Could mainstream christianity ever make peace with gay people?

{The reason I am proposing this new topic rather than putting it straight into the coffee house is because I know this is a sensitive issue, particularly now during our time of transition, so feel free to dismiss it and close it down if you think that's best. I won't complain. If you think it's ok, coffee house, please.)Before I start, I want to tell the story behind this idea of mine. A few days ago, I was walking along minding my own bussiness when a couple of gentlemen asked me if I had the time. I wasn't in a hurry to go anywhere so I told them the truth, that I wasn't in a hurry to go anywhere. They told me that they were christ's messengers and that they were going to hold a seminar about the bible and christ's message in about 15 minutes in the building right next to us. I told them it's ok that I'd rather not go. They then held me back and asked me for any particular reason why I didn't want to hear christ's message. I said it wasn't my cup of tea. They went on to say that I just said I didn't have anywhere to go and that why didn't I just spare like 20 minutes listening to their seminar.At that point, a thought came to my mind. They seemed particularly persistant to get me in there to listen to their christ's message. I thought to myself what would happen if I told them I was gay? So, I told them that I was gay. The moment that I told them that, they said "ok, have a nice day."What that tells me is that they didn't mind bothering someone who clearly stated that he didn't want to be preached to. They had no trouble pulling random people off the street to evangelize. They certainly very persistent in trying to get me to go in there. But a gay person wasn't good enough to be pursued. A lost cause, perhaps?Mainstream christianity, as it seems, does have trouble accepting gay people. I've heard people say over and over that most christians have no problem with homosexuality and that there's this silent majority who never spoke up but are in full support of gay rights. However, the fact that we already have a dozen states with laws specificially forbidding gay marriage or any kind of gay union that resembled marriage (all by referandum I might add) tells me that there is no such thing as this silent majority. The fact that the only grounds that gay rights advocates have won have been in court rooms and not in the voting place tells me that the majority of people, christians in particular, are against gay rights. The fact that these two christian representatives just said "ok, have a nice day" right after they were told they were in the presence of a gay man tells me we still have a long way to go with certain christians out there in regard to gay rights.But over all, I still absolutely don't believe that there is such thing as this silent majority who's all accepting and all tolerant.And let's not forget the catholic church, which represents a large bulk of christianity around the world and their position on gay rights.So, the question is this. Can you see in the foreseeable future any chance of mainstream christianity coming to term with gay rights? Or is this an issue that will be faced by my grand children?

I started a thread that is related to this here.

This goes back to Socrates' question to Eurephro. "Is a thing good because the gods command it or do the gods command it because it is good?"There are 2 possible answers to this question.

This reminds me of a debate I went to during my later years of college. During the Q and A time, a man stood up and proclaimed that this nation was a christian nation and asked the speakers why can't we continue to have it a christian nation. The "atheist" speaker said no the founding fathers did not intend for this country to be a christian country, but even if that was true so what? Having a christian theocracy would defeat the purpose of the first amendment.During the reception, I was having a conversation with that speaker when that same man who asked that question early approached us and continued with his argument. He insisted that the founding fathers founded this nation on christian values and it is the right thing to continue such tradition. Not being able to contain myself, I said to him that the founding fathers also founded this country with the institution of slavery, so perhaps we should continue with this tradition as well. Amazing how fast that shut him up. He just shut up and walked away.The point is the whole anti-gay rights movement is based on faulty arguments. Sometime we have to be blunt about confronting them with their faulty reasoning.

Nobody in the history of mankind who have spouted hate speech admitted that they were spouting hate speech. The nazis never admitted that their hate speech against the jews and other "undesirables" were hate speech. Even to this day, the KKK continues to deny that they hate or that what they say is hate speech.You're just following the same pattern that all hatemongers in history and present have been doing for as long as anyone could remember: spouting hate speech and then deny it's hate speech. So is being left handed. I first brought this example up a few weeks ago but all you hate mongers ignored it.Being left handed has throughout history been viewed as unnatural and sinful. Even to this day, many cultures teach against being left handed. Even your almighty christianity once upon a time frowned upon left handed people.But I am particularly interested in this "natural" thing you are talking about. Am I to assume that the homosexual animals we have found throughout the animal kingdom, particularly the ones that form life-long bonds with members of their own sex, are unnatural? More bullshit hate speech veiled in religious preaching. Yeah, and I suppose lying for jesus isn't a sin now? That's right, I'm accusing you of lying. If you were really sympathizing for homosexuals who have been mistreated by your fellow christian brothers, you wouldn't be spouting hate speech veiled in religious context.

