Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

12/18/2009 11:43:11 AM · #3101

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
In theory a Christian should treat a person better than anyone else would treat that same person....

Uh.... no.

I wrote that statement knowing that you would disagree with it. I didn't expect you to agree with it because nobody can possibly agree with that statement unless they know and understand God's love (i.e. are a Christian). You can think I'm crazy if you'd like. I'm cool with that.

scalvert

12/18/2009 11:48:33 AM · #3102

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

nobody can possibly agree with that statement unless they know and understand God's love (i.e. are a Christian). You can think I'm crazy if you'd like. I'm cool with that.

Do you think openly gay Episcopal, Anglican and Lutheran bishops and priests understand God's "love?" I'm willing to bet they have a better understanding of the Bible than you or I. If memory serves Louis was also a seminary student, so it would be foolish to think he's ignorant on the subject.

12/18/2009 11:55:34 AM · #3103

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
nobody can possibly agree with that statement unless they know and understand God's love (i.e. are a Christian). You can think I'm crazy if you'd like. I'm cool with that.

Do you think openly gay Episcopal, Anglican and Lutheran bishops and priests understand God's "love?" I'm willing to bet they have a better understanding of the Bible than you or I. If memory serves Louis was also a seminary student, so it would be foolish to think he's ignorant on the subject.

I don't believe that anyone can fully understand God's love except for God. I don't think openly gay Episcopal, Anglican, or Lutheran bishops and priests understand God's love any better than any other Christian. God's love is a mystery to us. Are you assuming that I'm not educated in the Bible? I'm not saying anyone is ignorant.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

12/18/2009 11:57:15 AM · #3104

Originally posted by scalvert:

If memory serves Louis was also a seminary student, so it would be foolish to think he's ignorant on the subject.

Not a seminary student, just a student in a faith-based school system to age eighteen with serious aspirations to the seminary. My education was leading me there and I was following willfully. But I immodestly say you're right in suggesting I was (and am) not ignorant of the content of the bible and its meaning from the perspective of the faithful.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

12/18/2009 12:28:12 PM · #3105

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
In theory a Christian should treat a person better than anyone else would treat that same person....

Uh.... no.

Like Louis said...NO. I would add that anyone at all familiar with history would know that such is NOT the case.

Ray

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

12/18/2009 12:36:36 PM · #3106

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
In theory a Christian should treat a person better than anyone else would treat that same person....

Uh.... no.

Like Louis said...NO. I would add that anyone at all familiar with history would know that such is NOT the case. (OOPS... You are right after all...You did say "In theory" and did use the word "should"... My apologies for missing the obvious. :O)

Ray

Message edited by author 2009-12-18 12:37:53.

12/18/2009 12:47:52 PM · #3107

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Well... I did say in theory a Christian should treat a person better... and I did say in practice that is not what has happened. What I meant by that was if Christians were perfect then Christian love would be the ultimate love. Because Christians are not perfect, their love towards others is not perfect, therefore Christian love in practice is not better than the love of non-Christians.

I am well aware of the historical facts surrounding the religious institution of Christianity. My BA is in History from a Christian college and I am also a seminary student, so I like to think that I know church history fairly well.

Anyone at all familiar with the Bible would know that there is a major difference between the Christian faith and the religious institutions that claim to be Christian. Christ, or Peter, did not create a religious institution as the Catholics believe. Instead, Christ set an example for those who put their faith in him to follow (which has been confused with the institution of Christianity). It's very similar to politics actually. Democracy, as a theoretical form of government, does not exist in an ideological form (as many Americans believe it does). The form of democracy as practiced in the U.S. and other places in the world is ultimately flawed and does not reflect the ideologies of real democracy very well. Similarly, the Christian institutions do not reflect the true ideologies of the Bible very well. In other words Lutheranism, Catholicism, Anglicanism, etc. are very poor representations of Biblical principals. Orthodoxy (correct doctrine) has not been followed correctly by the institutionalized church and has failed to produce othropraxy (correct practice). Ultimately the institutionalized church is a creation of humanity or "the flesh" and is a false representation of Christianity which is a creation of God. If all Christians lived properly according to the spirit of God instead of living according to the flesh and the institutionalized church, then yes... I believe Christian love would exceed all other love.

