Why do Christians like to fixate so much on homosexuality?

Post Reply New Topic

Inflammatory statement, unsupported by any demonstration of a legal basis for a plaintiff's success in such a suit.



"Allow." Not, "require," or, "force."



So, even though the proposed law explicitly exempts faith groups, you see this, nonetheless as an attempt by government to force churches to celebrate these marriages.



Yet more repetition of the same unfounded argument. Show me one divorced Catholic who has successfully sued to be married in a Roman Catholic church, and you will have some room for your argument.



Where is the freedom of religion for these groups, by the way? Why are Liberal Jews, Quakers and Unitarians obliged to conform with someone else's view of what is acceptable religious practice?



You have failed to meet my challenge.

I offer it again. Show me one--just one--country in which a religious organization has been forced, by legislation or by the courts, to perform a marriage between two people not otherwise qualified to be married within that religious tradition.

Political statements that clergy are "afraid" of litigation doesn't cut it. Laws that compel public servants like marriage commissioners or registrars doesn't cut it. Litigation to make church halls available for private events doesn't cut it.

I want to see any case where a court has ordered a priest, a minister, a rabbi, an imam or any other clergy authorized to celebrate marriages to perform one against that clergy's conscience, or a legislature has passed a law having a similar impact.

Any single case. Anywhere. Just one.

There's a difference between law and politics. Learn to recognize it.

^^^^^

Who cares about your challenge, if Churches are compelled to do such a thing the battle over the right to opt out of something on religious grounds will be long lost. I have a question for you, why should a photographer be sued for refusing to photograph a same sex marriage? I mean, I can opt out of military service on religious grounds, but not a photography session? I don't agree with everything Nambo says and he may be overstating things a bit, but the situation does have clear implications for religious freedom.

As to the difference between law and politics… What happens when a political agenda is pursued through the courts?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjTtoMQ_5ZE[/youtube]

NPR Article they reference in the video

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=91486191

Visagrunt: I'm not taking up the challenge, either. I'm not even going to PRETEND that there is already a legal precedent in place to coerce or compell pastors, and I mean ANY pastor, to unwillingly perform gay weddings.


The thing that worries me in regards to religious rights is the possibility that legal precedents CAN be set which would compel ministers to do something in violation of conscience. Think of it this way: In the USA, you are not allowed to refuse to sell a house to a gay couple if you are a realtor. If they put up the money, they get the house. I'm JUST old enough to remember a doctor's office in my hometown that had two waiting rooms and my grandmother explaining to me why we didn't go in the less crowded room--yet the nurse/receptionists cannot tell anyone which room to use based on my grandmother's reasons. I'm no racist. But desegregation happened because people weren't being treated like people. The problem of gay marriage is presented as the same angle as civil rights, and it just happens to breach the separation between civil rights and religious rights. The point, as I see it, is not that our (religious) civil rights are being violated NOW, but rather that the potential exists for gay activists to run roughshod over those freedoms and that legislation regarding gay marriage may open the doorways to marginalizing doctrinal views. I'm not going to argue at length about it, but all I will say about it is that despite how you may feel about it, those ARE legit concerns for many of us.

Regarding the broader topic: I agree with anyone who says "sin is sin." The Biblical problem of homosexuality is that it has close ties to idol worship, something that was strictly prohibited in a nation totally dedicated to God. The way the Law is worded, it doesn't even matter whether the act is intended as an act of idolatrous worship or not. Quite plainly, it says that "these things are what idol-worshipping Canaanites do, so you are never to do them." You might argue that Christian Gentiles aren't held to the Law, but that isn't the case with homosexuality. The New Testament says, among other things, that we are to avoid idolatry. So while we aren't held 100% of the Law as the Jews are, there are certain things that we ARE to avoid--idolatry being one of them.

To get into specifics, I believe this is the NT rundown of Christian conduct: No idols (worship only God, and that includes Jesus); no idolatry (idolatrous behaviors, which includes homosexuality); no food offered to idols (not really relevant today in many places of the world, and I believe Paul's advice to believers was more "don't ask/don't tell" when it came to buying cooked foods in the markets); no meat is off-limits, just don't consume blood; no adultery/fornication (technically "fornication" refers to temple prostitution, but the general prohibition is against all unmarried and extra-marital sex).