For the record, I'm all for polygamy and polyandry. As long as everyone involved knows what's going on and is competent, why not? Well, homosexuals have nothing in common with polygamists and polyandrists except that they are being denied a very basic human right. Hey, black people for the longest time fought for equal rights with whites and now they are doing practically the same mistreatments to gay people.The point is noone is perfect. Gay right advocates CAN be closed minded, too. For the record, I'm not demanding any such thing.It's arguments that compare same sex marriage to murder and rape that tick me off. Polyandrists and polygamists can have me as an ally.Added by edit.I speak as a hetero monogamist.Edited by Taz, : Removed "s" from the word "tick" in the last paragraph. Damn rules...Edited by Taz, : Added an extra thought.

As I've explained this a kazillion times in the past... I guess it wouldn't hurt to explain again.Yes, marriage originated as a religious concept. But like all things, it evolved. In this particular case, and in our particular culture, marriage evolved into a social construct. Marriage doesn't just mean tax breaks and all that good stuff. It is also the legal and social recognition of a bond/partnership between various parties.If you're not into marriage, god bless you. But many people ARE into marriage. The dream of having a family AND being socially recognized by those around you is a very strong dream. A while back, RAZD almost convinced me that we should get rid of marriage completely and give everyone a civil union. However, after talking to some gay friends of mine who have been waiting for decades to get married to their partners that they've been with for decades, I realized that there are still those who still hope and dream to be finally accepted into the institution of marriage.Again, if you don't care much about marriage and would perfectly be happy with a civil union or whatever, god bless you. You go you. But you have to realize that there are people out there who (1) do not see marriage as a religious institution and (2) have been waiting for decades to be accepted into the institution of marriage.And because marriage in this time and age is a secular institution, it is and should be a basic human right. Look, so what if marriage started out as a religious institution? It evolved. It became secular. Your marriage in church won't mean squat until you obtain a marriage license.Silent H, if you don't care much for marriage and would rather leave it to the religionists, god bless you. I think you have every right to think that. But do you have to drag everyone else with you? I'm telling you now. There are gay people... atheist gay people I know that have been waiting for decades to be legally recognized as married because they've been together with their partners for decades. It's great that you don't think much of marriage. God bless you on that. But why do you have to impose this belittlement on other people?Again, because marriage has evolved into a social and secular construct, it ought to be a right for everybody, not just hetero monogamists. I still remember very clearly a couple years ago when a black congregation put up a big sign that made national news that said "AIDS is God's punishment for gay people". You joking? Christians equate homosexuality and same sex marriage to murder and rape everytime they mention them next to each other. I know they deny it, but why put gay people next to murderers and rapists if you don't intend to equate them? Christians say it whenever they make snide comments that put homosexuals next to murderers and rapists. You can get as technical as you want and say that they don't really mean to equate homosexuals with murderers and rapists, but you know and I know that that's what they mean.It's like asking "what's the difference between homosexuals and murderers?" and have us believe that it's an honest question. You know the difference, I know the difference, and everyone else around here knows the difference. The only reason anyone would ask that is to make a snide implication that homosexuals are like murderers.

