I'm Christian, unless you're gay.

[greg]

(01-24-2012 08:52 PM)JLL Wrote:  Well, I don't think I will ever see eye to eye with Greg on this issue, for obvious reasons. And when I think about it, the subject of the entire thread was not the sinfulness of homosexuality, but how Christians treat gay people--until we (myself very much so) derailed it.

I understand where Greg is coming from, and I have to hand it to him for being consistent, that's for sure. Honestly, though, the tone drives me away. Maybe that's what the original post was trying to say. Face it, there's something off-putting about hearing about how vile and wicked your basic nature is---day after day, year after year (and please, let's not get into the "born this way" argument just now). Sometimes it presents a face of Christianity that I, as a gay person, would want absolutely no part of anymore. It saddens me that I can barely stand to attend a church service anymore because the sense of judgment is almost palpable. I can't help but think of the Gandhi quote (paraphrased) "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." I just think if you're going to believe that your commission is to win souls and witness, you should have to bear some of the responsibility if a lot of that vitriol drives people away from the very "truth" you are trying to impart.

I like your tone here, and I actually agree with alot of it.

You are so right about it being off-putting hearing how vile and wicked our basic nature is. I completely agree, it's the same for me and my nature as well, but that is why the bible says that the "natural man receives not the things of the Spirit"

I don't want "vitriol" to be part of my message, and I also don't' want to drive anyone away. But I must remember what Jesus said, that we would be hated because they hated Him.

Yep we derailed the thread again, apologies, but as I demonstrated above, with the scriptures (again, makes no difference what I think) It is clear what the Creator of the Universe thinks about homosexuality, btw, it's not the only or perhaps not even the "biggest" sin, but the teaching is very clear, and I will align myself to the teaching of the scripture at all times, or attempt to.

[lucrezaborgia]

(01-24-2012 10:44 PM)myotch Wrote:  Why does the state have an interest in what a private company does with its private property?

Not knowing the relationship between the private company and the Methodist Church, I think it's safe to assume that the Methodist Church has a financial interest in the property, and has a say in the events that it is willing to host at the property. If it is a policy of the church to provide no material aid and offer transactions to events that goes against its ideology, why should the state interfere?

The law says it's not church property, but beyond that...once you hire out a property is it really private? There are all kinds of laws regarding what you can and can't do with property. Allowing homosexuals inclusion in these laws is somehow the straw that breaks the back???

Quote:What is the nature of the affiliation? Is the company in question merely allied to Methodism, or does the church have a financial interest of the private property, or a management interest of the private property? Is the company merely a holding company for property of the church for, say, retreats, education centers, call centers, and other property not directly related to Sunday corporate worship? Did the Methodist Church provide the money to buy the property? Would any of this make a difference to you?

No. It's either church property or it isn't and the law clearly defines what is and isn't church property. Bureaucracy is a bitch huh?

Quote:Like a religiously based hospital. The Catholic Church deals with this issue. The Catholic Church outright owns and funds hospitals. The Church would also rather close hospital doors than be forced by the government to offer contraception and abortion on demand. Never mind they save lives and give comfort and aid to the sick.

Never mind cutting off the nose to spite the face! What if it was a hospital run by Jehovah Witnesses and they decided that any and all blood products wouldn't be offered because that was a conflict of their religion? Religion and medicine shouldn't mix and for good reasons. Medical staff should offer all legal services, not merely what they think is best for their patients.

Quote:Federal and state regulations often conflict with First Amendment rights.

Depends on how you see it. We are more than free to say and do what we want. However, there is nothing in the First Amendment that says that there are no consequences for certain actions. Once the church gets into business dealings, different laws usually apply. I have no sympathy for churches who want to hide behind the First Amendment when they are involved in businesses and politics. Places like Hezhipah House love to use the First Amendment argument. There are many things that are considered "biblical" to some sects that you would consider abuse, no? Why are those things different?

Quote:So, please tell me, what's at stake for heterosexuals and society at-large if gays aren't allowed to marry?

*sigh*

Nothing for heterosexuals...which is the entire point of what people have been trying to tell you. For society at-large, it's about families which may or may not include children. You are positing that only heterosexual families deserve protection. I am arguing that all families deserve equal protection.

[myotch]

1) I posit that the private commercial affairs of a private company are no business of the government.