Edit: I see your updated post. I'm glad you caught that :)

Message edited by author 2009-12-18 12:48:54.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

12/18/2009 12:49:20 PM · #3108

And now, back to your regularly scheduled discussion of gay rights, including gay marriage.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

12/18/2009 12:49:26 PM · #3109

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

In theory a Christian should treat a person better than anyone else would treat that same person....

Originally posted by Louis:

Uh.... no.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

No, you wrote that knowing that anyone with one iota of human decency would dispute it.

What makes you think that Christians have the market conered on decency?

That's where you guys step on your own, time after time.

That's just rude, and makes you come across like you think you're better than the rest of us.

You're not.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

12/18/2009 01:11:00 PM · #3110

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I believe Christian love would exceed all other love.

As long as you stand that this statement is a belief, and that you don't try and claim it as fact......

Tell me something.....can you see how distasteful this sounds to someone who simply does not believe that there's a "better" way to attain God's grace, such as being a Christian?

I searched for years for my spirituality in religion, only to find that religion has nothing to do with it.

As a matter of fact, for the most part I have no use for the religions of the world because there doesn't seem to be a one that doesn't maintain that their way is the only *right* way, and the rest......well, we know where they'll be at the final cookout, huh?

And unfortunately, it seems to be the Christians that are the most entitled, and vociferous about it. I very rarely see/hear of a Christian that genuinely loves someone fully if the other is not Christian. The love seems to be tempered with that unspoken "If only....." generally followed with the, "It's not too late...." thing.

In my view and beliefs, one God, and we're all God's children, warts & all.

12/18/2009 01:30:36 PM · #3111

@ NikonJeb

I'm not saying that Christians have conquered the market of love. I personally don't think that they have. I have seen many non-Christian people display more love than many Christians that I know. However, I do believe that a perfect Christian (basically Jesus Christ) would have a love that outshines all other love. Does that actually happen? No! Christians are not perfect, like I said before. I'm not saying that Christian love is in practice the best love, I'm saying that if Christians were perfect and love as Jesus loved then Christian love would be the best by far.

Believe me, I know that many non-Christians have gotten the love thing better than many Christians. I have seen it. I don't think you're really understanding what I'm trying to say.

I'm not trying to come across as if I think I'm better than everyone else. I'm trying to say, and I'm sorry that this hasn't been clear to you, that Jesus Christ is better than everyone else. Christians are supposed to strive to be exactly like Jesus, and if they actually achieved it then their love would be the best because it would ultimately be Christ's love being shown through that person. No Christian is better than any other person, and if a Christian does think they're better than everyone then they are way off target. That's the whole basis of Christianity. We realize and admit that we are horribly screwed up just like everyone else (or worse) and the only way to get better is to believe in the one who is better. The apostle Paul said, "I must decrease, Christ must increase". Christians are to die to sin and put to death the will of the flesh, so that they can live to God and in accordance with his will.

True Christianity is about humility, not pride. If I've come across as prideful or arrogant it's probably because you're not understanding me. So, I apologize for any misunderstanding.

Edit: This all relates to the topic of gay marriage and gay rights. Christians should not oppress anyone! God is about, "setting the captives free" as the Bible says. God is not in the business of oppression, and neither should Christians be in that business. Satan is the oppressor. God's love is unconditional. That means God loves us regardless of any human condition. I believe that Christ loved, and does love, gays, and I believe that Christians should love them too.

Message edited by author 2009-12-18 13:34:09.

scalvert

12/18/2009 01:55:15 PM · #3112

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

...nobody can possibly agree with that statement unless they know and understand God's love (i.e. are a Christian).

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I don't believe that anyone can fully understand God's love except for God... God's love is a mystery to us.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

the Christian institutions do not reflect the true ideologies of the Bible very well. In other words Lutheranism, Catholicism, Anglicanism, etc. are very poor representations of Biblical principals. Orthodoxy (correct doctrine) has not been followed correctly by the institutionalized church and has failed to produce othropraxy (correct practice).

Let me see if I've got this straight... you declare something as fact, but nobody will understand this "truth" unless they understand God's love (i.e. are a Christian). Then you go on to assert that nobody can understand God's love, and no churches follow "correct" Christian doctrine. That pretty much rules out the entire world except for (presumably) yourself, and those rare individuals who follow the Bible to the letter (insert all sorts of Biblical atrocities here). That's not a very compelling rationale for your position, and it undermines your own logical foundation.

