Chilly Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Someone please explain the thinking of the Christian right to me. I really don't understand it. One of the reasons why I became a Democrat and an Athiest was because of the terrible logic that they attempt to use. Example #1 from today: Texas Proposition #2 It states, and I quote: "The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage." I asked several Christians about this. They all agreed that it was a good thing that it had passed. I then talked about several news articles here in Texas talking about how if this passed it wouldn't be limited to just marriage, but it would limit lots of things. Health Insurance, medical benefits, death benefits, and etc. Currently, if a partner of the same sex is in the hospital in Texas, you aren't even allowed to see them. Even if they aren't just a friend, but a lover of the same sex. I asked the Christians that I spoke too if they felt this was "Compassionate Conservativism". They all replied with "well, gay marriage is wrong". The problem is, they didn't even acknowledge that a seperate but equal policy would be okay. They felt that since they were gay lovers, they wouldn't have the same rights as everyone else. Whatever happened to "love thy neighbor"? The Christians that I talked to, I also asked about another hot button issue, torture. I asked them, "Are you, being a Christian, fundamentally against torture?" They unanimously applied with "Yes". Then, when I asked if they supported the White House in an attempt to defeat the bill prohibiting torture, I got a positive response. In fact, pretty much everyone replied with, "Well, I don't completely know his heart and his reasoning." Uh, he's trying to defeat a resolution against torture. Christian's are against torture. How does this logic not flow? I respect Republicans who argue what they believe in, and who make some good arguments on here, and don't always side with one side just to side with it. (ex: DC TOM) But jesus, how !@#$ed up can the Christian segment of our country be that they can't see this basic stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Someone please explain the thinking of the Christian right to me. I really don't understand it. One of the reasons why I became a Democrat and an Athiest was because of the terrible logic that they attempt to use. Example #1 from today: Texas Proposition #2 It states, and I quote: I asked several Christians about this. They all agreed that it was a good thing that it had passed. I then talked about several news articles here in Texas talking about how if this passed it wouldn't be limited to just marriage, but it would limit lots of things. Health Insurance, medical benefits, death benefits, and etc. Currently, if a partner of the same sex is in the hospital in Texas, you aren't even allowed to see them. Even if they aren't just a friend, but a lover of the same sex. I asked the Christians that I spoke too if they felt this was "Compassionate Conservativism". They all replied with "well, gay marriage is wrong". The problem is, they didn't even acknowledge that a seperate but equal policy would be okay. They felt that since they were gay lovers, they wouldn't have the same rights as everyone else. Whatever happened to "love thy neighbor"? The Christians that I talked to, I also asked about another hot button issue, torture. I asked them, "Are you, being a Christian, fundamentally against torture?" They unanimously applied with "Yes". Then, when I asked if they supported the White House in an attempt to defeat the bill prohibiting torture, I got a positive response. In fact, pretty much everyone replied with, "Well, I don't completely know his heart and his reasoning." Uh, he's trying to defeat a resolution against torture. Christian's are against torture. How does this logic not flow? I respect Republicans who argue what they believe in, and who make some good arguments on here, and don't always side with one side just to side with it. (ex: DC TOM) But jesus, how !@#$ed up can the Christian segment of our country be that they can't see this basic stuff? 499147[/snapback] I'm a Republican today? Explains why I voted for Tim Kaine yesterday. But then, I wrote in myself for the county board...so what was my party affiliation then? It's not just limited to the Christian Right, though. Religion and hypocrisy frequently have gone hand-in-hand throughout history. And I wasn't aware of the wording in the Texas proposition. "[A]ny legal status..."? Wow. So if my uncle (living in Texas, and gay) were to will all his belongings to his partner, that will would then be invalid under the law as it would in effect give the partner similar legal rights as a surviving spouse? So it invalidates otherwise legal private agreements and contracts on the basis of the sexual orientation of the contracting parties? Holy sh--. That is seriously !@#$ing whacked. Did anyone bother to READ that proposition before they voted for it? Between that, San Francisco unilaterally repealling the Second Amendment, and Kansas redefining "science"...what the !