Everything else relates to obeying the laws and customs/traditions of the land insofar as they do not interfere with worshipping God and following Christ's teachings (we celebrate Christmas, not Yule/Saturnalia/etc.). You'll note that those teachings relate to loving God with all one's being and taking care of others as much as you take care of yourself (the Bible uses the word "love," but Biblical love is usually an outward expression rather than a passing sentiment, hence I choose "take care"). Regarding sin and sinners, there seems to be a dichotomy in the Bible between "loving others" as Christ does demonstrated in His association with sinners at various times and avoiding sin/sinners. People in favor of homosexuality point out Christ's willingness to love and teach those of diverse ways of sinful life, which could include any number of sinful behaviors. What those people miss is that when Christ taught, sinners were attracted to His teachings because of the contrast with the messages of hopelessness they'd been used to. Christ didn't go looking for sinners to be buddies with. He went to their homes because they invited Him. They didn't invite Him because they wanted to continue living sinful lives. They invited Him because they wanted out and what He taught was the first thing many of them could understand as offering hope. He taught them to stop whatever sin it was they were involved in, put away anything that was distracting them from knowing God, and follow Him. This means that homosexuals were called to stop being homosexuals. Corrupt tax collectors who'd acquired wealth should restore as much as they could to those they'd oppressed. Liars should stop lying. Thieves should return what they'd stolen and live honestly. Priests should teach people to love each other and stop standing in the way between people and their relationship with God. At every turn, Jesus calls those who He helped in some way to "go, and sin no more."

So before I say anything else, let me make clear that Christians are to follow His example and reach out to people in the spirit of love and gentleness. Perhaps our greatest failing is our lack of mercy, but mercy IS perhaps the greatest quality that Jesus exemplified. If we are to call upon homosexuals to stop what they are doing as we ought to with all sinners, it must be in this same spirit of love. Handling sinful issues in unmerciful and destructive ways is not the way to go.

That said, because homosexuality is among a number of behaviors singled out as idolatry and therefore destructive, Christians are right to oppose it just as they should oppose all sin. But homosexuality, at least in the USA, poses some challenges that other behaviors we see as destructive do not.

For example, contrast homosexuality with the greater landscape of sexual immorality. You might ask "why aren't Christians getting all up in arms over other forms of sexual immorality? Doesn't it pose just as much if not a greater threat?" Well, yes and no. First of all, there are already laws on the books that place limitations on sexual deviance. Pedophilia, for example. Often the age difference is as little as a year, and sometimes the difference of one day makes all the difference. The law doesn't care about that. The law only sees that you committed "statutory rape" and you'll be wearing that scarlet letter the rest of your life. That applies not just to sex with or among minors, but even if someone's got a grudge against you and sets you up for sexual assault (yes, it can happen). You will have to register with your local sheriff's department (or whoever) and a red dot will appear on an online map marking you (forever) as a sexual predator, whether or not this is really true. You might even get your face on a spread in the local newspaper and everyone will know who you are. They can harass you on the street and front of your house and call the police on you if you so much as open your front door. And it's all perfectly legal. And all because someone exploited a legal technicality.

Now, adultery doesn't appear in our collective consciousness as all that serious. But my wife has worked for three different lawyers where we live, and she's told me some stories--avoiding confidentiality issues by saying "this client" or "that client." Most stories circulating "out there" have to do with a man caught cheating and the wife taking him to the cleaners. The reality is that this works both ways. I know of a police officer who had a poor reputation "in the field" yet still managed to keep his job. There is little doubt he was physically and mentally abusive to his wife and his children. So it was no surprise that she came in seeking a restraining order and permanent custody of her child with him. So she moved out and took her kids while filing for divorce, establishing that they had separated, etc. Not long after they separated, she meets a guy she was friends with, and they start "hanging out." Her soon-to-be ex has her followed by a private investigator who documents that the "boyfriend" regularly visited her at her house. Her lawyer can't seem to keep a lid on his client's mouth, and she was coerced into admitting that she had sex with the guy in front of her youngest child. The lunatic husband in short order has her declared an unfit mother, establishes that she is an adulteress, gets full custody of the child, terminates visitation rights, and takes everything he can get from her.

