknowledge to yourself) would be correlated with both homophobia and earlier death.

[Spherical Cow]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Perhaps we also need more people here who identify as Christian and who have no problem with same gender relationships. Nick is one. Are there others here too?

Over here! Mired in Arizona, where our legislature is marching steadfastly into the past (as one headline put it).

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...ome-Christians

In effect, the state has passed a law that allows businesses to refuse to do business with gays on religious grounds without fear of litigation. I believe the vote was straight down party lines- Republicans for the law, Democrats against. It awaits the governor's signature...

Norm