2) It shouldn't matter who owns the pavilion. The property is owned by a private company. There are essentially different rules for a public company (a property an outsider can buy stock in), and for good reason. The fact that the owners of this private company have a religious reason to set and control the rules and parameters of their transactions is of no business to the government.

3) It is an absurdity that the Jw's would run a hospital. They aren't only anti-blood transfusion, they are also anti-education. Plus, their corporate set up is one where the money goes up from their congregations to line the pockets of their Watchtower organization and publishing business.

Never mind the historical facts that the science of modern medicine has been greatly, richly improved by the church universal, through church-sanctioned studies, hospitals, etc. Heck, the scientific method was created by the Church.

it was the philosophy of the Christian Church - to help those in need, to care for the sick - that was the driving force behind the evolution of modern medicine.

4) Churches have always had business dealings - purchasing and selling of property. The point is, however a church gets it money, their main source of income is from tithes and gifts of the faithful. Should a church who invest in a commercial enterprise, who manages a commercial enterprise, who own a commercial enterprise, be forced to do things against that church's core convictions?

5) We agree that the First Amendment protections do not address consequences. It does carry an air of personal responsibility. It was written in a day when dueling was legal.

Churches have almost always been political, and Christians have, too. When Paul had the choice of taking Israel's punishment, he chose his rights as a Roman citizen. And again, churches have always had business dealings. Read Acts.

I look at the business abuse of some churches in the same vein of Larry Flynt's explanation of the first amendment: If it can protect a dirtbag, it can protect the rest of us.

I would posit that no church hides behind he First Amendment. I would further posit that all churches in America exercise the first amendment. This includes their involvement in business and politics. Same as it ever was, for better or worse.

6) You are arguing that the only way to do this is to make marriage inclusive to couples who historically can't be married. I disagree.

[lucrezaborgia]

So how do we do it then without marriage?

[myotch]

I don't know. It seems silly though to force the federal government to establish marriage by setting a precedent that only benefits one group of people. There is no federal marriage institution, and the only federal laws recognizing marriage (except for DOMA, which was bad law) is in regards to tax law and immigration.

So, a good place to start is tax law. Make it flatter, make it fairer.

Virtually every law concerning marriage is at the state level. From licensing to divorce, everything takes place at the state level. States have the Constitutional right to establish marriage law. Not every couple can get married. These things are regulated by every state.

[lucrezaborgia]

(01-25-2012 07:23 PM)myotch Wrote:  Virtually every law concerning marriage is at the state level. From licensing to divorce, everything takes place at the state level. States have the Constitutional right to establish marriage law. Not every couple can get married. These things are regulated by every state.

Which is why we have the 4th Amendment, but somehow with gay marriage it does not apply?

People who can get married in one state who can't get married in another can still have the former state recognize their marriage.

[myotch]

Unreasonable search and seizure? How does that apply to homosexual marriage?

Could you be referring to the 14th Amendment, "equal protection" clause, "Immunities and Privileges" clause?

Let's look at it this way. The IRS does not consider homosexual couples to be married, regardless of state law.

The 14th amendment does not do anything to invalidate state law, where the power of law was conferred to the state and not retained by the federal government.

If a murder victim resides in a state where there is capital punishment, but is killed in a state where there is no capital punishment, the victim is not protected nor is justice mediated by capital punishment law.

If a man over 18 likes to sleep with 14 year olds, and it is legal in his state, but he sleeps with a 14 year old in a state where the age of consent is 16, he is not protected under the law where the offense took place.

In most states, one can have a radar detector in their car - a protection against being wrongfully popped for speeding, or to alert you to the fact that cops are running radar. Perfectly legal, and in my opinion, helps law enforcement serve as a deterrent to speeding. In Virginia, though, it is against the law to have a radar detector. One's radar detector is confiscated (one could say, unreasonable seizure), and an extra fine imposed for those running radar detectors.

Even if all 50 states offer same sex marriage, the federal law still may opt to not give homosexual couples tax benefits.

All 50 states have anti-murder laws. Federal law regarding murder is limited to very few situations, and often when federal law can apply, the state ends up doing the prosecution.

The argument for 14th Amendment protections of gay marriage isn't as strong as you suggest. It must be proven that"right" to gay marriage is essential, even if recognized by a minority of states.

[Qrayze]

[myotch]