(February 18, 2015 at 2:57 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Considering there are plenty of seething Christians out there ready to deny people their rights, it seems that their reasoning truly is the former and they just think it's the latter. People see what they want to see in the bible and are drawn to the passages that reflect how they already feel, so just because they say Jesus is the reason, it doesn't necessarily mean they haven't made a moral judgement on their own terms.
This is nice to see.
None of the posts above address the mentality of Christians that I find opposed to gay marriage and business policies on service.
1. one issue is they feel it's not recognized that some people have been healed of abuse that explains previous homosexual behavior.
many think that ALL cases of homosexuality are unnatural and are more upset and shocked this isn't being looked into seriously
(in reality, I find that such cases aren't so common, and it is overrated how many can actually change; but yes it is clear some cases are unnatural from abuse, but NOT ALL)
If the gay activists would publicly recognize some people do change and not all are natural, that would get rid of this FEAR of blanket denial that both sides are scared of.
I find most of the hype is politicized against liberals and not directly against the homosexual community which most people, even if opposed to gay marriage, do feel compassion for.
But they just don't want what they perceive to be "special rights" demonizing the opposition, and thus fueling the equal opposition to "liberal agenda."
2. the other issue is that church marriage as a religious/spiritual ceremony is separate from civil contracts and unions through the state.
This language needs to be separated, or Christians mix the two in their heads as one, because their faith requires them to obey secular authority.
They cannot always separate church from state, and marriage is going to have to, in order to open up to these other choices they don't all agree to.
If the state laws can be written neutrally where it neither endorses nor bans gay marriage, then this wouldn't be an issue of crossing the line and putting things in state laws they are religiously opposed to by their beliefs.
Otherwise, keep marriage totally private, give churches and individuals full freedom to exercise their beliefs outside the state.
And either keep just the civil unions and custody/estate/domestic contracts under the state, or divide it by party if they want to manage their separate political beliefs that way.
What Christians cannot take is forcing beliefs that violate theirs into the state through laws.
So they have to be written carefully, and passed by consensus to make sure all people are represented and nobody's rights or beliefs are excluded on either side.
===========
Note: this church-state issue in Christianity is one of the hardest things I've ever had to wrap my mind around, equalled only by how secular political beliefs can operate as creeds or religions that people cannot change. both sides think the other side should change, but these are like religious beliefs. So the govt cannot be abused to force ANY person or group to change their beliefs. Even if masked as secular in format.
It seems unconstitutional on its face for someone to "not believe in separation of church and state" but given this is a belief, it is technically supposed to be accommodated and not discriminated against by law.
Thus the only way I have found to accommodate beliefs like "right to govt health care" that cannot be separated from govt, is to either form a consensus where all sides agree anyway, or to agree how to separate such as by state or by party where this isn't mandated one way or the other by federal govt. This is why I feel we are headed for a Constitutional convention, because all these issues are bringing out political beliefs.