12/18/2009 02:19:39 PM · #3113

@ scalvert

I choose my words carefully. I said nobody can agree that God's love is the ultimate love, "unless they know and understand God's love".

Then I said nobody can, "fully understand God's love except for God".

That sounds like a contradiction, but it's not. We can partially understand God's love because his love was revealed to us in the sacrifice of his son, Jesus. We can only understand God's love to the extent of what he has revealed to us. Ultimately, the fullness of God's love is a mystery to us because his love is greater than what we can see and comprehend as humans on this earth. Do you know the fullness of the love that your biological parents have or had for you? Nope. We only know how much our parents love us based on what they tell us and show us, because we cannot read their mind or know what is in their heart. The same is true for God.

Ultimately no Christian or any person can follow the Bible to the letter, and they don't have to. Before Christ, people were required to follow God's law to the letter to be righteous. But, God was merciful and allowed the Jews to make sacrifices to atone for their sins. Every sin required a sacrifice for the person to be in right standing with God, but nobody was capable of following God's law perfectly. This is why Christ came. Christ came and followed the law perfectly, but then he died (undeservedly) as a sacrifice to God. God saw this as an acceptable final sacrifice. So, when we put our faith in Christ and accept him as our savior, Christ's righteousness (which came by obeying God even to die on the cross) is imputed to us when we believe in him as savior. So, when God looks at us, he no longer sees us as people who failed to follow his law, but he instead sees Christ (who intervenes for us at the right hand of God) and his righteousness, and therefore our faith is counted as righteousness. That's the gospel in a nutshell.

Message edited by author 2009-12-18 14:31:58.

12/18/2009 02:22:21 PM · #3114

I would respectfully ask that this very off-topic conversation continue in another thread of your own making, or in one of the many religious rant threads. Thank you.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

12/18/2009 02:26:03 PM · #3115

Originally posted by Louis:

I would respectfully ask that this very off-topic conversation continue in another thread of your own making, or in one of the many religious rant threads. Thank you.

I'm just answering questions and responding to criticism. If someone wants to post questions for me elsewhere or PM me I'll reply there too.

merchillio

Nikon D80

12/18/2009 02:31:11 PM · #3116

Originally posted by Nullix:

If you're a wedding Christian photographer, you can get sued for not accepting a client who is having a gay marriage.

what? As a private business I am forced to accept any clients who contacts me? Ok, if I signed a contract, then the client have some legal rights to seek compensation (accordingly to the contract). But otherwise, I can refuse a client if I don't feel comfortable with the shoot. Oh the client can go and shoot me down in flames in the local newspaper for being an asshole. What if I'm advertising myself as a pet photographer, and someone wants to hire me to take picture of his pet snake and I don't like snakes? He can sue me for not accepting?

Nullix

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

12/18/2009 04:29:33 PM · #3117

Originally posted by merchillio:

Originally posted by Nullix:
If you're a wedding Christian photographer, you can get sued for not accepting a client who is having a gay marriage.

what? As a private business I am forced to accept any clients who contacts me? Ok, if I signed a contract, then the client have some legal rights to seek compensation (accordingly to the contract). But otherwise, I can refuse a client if I don't feel comfortable with the shoot. Oh the client can go and shoot me down in flames in the local newspaper for being an asshole. What if I'm advertising myself as a pet photographer, and someone wants to hire me to take picture of his pet snake and I don't like snakes? He can sue me for not accepting?

Originally posted by NPR Article:

On January 28, 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission heard the case of Vanessa Willock v. Elane Photography.

At the hearing, Jonathan Huguenin said that when he and his wife formed the company two years ago, they made it company policy not to shoot same-sex ceremonies, because the ceremonies conflicted with their Christian beliefs.

In April, the state human rights commission found that Elane Photography was guilty of discrimination and must pay the Willock's more than $6,600 attorneys' fee bill. The photographers are appealing to state court.

Read the article to get the whole story.

So you see, Christians will be effected with same-sex marriages. Elane Photography didn't have a contract, they just turned the business down based on their religious beliefs.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

12/18/2009 04:39:28 PM · #3118

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Edit: This all relates to the topic of gay marriage and gay rights. Christians should not oppress anyone! God is about, "setting the captives free" as the Bible says. God is not in the business of oppression, and neither should Christians be in that business. Satan is the oppressor. God's love is unconditional. That means God loves us regardless of any human condition. I believe that Christ loved, and does love, gays, and I believe that Christians should love them too.