You cannot make a case that adultery is "legal" because it isn't. Depending on the jurisdiction, there can be severe consequences for it, no matter how well-meaning you might be. And don't forget about jurisdictions where there are "alienation of affection" laws. You mess with a married woman? Get ready for a civil suit.

You also can't really make a case that consensual sex between majority-aged adults carries no consequences, at least not in absolute terms. It's hardly likely you'll ever hear of any church totally free of scandal, either within the leadership or among the congregants. I pleaded with one of my superiors to hire a certain person for my counterpart on the church staff. I was told that if that should happen, there was a good chance it would cause a major rift in the church due to an incident of immorality that had happened in years past. So while such things are secularly tolerated, churches DO maintain a sense of discipline, even if that discipline takes much subtler or gentler forms now than maybe they did a century or so ago.

The point here being that laws and practices against adultery and pre-/extra-marital sex are already established. There really isn't a vocal outcry regarding this simply because these laws and practices are, for the most part, not being challenged. Christian groups, however, ARE making a fuss over messages being promoted in the media, such as with corporate sponsorship of prime-time television. Networks are asked not to show certain types of ads during "family time." Conversely, advertisers who promote family interests are asked not to support shows that promote certain views after "family time." Our opposition to behaviors we believe are aberrant is consistent and not limited to homosexual behavior. It's just our opposition to homosexuality that gets more air time.

Part of the problem, as I see it, with homosexuality specifically lies in the means through which the homosexual agenda or message is being propagated. Gay marriage, for instance, might seem harmless enough. But the message is that gay marriage is equal to and on par with heterosexual marriage. While homosexuality may be tolerated, it is not universally accepted. In the USA, gay marriage as an issue is the new slavery. You have gay states and you have other states whose constitutions have been amended to define marriage, prohibit gay marriage, and prohibit the recognition of gay marriages formed in "gay states." Repealing these laws on a nationwide scale as well as the imposition of national health insurance mandates take on the look and feel of the same states' rights issues as pre-Civil War USA, the failure of whose arguments came down to the fact that the states' rights arguments couldn't be made on any other issue than slavery. Yet for the most part the "will of the people" favored abolition of slavery and a unified republic. Gay marriage, on the other hand, so far has maintained the opposite attitude--that is, the "will of the people" opposes it.

Therefore, part of the vocal outcry against homosexuality is not JUST merely hypocritical attitudes of a Christian majority. Pushing a homosexual agenda through recognizing homosexual marriage is not what most of us want and activist judges "legislating from the bench" has the effect of infuriating those who oppose it. At this point, it's not just a Christian thing--it's an AMERICAN thing, and it should come as no surprise that people feel they are being ignored and their rights being imposed upon. Now, you might argue that homosexuals are being imposed upon as well. But the question here is "why do homosexuals deserve to be some kind of protected class?" Remember, the Christian attitude is that homosexuality is wrong AND homosexuals constitute a relatively tiny minority. As a matter of fact, until recently sodomy laws were on the books of practically every state. The main reason why many are struck down or just outright ignored is difficulty in enforcement. Should the need arise, the laws are there to protect those who feel they have been done harm. This rarely seems to be the case. However, if the general feeling is that homosexuality is NOT good conduct or behavior, then that makes it aberrant or even criminal behavior. And if it is criminal behavior, then it doesn't deserve any kind of status of recognition at all. Thus we are right to infringe on the rights of homosexuals inasmuch as we infringe on the rights of murderers and rapists. You can say that homosexuality is not the same thing as murder and rape. But in terms of how "the people" view it, public opinion may say otherwise. And in a country such as the USA, it is the majority public opinion that counts. There are legit "protected classes," and homosexuals may or may not be one of them.