@#$ planet am I living on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 10, 2005 Author Share Posted November 10, 2005 I'm a Republican today? Explains why I voted for Tim Kaine yesterday. But then, I wrote in myself for the county board...so what was my party affiliation then? I apologize if I mistook your party affiliation. Based on your posts I had always assumed you were a republican. It's not just limited to the Christian Right, though. Religion and hypocrisy frequently have gone hand-in-hand throughout history. I hear you there, I just don't understand why epople so blindly follow leaders. I don't consider myself at all as a "leader" type of person, I realize I'm a follower. Yet, I also don't think that just because someone I like thinks something, means that I should think that something. Why the difference is so unclear with religion is kinda strange. I guess though, if you are going into it with the mindset that one man can fulfill your entire religious needs, you are going to be disappointed. And I wasn't aware of the wording in the Texas proposition. "[A]ny legal status..."? Wow. So if my uncle (living in Texas, and gay) were to will all his belongings to his partner, that will would then be invalid under the law as it would in effect give the partner similar legal rights as a surviving spouse? So it invalidates otherwise legal private agreements and contracts on the basis of the sexual orientation of the contracting parties? Holy sh--. That is seriously !@#$ing whacked. Did anyone bother to READ that proposition before they voted for it? Between that, San Francisco unilaterally repealling the Second Amendment, and Kansas redefining "science"...what the !@#$ planet am I living on? 499150[/snapback] Yup, !@#$ed up isn't it? The wording is extremely ridiculous. The problem it would seem is that gay marriage si so emotional that people decide to let their emotions get better of their reason, something all too common these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I don't believe in a Hell, but I almost wish there was one just to see the look on the Christian Right's faces when they end up there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I agree that the law is bad. I don't see where it says a person cannot decide who gets his/her belongings in a will. It would unjustifiably preclude that transfer being automatic, but I don't see where it would preclude it being spelled out. A person can will his/her belongings to a cat, a perfect stranger, a homosexual lover or anyone else. The "or recognizing" part of the law is particularly disturbing, but if something can be willed to anyone, it would be hard to argue that willing it a lover constitutes recognizing a legal status that was previously held to spouses. Someone might try to argue that, but even under this screwed up law, the argument should fail. I asked several Christians about this. They all agreed that it was a good thing that it had passed. My guess is that you did not experience a random sample of the population. I'd be willing to bet that some Christians voted against it. I'd also be willing to bet that some Christians (and people of other faiths) actually employ logic in their daily lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I don't believe in a Hell, but I almost wish there was one just to see the look on the Christian Right's faces when they end up there. 499204[/snapback] Don't worry you'll see some of them there in a few years, with that attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Don't worry you'll see some of them there in a few years, with that attitude. 499232[/snapback] Spending eternity with the Christian Right would be hell for me, indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Back to the question at hand. I believe that the Catholic Church teaches that gay marriage/gay unions should not be permitted as the definition of marriage is the bonding of people in order to procreate. Since that isn't possible, the marraige cannot be legit. However, the Catholic Church as been firm in demanding that gays are treated with respect, treated fairly and just, and have are are accepted into the Church. However, if they are actively engaged in sexual relations, they are considered to be with sin and therefore ineligible to receive the sacraments. If they stay celebate, they are welcome to receive communion, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Back to the question at hand. I believe that the Catholic Church teaches that gay marriage/gay unions should not be permitted as the definition of marriage is the bonding of people in order to procreate. Since that isn't possible, the marraige cannot be legit. However, the Catholic Church as been firm in demanding that gays are treated with respect, treated fairly and just, and have are are accepted into the Church. However, if they are actively engaged in sexual relations, they are considered to be with sin and therefore ineligible to receive the sacraments. If they stay celebate, they are welcome to receive communion, etc... 499238[/snapback] This is not a slam on the church, but an honest question -- aren't all in the congregation considered with sin, hence the need for confessions? Why would gay acts be on a different level? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 This is not a slam on the church, but an honest question -- aren't all in the congregation considered with sin, hence the need for confessions? Why would gay acts be on a different level? 