Ceremony? One of my best friends got married a couple years ago without any ceremony whatsoever. All they did was obtained a license.Again, if you are opposed to this ceremony thing and would rather have your marriage a private thing, god bless you. But many people do care about such thing. The same argument could be made about the public school system, though. Since students in poorer areas surely cannot have the same resources as more economically properous areas due to fundings, removing the public school system altogether should take care of the inequality part.But that's a bogus argument. Surely, you can see this. Logical reason? None, I suppose. But you see, we don't live on the planet Vulcan. We live here on Earth where people have emotions.Again, if you don't care much for marriage, don't obtain a marriage license. But this is an important thing for many people.It is as simple as that. If you don't like marriage, don't obtain a marriage license. There is a need. Did you watch the news story about the gay couples flocking to San Francisco to obtain a marriage license before the state court nullified them? Did you happen to see all those people crying? Some of them had been together for decades, hoping and dreaming for that special day. Then came that special day and then a few days later their dreams were shattered.So, obviously it's still very important to many people.Again, if you don't care much for state sanctified marriage, don't obtain a state marriage license. It seems pretty simple logic to me. Again, did you watch that news story? Did you see all those people that cried?Again, we don't live on the planet Vulcan. This is obviously a very important issue for many people. Why go all green blooded on them? I don't have a link off hand right now. I'll just point it out to you when I see it.In the mean time, you could try this out for yourself. Start talking with a christian on the sin of homosexuality. Chances are, he'll start mentioning how god loves murderers and rapists but hate the sins and all of that crap. I encounter this bullshit preaching almost on a daily basis.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

And you got hung up on the origin of marriage to see my point.Yes, marriage started out as legalizing people having sex. No, it's not that anymore.Marriage nowadays is something completely different than that. Why are you so hung up on history?The United States was founded with the notion that blacks weren't really people. Perhaps we should get rid of the country because historically it wasn't meant to treat blacks as people? And I'm telling you now, marriage evolved to something else other than a religious institution. Depends on what you mean by discriminated against.Again, I want to go back to the school example. School systems are grossly unequal because of the economic factor. But it's ridiculous to just get rid of the public school system altogether. Instead, we try to improve it. We try to make it as fair as we can. We don't just throw it out just to make everyone equal. I beg to differ. The public school system example stands. You're saying that marriage should be rid of altogether because people who choose not to partake in it are discriminated against. Ok, there are people who choose not to have their children in the public school system. They, instead, home school their children. They send them to private schools. Whatever. Let's get rid of the public school system so that all children are equal.Let's not stop there. The United States is a privileged nation and its citizens are filthy rich compared to a lot of other countries like Mexico and the Latin countries. Let's get rid of the political entities altogether so that everyone could be equal.Don't you see the flaw in your logic? It's like burning down people's houses because obviously homeless people are discriminated against. Um, no. There are over a thousand legal rights that come with marriage, or so I'm told. Personally, I don't care much for it other than it is extremely convenient for my mate and I to be married. But obviously, it is very important to a lot of people. Because getting a state sanctioned recognition is a powerful dream that few people are immune to.I know that on purely logical reasons you have the high grounds. But again, we don't live on the planet Vulcan. I simply don't have the heart to tell those that have been waiting for decades to be legally recognized that the institution of marriage should be scratched completely, especially when I've been able to enjoy the benefits of marriage. I don't know. Are you saying that EVERYBODY ought to be just like you and that THEIR attitude toward the legal certificate ought to be just like yours? Well, first of all, if they really believe that all sins are equal, why can't they compare homosexuality to something like left-handedness, which is still being taught in many parts of the world as sinful, or not honoring your mother and father (1 of the 10 commandments). But no, they insist on comparing homosexuality to rape and murder.That part alone tells me that their insistence on using rape and murder to compare to homosexuality is a snide and it is just half a step away from saying a homosexual is like a murderer and rapist.People are sexual beings. I've seen people try to pass the argument that your sexual orientation does not make who you are. That's bullshit. I'm a hetero and I know for a fact that it makes up a very significant part of my life. I'm also a musician, and that's also a very significant part of my life. Saying that you hate the act of something, especially that something is a significant part of people's lives, is essentially saying you hate those people.Look, I'm an American. That's a significant part of my life. It's bullshit when someone says "I hate the act of living in America... but I don't hate Americans." Surely, you can see the ridiculousness of such a statement.

I just highlighted and erased a very long response post. Why? Because I noticed this little bit. Ok, so what are some of the discrimination that people who choose not to participate in marriage face?