There is also a problem with how easily homosexuality may be avoided. Sometimes this is an easy, common-sense solution. Don't like the message in the media? Simple. Turn off the TV. Closely monitor what your kids do on the internet--which you should do anyway. Involve kids in religious services. Openly read the Bible at home and discuss it. Children for the most part tend to listen to their parents and follow their examples (laugh all you want, but a lot of problems of parenting is in how LITTLE the parents exercise the control that they inherently have as parents. You live under MY roof, you follow MY rules. I do not OWE you a vehicle when you turn 16, you are not entitled to an allowance, I don't HAVE to let you hang out with certain friends, etc.). Basically, you can raise kids any way you see fit by using a combination of advice from Dr. Phil, Judge Judy, and Supernanny, have near complete control of your kids lives, and still let them grow up learning both what you want them to know and how to be independent and responsible adults. Some especially domineering parents miss that last part and their kids go crazy in college and make regrettable mistakes they can't recover from. All I'm saying is you do have that kind of control as a parent without screwing them up.

The problem is that kind of control does not extend EVERYWHERE and in ALL ASPECTS of a child's development. It's not always possible, for instance, to homeschool a child. Private and/or religious schools are not always viable, affordable, or available solutions. Due to compulsory attendance laws, the easiest and sometimes best choice is the public school. Public schools are SUPPOSED to be neutral on religious and political topics. Just teach the kids the facts and move on. But this often isn't the case.

Remember what I said about how Christians should respond to homosexuality in the spirit of love and mercy? I'll be honest--it's plain that my position regarding homosexuality is against it. But if my oldest child was school-aged and I got word he was pushing a gay kid around, he'd have hell to pay from me when he got home and I'd make sure it never happened again. Why? I've been the victim of bullying too many time to count. I know all to well what that's like and I won't tolerate that from my own children against anyone else.

What I DO have a big problem with is the potential for anti-bullying rules to favor homosexual students in such a way that the rights to express opinions regarding homosexuality, especially opposing ones, are impinged upon. This sets up a system in which the thought or idea, especially thoughts or ideas predicated on religious teachings, is openly discriminated against and the rights to express opinions in a fair and constructive way are removed. It sends the message that it's ok to be/do/think/say anything you want as long as you aren't a Christian. That's crossing the line of separation between church and state, and various court cases have established that student's civil rights, especially freedom of religion, do not end at the schoolyard gate. If you open the window of dialog in support of homosexual views, you also must accept that opposing viewpoints may be presented. As a teacher or administrator, if you can't handle it, then you darn well better make sure the conversation never comes up. If you can't handle, say, a Christian "Day of Dialog," don't dare hold a "Spirit Day." One way or another, opposing viewpoints will come out and come to blows. If you're going to be "fair" to one person or one group, you have to be fair to all.

Allowing Christian kids to be exposed in public schools to viewpoints parents find unacceptable is something Christian parents have to live with. So there should be no surprise if there is an outcry if you get this situation or anything similar: A Christian kid gets beat up for wearing cross or casually discussing something about the Bible outside class time and nothing happens to the bully; same Christian kid mentions that homosexuality is contrary to Biblical teaching during lunch and gets sent home for bullying because a homosexual student was sitting nearby. Purely hypothetical, but in Michigan a teacher got suspended for attempting to silence a Christian kid because the teacher "didn't like where the conversation was going." The school administration in that case might have acted appropriately, but can we be sure that this will happen consistently across the board? There's no guarantee of that, and the general concern is that such rules and regs regarding bullying will turn against Christians specifically because in merely harmlessly expressing our beliefs, rather than actively invoking violence against those we disagree with, we run the risk of modern-day persecution and marginalization. Not only that, but it provides cause to fear unwanted influence within the school.

In the end, it's not that we Christians are necessarily fixated on homosexuality. I think more of the problem is we're being forced to confront it in ways we never really wanted to. It's perhaps the one issue that has really backed us into a corner. Further, it is the one in-your-face issue that the media and politicians have picked to play on. Why? I don't know. If you were to ask me what the single most pressing issue confronting Christianity is, I'd have to say that it's whether Jesus really is the only way to salvation and the promise of an eternity in heaven. Ask that as a question, and there's only one correct answer. Too bad homosexuality has gotten to be such a heated topic that this most important issue of Christianity might perhaps be the most ignored.