Then this makes you *much* different from what I've seen and heard from what I'd call mainstream Christians.

Personally, I'd like to think that what is interpreted by all too many as an abomination would be looked upon much the same as what we now see as ridiculous such as owning slaves and eating pork. With knowledge and wisdom over time, we have discovered that being gay is no different than other things that make who we are as humans like smart, funny, OCD, left handed, blue-eyed, whatever......we are what we are.

Being a Christian is a choice.....being gay is not.

At least that's the way it seems to me.

12/18/2009 05:17:40 PM · #3119

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Edit: This all relates to the topic of gay marriage and gay rights. Christians should not oppress anyone! God is about, "setting the captives free" as the Bible says. God is not in the business of oppression, and neither should Christians be in that business. Satan is the oppressor. God's love is unconditional. That means God loves us regardless of any human condition. I believe that Christ loved, and does love, gays, and I believe that Christians should love them too.

Then this makes you *much* different from what I've seen and heard from what I'd call mainstream Christians.

Personally, I'd like to think that what is interpreted by all too many as an abomination would be looked upon much the same as what we now see as ridiculous such as owning slaves and eating pork. With knowledge and wisdom over time, we have discovered that being gay is no different than other things that make who we are as humans like smart, funny, OCD, left handed, blue-eyed, whatever......we are what we are.

Being a Christian is a choice.....being gay is not.

At least that's the way it seems to me.

I'm glad you are able to see a difference between my theology and mainstream Christianity. I don't know what I would call myself, I suppose I'm a conservative Christian. Mainstream Christianity is very liberal, meaning that their interpretation of the Bible is very liberal and figurative. Many times, when Christians say that homosexuality is an abomination, other people see that as Christians just picking on and discriminating against gays. The truth is, and unfortunately not all Christians agree with this, is that the Bible says all of humanity is an abomination outside of the body of Christ. According to the Bible, anything other than monogamous, heterosexual, in wedlock sex is against the will of God, meaning that it is indeed sin. But, in 21st century society I think that qualifies the VAST majority of people, and not just gays.

Here's a question. If being gay is not a choice, then what determines if a person is gay?

Message edited by author 2009-12-18 17:23:18.

12/18/2009 05:19:43 PM · #3120

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Here's a question. If being gay is not a choice, then what determines if a person is gay?

Turn it around. If being straight is not a choice, then what determines if a person is straight.

12/18/2009 05:22:39 PM · #3121

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Here's a question. If being gay is not a choice, then what determines if a person is gay?

Turn it around. If being straight is not a choice, then what determines if a person is straight.

Another good question. Who wants try answering both of them?

scalvert

12/18/2009 05:27:29 PM · #3122

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Here's a question. If being gay is not a choice, then what determines if a person is gay?

Turn it around. If being straight is not a choice, then what determines if a person is straight.

Another good question. Who wants try answering both of them?

Genetics. The same thing that determines your sex, hair color, blood type and every other physical and mental attribute. As such, it's not an issue of morality or choice at all, and makes as little sense to bar people from marrying on the basis of their sexual preference as it does for their skin color or left-handedness.

Message edited by author 2009-12-18 17:32:28.

12/18/2009 05:30:22 PM · #3123

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Go for it.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

12/18/2009 05:35:00 PM · #3124

Over time I've pondered the nature/nurture argument for homosexuality and I think I've already clearly stated my position (genetic predisposition with an environmental trigger), but really the case is not at all clear. One thing I wondered is why we tend to think of homosexuality as being separate from other "not the norm" (trying to be civil there) sexual behaviors? Do we consider the wide range of sexual fetishes to be genetic? Latex fetish? Shoe fetish? Sadism? etc. etc.? What about other sexual behaviors we still consider to be "deviant" like pedophilia? Do we consider that to be genetic as well?

It's an honest question because I sense somehow we divide homosexuality from the others when fundamentally I'm not sure why? Wouldn't they all follow the same general pattern of development? and if so, are there different genes for each?

While I think there is some evidence to support a genetic predisposition (eg. twin studies) for being gay, sometimes I think we talk in tones that are far too confident in assuming we really know what is going on.