*Sigh*All I'm saying is that instead of scratching marriage as a state function, we should treat it like other imperfect systems.People who are less economically fortunate can sometime end up living on the streets. I think we could all agree that the solution isn't to force everyone out of their homes. What we would agree on is that we should come up with better policies to prevent more people from falling through the safety nets.Yes, I agree that there are rights that are given to married couples that single people and people that choose not to participate in the "ceremony" do not get. But rather than getting rid of the system itself, why not come up with new policies to include more people in the benefits circle?Going back to the virginity thing, if it has become more than just a religious thing and has become more of a cultural thing, why not try to come up with some new policy to include more people in this circle of specialness? Again, I'm arguing from the perspective of such theoretical culture.I think you and I differ in opinion because you are arguing from a theoretical absolute while I'm arguing from the perspective of culture. Marriage is no longer a religious institution. It's been made a secular institution. What's more, it is ingrained in our culture. Yes, I understand that some people do not choose to participate in this marriage thing but they still want all the same rights that married couples get. I say rather than getting rid of the state sanctioned marriage, why not come up with new policies to include those who want to be included? I'm one of those that simply don't believe in throwing out the whole thing just because we have a problem somewhere. I believe we need to modify the existing system.Marriage's original use has been cut out, yes. It's become more than that now. It's emphasizing on people having legal contracts with each other. Which is why I said we should include gay people who want to get married and polyandrists and polygomists who want to get married. If single people want certain or all rights pertaining to marriage, then I say we should come up with new policies to give those who want them these rights. What I think is silly is that in order to deal with these problems we just throw the whole thing out. I wasn't saying I couldn't answer this question. I was trying to make a point that we can deal with all these flaws with either modifying existing policies or coming up with new policies to regulate the system.

Well, isn't that reason enough? Well, I don't think I have to argue with you on this point any longer. Why? Because before you get to me, you'd have to get through 150 or so million people who are married before you get to me. My response to this is too bad, IT IS part of our tradition. In fact, some would argue that state sanctioned marriage is the deepest root of our tradition. It probably predates anything else that we consider of value. I really really am not in the mood to start arguing with you on what the word "right" means. Let just say that I beg to differ. And I repeat, government sanctioned marriage IS part of the culture. And I said earlier, it probably predates anything else we have to-date. What on earth are you talking about? I already said I supported polygamy, polyandry, and whatever else have you related to this issue. The only reason I'm emphasizing gay marriage right now is because it is the most visible and probably the most achievable goal.Just because I almost never vocally support football coming back to New Orleans doesn't mean I don't want football to come back to New Orleans. Well, actually, as a cultural artifact, it was suppose to be a business dealing between the father-in-law and the husband with the wife as the property being propositioned. This aspect of the tradition changed. What I am advocating is we continue to allow the concept of marriage to evolve to include more members of society. I just don't see getting rid of state sanctioned marriage as a solution. Well, the majority of people didn't like interracial marriage either, and we've managed to change completely people's view on that. We didn't do it by proposing to scratch marriage out of the law book.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

I'm not making a tradition argument alone. I'm making the argument that it is a tradition that (1) many many many if not most people value and (2) we can fix it to include more people rather than throwing the whole thing out. Are you saying marriage isn't deep rooted in our culture? Yes, I have. For a starter, the number of people who want to keep marriage as a state institution is greater... far greater than the people who want to get rid of it. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation.And as I have said before, yes on the logical side of things you have the high ground. But I'm not ready to go all green blooded just because YOU are ready. A lot, if not most, people out there still want to see marriage as a state sanctioned institution. Given that the system is not perfect, but we can try to make it as perfect as we can by modifying it. Throwing it out isn't a viable solution. And I've already told you this. I don't care. If tomorrow Jesus Christ II (aka Bush) signs into law a bill that removes marriage as a state institution, it wouldn't affect me personally one bit. But I am arguing from many other people's perspective. And right now, the injustice of the current institution of marriage isn't big enough to throw it out altogether like the institution of slavery.Not all injustices are equal. Admit it, you don't find my argument credible because I don't agree to throw the state institution of marriage out the window. I don't know. You'd have to ask the people who theoretically would be affected by this to get the answer.What I do know is that I personally know some people that would do anything to get into the institution of marriage. I've talked to some of them and suggested that the state get out of the marriage business, and so far all the ones I've talked to said they wouldn't want that to happen. To many, if not most, people, state sanctioned marriage is a good thing. It is very deep rooted in our culture. Yes, there are injustices. But they are not great enough for us to throw it out altogether.Go ahead and ask single people you know about this. Ask them if they think they're being severely oppressed. Ask the people who have life-long partners but choose not to participate in the state sanctioned marriage if they feel they're being severely oppressed.I think this puppy is not a lost cause. I think we can fix/modify it enough to serve its purpose justly.