Holy that post is ridiculous. Who's gonna read a post that long? Put it into 3 paragraphs, make it concise and keep the verbosity to a minimum. Why use 20 words when you can use 4?

^ QFT

I skimmed through some of that and would be interested in replying to it, but there's no way I can be arsed with all that

Thats wrong, you should read the Bible if you are going to quote from it.

A scripture says, "men who lie with men, and even women changed the natural use of themselves to one contrary to nature."

I think homophobic christians need to mind their own business and quit interfering in other people's lives

Actually, regarding this "Challenge" if you re-read my post I did say Governments are "TRYING" to.
The articles I posted show they are heading down this road even if a legal case hasnt yet occurred.
I would however say, "watch this space".

There are other areas apart from Homosexuality where the Governments are trying to dig away at Christianity, and you only need to look at Communist Russia if you dont belive it can happen.
Gordon Brown was known to frequently hapr on about the de-establishment of the Church of England, I think the Homosexuality thing is just another way to try and chip away at Christianity, they dont care about the rest of us, what makes you think they are so concerned about Homosexuals.

If I - a non homophobic Christian - promise not to interfere with the lives of my heterosexual and homosexual and asexual siblings and friends and colleagues and neighbours, will people stop messing with me?

Of course, I don't interfere withy anybody - but it hasn';t stopped them yet.

great! it's nice to see that some christians aren't so full of **** that they think that's what's going on!



i can see how that might worry some people. so... maybe we should make some kind of rule about the government not being able to make laws about your relgion? maybe we could even amend the constitution to make it a constitutional protection. something like "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?" would that help?

thanks for not arguing about it "at length." pianists can type so much sometimes!



hmm... well i don't know if this is all that relevant once we've put "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" into the constitution. i mean, yeah, your religion isn't ok with hot man-on-man lovin' but what if someone else's is? also: did the canaanites (what happened to those guys again?) not have heterosexual intercourse as well? how did they reproduce? since they probably reproduced by means of heterosexual intercourse, you should refrain from that too, right? or is that not the reason?



wait, i still don't get why homosexuality is "idolatrous behavior." i mean, unless heterosexuality is also not ok with your god....

this is starting to get lengthy....



point of fact: you celebrate "christmas," which is a combination of "yule/saturnalia/etc." i don't remember the part of the bible where "christ" taught the celebration of "christmas." maybe i missed that part?



most of that seems well and good, but i still don't see why hot man-on-man action is a sin. maybe i can see where your god's not ok with people who aren't married having sex, but i don't see why that means that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to have sex. actually, the solution seems quite simple. let them get married. sin absolved!

damn. were you being sarcastic about that "at length" remark?



....yeah........ this whole "sin" business really has no place in "law." i'm starting to think you don't actually want "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to be in the constitution...



alright, seriously dude. wtf does homosexuality have to do with the worship of idols? i mean, sometimes.... when "american idol" is discussed, a lot of people say the word "gay." that's about as close a link as i can see, here.

are you just making this **** up as you go?



ok..... what's immoral about homosexuality? i still don't get it.



well.... forms of sexual immorality, such as cheating on your partner, spreading stds (especially knowingly), forcing sex on someone else by physical or emotional means, or taking sexual advantage of someone who isn't old enough to realize they're being taken advantage of.... yeah. those are definitely a much much much greater threat than "consensual sex between adults."



oh, ok. i see what that has to do with homosexuality. ...

....ok i lied. i don't see it.



cool story, bro?



so you're saying that if we let homosexuals get married, the resulting civil suits would.... oh wait, you're just rambling.



