Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope and my dear departed mother and her sister--- their view changed over the years to.
Pedro--- come into the light.
You still don't get it.
When Obama was against gay marriage, people who disagreed with him on that one specific issue didn't abandon him because they still agreed with him on most other issues, many of which they probably felt were more important.
I lean conservative, I was raised in the church. I know nothing of the Christian right or who Bryan Fischer is. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Mine is that is just crazy to even consider legislating any personal intimacy between consenting adults.
Same here. I actually identify as a Christian. And I can care less what people do in, as you put it, personal intimacy. I certainly see nothing criminal in that. Government has no business in peoples personal lives and where intimate relationships are concerned that goes double. The OP seems to have an agenda revolving around the "Christian right" (which I am assuming to be fundamentalists) and that agenda stops there. Fundamentalist Islam is far more militant in regards to homosexuality and far more invasive and violent in that regard, yet this thread is confined to "Christians".
The "Christian" fundamentalists have a very limited influence over anything in this country anymore, that having vanished in the latter part of the 20th century. (Yes, we have left that behind us a ways now...this IS 2017) Christianity does not legislate or govern much of anywhere in the world as of today. Islam, however, does. It's not Christians that are throwing homosexuals off of roof tops or burning them alive, and that's just gay men. I shudder to think what they do to lesbians, which we don't hear anything about.
Here in the US, churches have little influence of any consequence. Why the OP is so hyped up about the "Christian right", (other than a personal beef) enough to try and start a discussion touting the latter as any threat to personal liberties is the US of this century I cannot say. There is nothing threatening homosexuals in how they choose to live any more than there is a threat from homosexuals mandating everyone be homosexual. Oh, I suppose there are small fringe militant types on both ends of that, but they are seen as nut cases by both the hetero and homosexual communities.
I don't have any gay male friends, but I do have a few lesbian friends and family. They don't treat me or my lady as anything less, nor do we them. If I , say, go to my sisters house for a BBQ, and bring my lady, nobody is going to be hitting on her and we don't feel uncomfortable even if we are the only male/female couple there. Which has happened. And we are both Christians. Personally, I don't see the problem. There isn't one unless somebody wants to make one.
When Obama was against gay marriage, people who disagreed with him on that one specific issue didn't abandon him because they still agreed with him on most other issues, many of which they probably felt were more important.
Pedro *is* making a valid point that deserves at least a brief moment of consideration - that is if you believe in logic applied fairly across the board.
Not so long ago we elected plenty of Democratic officials regardless of their stance on homosexuality - both the Clintons and Obama were once in this camp. They were elected despite that fact because their overall values were in line with what folks wanted.
It's really not so different when you apply that same treatment to religious folks who belong to a denomination that decries homosexuality. Plenty of these people disagree with their churches' stance on homosexuality and have managed to reconcile their own comfort level of faith vs. what their churches preach.
Humans are wondrously varied in our likes, dislikes, kinks, attractions and peccadilloes. Wondrously varied. There are, however, conventions. Monogamy is one of them. Some governments have attempted to make the innate adherence to sexual fidelity more than a mere convention, but actual legal writ. It works as well as it does because it is such a well regarded convention. A huge majority of people gay and straight alike have an innate attraction for the security of a structured monogamy enforced lifestyle.
I suspect that the main eww with Gay lifestyle is its portrayal as a freewheeling whirlwind of promiscuous sexual activity. The most staid of straight couples have fond relationships with monogamous gay couples that are Conservative and mild in their behavior. Lesbians especially are well tolerated in society because of their perceived monogamy, despite the same sex dilemma. A gay male couple will attract a lot of suspicion unless they prove themselves absolutely faithful to one another. Then they are cute. They will be defended. Gay marriage was legalized to bring these couples in out of the cold of social stigmatization.
There are communities of heterosexual, strongly heterosexual men and women that have innate devotion to kinks and peccadilloes that are so far outside of 'conventional' norms that they dare not even call attention to themselves by agitating for recognition of their lifestyles. Jail would be the least of the consequences of discovery with some of these communities. By the numbers, the communities of these... ... deviants. Far exceeds the number of men and women that express a same sex attraction. Mostly these... deviants, are non-monogamous. Either serially or poly-amorously they do not, cannot, limit themselves to just one partner for long periods of time.
The question really is: "should non-monogamous activity among consenting adults be criminalized"? The number of people who think 'homosexual' activity needs to be criminalized drops daily. It is no longer an issue. That ship has sailed. The only question remaining, and it is key, is: what to do with people whose inherent sexuality is not 'to be faithful to just one partner'. Should that remain a criminalized lifestyle even when the majority of non-monogamous people are straight?
Legally the issue is and always will be from equal protection. If "sodomy" oral and anal sex is banned, it's for everyone men women, men with women, men with men, women with women. Thats just the most common proscription
As far as monogamy is concerned, the sole issue is legal rights of the married. Personally I'd just say screw it and abolish tax deductions, automatic powers of attorney, next of kin inheritance, then make life simple, you're married if you say you are, no muss no fuss, no difference for singles, couples, or a 70 person commune of both sexes banging each other like tin drums 24/7. The sole issue is communal property, and children but that's why we have courts.
Laws concerning sexual behavior between consenting adults, like many "morality" laws are largely a result our nation's failure to separate church and state. As long as the country is electing religious zealots to office, there will be a constant effort to criminalize actions and deeds which do not fall within the religious book of rules. Unfortunately, the wide-spread ignorance and/or indifference of the American electorate is allowing more and more religious influence into our state and federal governments. These sexual behavior laws have absolutely no affect on anyone other than the consenting adults. Remember, it wasn't that long ago that many states had laws against adultery and even consensual sex between unmarried couples.
Laws like these are almost completely unenforceable. At most, they have been used to prosecute normally law-abiding people that some police officer or judge had a grudge against. Most people in this country are perfectly able and willing to be morally responsible without the church and/or law supervising them. And there is also a large number of religious zealots who don't practice what they preach.
Many of you probably don't remember that as late as the 1960's, proven adultery was the only way to get a divorce in New York state, yet, divorce cases were never followed up with any arrests for that adultery.
Religion and morality should never be the basis for state and federal laws against actions and deeds that don't affect anyone else.
Since morals and ethics have gone out the window with the Trump election, Republicans can finally cross over to the "who gives a crap " side that democrats have had for a long time.
I am a Buddhist. I follow the Theravada tradition of Buddhism.
No where in Buddhism, nor in the teachings of the Tathagata, is homosexuality or gay people prohibited, criticized, restricted, or praised or encouraged for that matter. A careful reading of the Dhammapada - indeed the entire Tripitaka - are there any suggestions against homosexuality.
All of this discussion of religious beliefs and dogmas are meaningless to me. I add my voice to the great majority of Americans that religious beliefs have no place in our government or laws.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