Um, no. I said that some would argue that marriage is probably the deepest root of our tradition. The word "some" refers to at least 1 person. Must we go down this path of what a "right" is?I have never said other groups can wait. I just haven't seen that many polygamous or polyandrists wanting to be legally recognized. I do, however, very frequently voice my opinion that there is nothing wrong with a state sanctioned polygamous and polyandrous marriage. And how many times do I have to say this before you recognized that I've said it? As far as full logic goes, you have the high ground. That being said, we don't live on Vulcan. Let's aim for something more practical, shall we? Again, must we go down this path of what a "right" is?I see having right as protection. No disagreement here. But again, we don't live on Vulcan. If indeed we live in such a culture, do you honestly believe that getting rid of it completely is a practical goal?Let me repeat this again. On the logical side, you have the high ground. But logic isn't always practical. You are very persistant at misreading what I said.I said "severely oppressed". Please, don't compare yourself to an 18th century American slave.Just because a system is oppressive doesn't mean it has to be thrown out completely. Yes, some systems are just plain oppressive enough that it has to be rid of, like the institution of slavery. But there are systems that oppressive but can be improved and modified to not be oppressive.Take a look at our economic policy. It's downright oppressive to a lot of people. Some people even end up living on the streets. Do you agree that we should just throw out capitalism or do you agree that we should come up with social policies as safety nets to catch these unfortunate cases?

I'm sorry, I didn't know it was nitpicking time. Sure, if you insist on nitpicking word for word. Hang on a sec, are you claiming that marriage not being a state institution actually was wide spread in the past? Silent H, I swear, I now understand why crashfrog started using the eff word at you.I never denied the long history of polygamy.Can you honestly tell me that the polygamy movement at this point in time and at this place in the world right now is a major movement, if it is a movement at all? (1) I wasn't here when this topic came up apparently years ago.(2) I actually know what you're talking about. This group that you sympathize so much is actually not being criticized for its polygamous practice. These men take in 13 and 12 year olds as wives to replace their not-so-young wives.(3) I know you support having sex with children. This is where I draw the line. You can call me a hypocrit if you want. Not currently.I think it is most curious that you've chosen to attack me on the fact that I am not vocal enough about my support for polygamy.I suppose you have no problem with genocide, then? I haven't seen you once said anything about the Rwanda genocide. You must not care that much for human life.But you see, I know that you do care for human life. You've just chosen to focus your energy elsewhere. We are only human. We can't possibly devote ourselves to just about every issue of social injustice under the sun. Not vocally and actively addressing one issue doesn't mean we don't care. And I've never compared gay people to 19th century american slaves. That's why I don't feel the institution of marriage is bad and oppressive enough for us to just throw it out like we did with the institution of slavery. What I do think is we can improve the already existing system to include more people and allow more people to have the rights that have so far only been distributed to an elite group. Let me repeat. Just because we don't vocally and actively deal with an issue doesn't mean we don't care. Nobody in the world can deal with every social injustice that exists under the sun. Your attack on me not being vocal enough with regard to the polygamy issue is like me attacking you for not being vocal enough on the issue of the Cambodian genocide. Sure, I've never actually seen you spoke out against the act. That doesn't mean that you value human life any less than I do. No, the change you propose is an impossibility. This is also another tactic that is sometimes used by some bigots I know. They would pretend to propose something so ridiculous that could not possibly achieved hoping that no change whatsoever would take place.PS, the reason I'm pissed off at the way you are approaching this is because you are using the exact same tactic as Bill O'Reilly in his pathetic attempt at ridiculing gay rights activists. You may not want to see this in yourself, but what you are doing is essentially the same thing. You are just a step away from saying that I'm an evil person toward animals for not being a member of PETA. Sure, I love animal. It's just that I've chosen to devote my energy elsewhere.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.