...so church-going, heterosexual, christians aren't free from scandal? frankly, i'm appalled!



there are laws against premarital sex? in america?!?



so your the reason i have so many damn girlsgonewild commercials caught up in my south park recordings!



wait, so you're saying that you're upset because they think they're your equals...... and you think you're better than them......... and then you bring up slavery and the civil war....... and you don't see the correlation? really? ......really? if "the states' rights arguments couldn't be made on any other issue than slavery. Yet for the most part the 'will of the people' favored abolition of slavery and a unified republic," why was the civil war fought?



well THAT's good to know. i'd hate to think the entirety of the vocal outcry against homosexuality was "JUST merely hypocritical attitudes of a Christian majority." 'cause that's totally what it looks/sounds like.



like those damned "activist judges 'legislating from the bench'" in Loving V Virginia! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia)



well, you're right that "it's not just a Christian thing" since a lot of christians don't have a problem with it. it doesn't seem to be so much "an AMERICAN thing" as much as "a 'Merican thing" (little apostrophe, BIG EM!! !). you know, like trucknuts.



because they are.



you mean "human?" or do you mean "citizen?"



well now you're just going in circles! i don't see how "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is going to be able to protect your rights if you insist on imposing your own religion on others.



oooooh! well, in that case, have at them! i didn't realize they were a minority! now i understand perfectly why we can't give them equal rights! -wait, that's stupid, at best. it could probably be better described as "evil."



yes. one of the many embarrassing parts of american history that shows hope for progress. the sheriff has no business knowing which hole i put it in.



homosexuality is not the same as murder and rape. is that really where you're going with this?



really?!? that actually is where you're going with this?! who are these "the people" who say "homosexuality is the same as murder and rape?" is this the majority of americans? the same as RAPE and MURDER???????



....



i hear that if you're unlucky enough to be born homosexual, you can just pray it away! that easy! right? right??



sign them up to be altar boys!



so indoctrinate them early!



especially when it comes to their developing sexual identity.



isn't that the truth. i can't tell you how much **** i caught from teachers for having "atheist" written on the cover of my spiral notebook.



and what if you got word that he had a crush on the gay kid?



i think you really have a point here. this is very likely to be the case. kinda like how, currently, "the rights to express opinions regarding" mexicans, "especially opposing ones, are impinged upon." i'm ok with that.



so you think that your kid's science teacher should be able to teach from the vedas? should homeopathy be a high school course? is there any religion that gets preferential treatment compared to christianity, in america?



oh... you mean "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?" are you high?



"gay" isn't a religion. "gay" isn't a country. "gay" isn't a corporation. "gay" isn't even a f***ing movement. it's not some artificial construct with doctrine, dogma, or tradition. being homosexual is as natural as being autistic. read your last paragraph with the two switched.



that sounds terribly unfair, if true. citation?



"persecution and marginalization" <-*spoing!*



obviously. hence why you didn't fixate on it at length.



they know you fixate on it. it's one of your sillier quirks, as a religion. they want you to watch their show and, like you said, their commercials.



if jesus is the only way to salvation and the promise of an eternity in heaven, be a christian. if jesus is not the only way to salvation and the promise of an eternity, christianity is false. if any other god is the only way to salvation and the promise of an eternity in heaven, christianity is false. if there is no promise of an eternity in heaven, christianity is false.

so maybe you guys should ponder that question some more, stop fixating on homosexuality, and let gay people live their lives.


or, you could always write another essay on how intolerant people like me are for pointing out your intolerance.

"so maybe you guys should ponder that question some more, stop fixating on homosexuality, and let gay people live their lives. "

Well, I tried to get a sense of that without getting lost or buried. Not sure, I succeeded, but I tink I get the quoted line.

"You guys" - in context that OUGHT to mean "you Christians, right?

Well, you can ask my brother in law how fixated I am - or my former student who told folks he appreciated how cool I was about his gaiety [actually, I never wondered about his sexuality enough to have the slightest idea].

But yeah, sure, live your life. Like the teacher who called me out of study hall to have me shower [while he showered to] was letting me live my life.

May I suggest you talk to the SPECIFIC Christians or teachers or blacks or gays or nurses or accountants or politicians who have ACTUALLY interfered with your life in whatever way you have been interfered withy, and not the entire category to which they belong. Like not all teachers and not all Texans and not all Irish Americans watched me shower. Just Mr. O'Dell.

"you guys," in context, would be christians who fixate on homosexuality to the extent that they insist on laws preventing people from marrying for love.

in context, it wouldn't even apply to christians that don't. context is always important.

"well, you're right that "it's not just a Christian thing" since a lot of christians don't have a problem with it." would be a relevant quote, though i don't blame anyone who skimmed or even skipped that whole mess. i couldn't help myself. i have a fascination with certain absurdities and christians who rant in opposition to gay marriage and then invoke the separation of church and state for made up situations is one such absurdity.

to be fair, a lot of Muslims fixate on homosexuality too.

""you guys," in context, would be christians who fixate on homosexuality to the extent that they insist on laws preventing people from marrying for love. "

Okay, let me try to get this straight.

We started with the claim [surprising to me] that Christians [general statement] are fixatred on homosexuality, coupled with the thought that the government should not be in the business of regulating homosexuality. News to me - I know there have been times and places with laws restricting certain homosexual behaviors as well as heterosexual behaviors, but I honestly was not aware that congress and the state legislatures are constantly debating what sexual behaviors and accessories should be criminalized, licensed, regulated or taxed [how would one enforce a fornication tax? Detector vans as with unlicensed TV in the UK?].

But then we move to a large statement containing a "you guys" which I thought had to mean Christians, but apparently you only meant certain Christians - those who insist on laws preventing people marrying for love.

Now I know there are laws preventing certain kinds of marriage for love [actually, I don't think the laws take motivation into account. I know about polygamy [which is very problematic given cases where a polygamous family enters the country - does Dred Scott apply?]. I know about underage unions. But I was not aware that there are other laws blocking one single adult from marrying another.

But of course you are not talking about marriage but of the state extending certain privileges and imposing certain obligations on married couples. Which is a very different thing, as has been recognized at various times throughout history when a couple counted as married for the state but not the church - or vice versa - or where slave marriages did not confer certain civil rights.

Well, the state is the state, and with the "implied consent" of the theoretically represented governed sees fit to impose taxes and zoning laws and public education requirements and restaurant hygiene standards and rules for consuming tobacco, alcohol and so on. Which you may think is none of their business, but don't pass a state trooper's car on the highway.

There are, yes, Christians [AND others, let us not fall into a fallacy] who feel the government should not spread married couple tax breaks around any further. Of course this does not affect marriage - I would be just as married if there were no joint return. But some - Christian or non, homosexual or non - see it as a big symbolic deal.

Me, I am not much on symbols - I am into truth. If you're married and you know it, clap your hands - if you don't know it, a piece of paper is not much help.

I - and I am not the only person NOR the only Christian to feel this way - would prefer it if the government did not confer knighthood on some marriages, did not tell me what pronouns to use, what symbols not to display, what to teach and what to keep from my offspring. But those people fixated on regulating other people's behavior and - if only they could - thought keep plumping for laws that keep me from smoking in my office at the university.

For the record, I do not smoke and no longer occupy a university office, but they would if I did and I had [misquoted from Flanders and Swann].

I see no evidence that Government is trying to do anything of the sort. It is alarmist nonsense to suggest otherwise.

All I see is Government freeing some religious institutions from the prohibition from doing what they might have been inclined to do. You haven't suggested to me why a Quaker community should be prohibited from celebrating a same sex union? What business does the government have interfering with their freedom of religion?



What business has the Church of England to be established in any event? Why are Roman Catholics, non-Anglican Protestants, Jews, Muslims and non-believers excluded from Establishment. Why do 26 Anglican bishops have votes in Parliament, and the Roman Catholic Primate does not?

If religion wishes to be free from government interference, then why aren't you complaining about the fact that the Prime Minister gets to nominate the two Primates the the rest of the Bishops?

This is entirely incorrect.
The state of California currently extends to same-sex couples in 'civil unions' pretty much all of the benefits granted by the state to married couples. The case currently pending in the 9th (IIrc) circuit court is about whether or not people of the state had the right to amend the constitution saying that a marriage is only between a man and a woman. The only right that this case addresses is the right to use the word, 'marriage.'