499245[/snapback] You are correct. And if you do not go to confession, you cannot receive the sacraments. That is the thing about this, part of confession and repentance, is that you agree to the penance and you agree not to do that act any longer. According to the Church if you are gay, go to confession, ask for forgiveness it is forgiven, and that is all the priest can do. However the actual forgiveness is from you to God, and part of that agreement means you will not do it again. If you fully intend to walk out and continue to engage in the same sin, then the forgiveness is not granted. Does that explain it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Well, be sure you talk to muslims too, because I'm pretty sure they're against homosexual marraige too. Maybe the Hindus or Buddhists will take you in with warm and accepting embraces. You sound like a bigot, btw. Substitute "!@#$s" for "christians" and the limpwrists around here would be throwing a fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 You are correct. And if you do not go to confession, you cannot receive the sacraments. That is the thing about this, part of confession and repentance, is that you agree to the penance and you agree not to do that act any longer. According to the Church if you are gay, go to confession, ask for forgiveness it is forgiven, and that is all the priest can do. However the actual forgiveness is from you to God, and part of that agreement means you will not do it again. If you fully intend to walk out and continue to engage in the same sin, then the forgiveness is not granted. Does that explain it? 499248[/snapback] Yeah, thanks. You know from my post history that I don't agree with it, but I follow the logic. Appreciate the explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I don't believe in a Hell, but I almost wish there was one just to see the look on the Christian Right's faces when they end up there. 499204[/snapback] you have no argument to make here. in the "SF Handgun" thread you paved the way that all the citizens need to know is that there was a majority vote. no questions and no arguements allowed to follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Yeah, thanks. You know from my post history that I don't agree with it, but I follow the logic. Appreciate the explanation. 499257[/snapback] You also must understand that while Catholics are Christians not all Christians are Catholic. Therefore each may have different rules. In addition, just because that is the teaching, it doesn't mean everyone knows, understand or agrees with it. Got that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 BF's first mistake is mixing politics with Religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 You also must understand that while Catholics are Christians not all Christians are Catholic. Therefore each may have different rules. In addition, just because that is the teaching, it doesn't mean everyone knows, understand or agrees with it. Got that? 499280[/snapback] No question. I was raised Methodist and still adhere to a lot of what I was raised with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 no questions and no arguements allowed to follow. 499267[/snapback] Where did I say that it couldn't be questioned or argued? Just because there was a majority vote does not mean I have to agree with it, it only means that I would have to abide by it. There is a system in place where if the minority do not agree with the majority they can turn to the courts to determine if the rights of the minority are being infringed by the will of the majority. "The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage." I believe this amendment (as worded) goes too far. It seems to me that there are plenty of rights getting trampled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 You also must understand that while Catholics are Christians not all Christians are Catholic. Therefore each may have different rules. In addition, just because that is the teaching, it doesn't mean everyone knows, understand or agrees with it. Got that? 499280[/snapback] i hope i don't regret this....but since you didn't distinguish i will ask....do you think all Catholics are Christian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Where did I say that it couldn't be questioned or argued? Just because there was a majority vote does not mean I have to agree with it, it only means that I would have to abide by it. There is a system in place where if the minority do not agree with the majority they can turn to the courts to determine if the rights of the minority are being infringed by the will of the majority. I believe this amendment (as worded) goes too far. It seems to me that there are plenty of rights getting trampled. 499312[/snapback] Like when someone at a public office wants to string some Christmas lights across her desk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Like when someone at a public office wants to string some Christmas lights across her desk. 499345[/snapback] She should be able to do that in her work space. She can probably even have a nativity scene at her desk. But if she wanted to tack crosses all over a public building (not just her space) then there should be some questions about that because then it gets into whether the government should be representing one particular religion above others. Personally, I don't see why people would get offended if there was a holiday party that was a blanket celebration for everyone -- people who aren't religious can celebrate the coming days off if nothing else. It's not as if people are so offended by religious display that they'll go work on Christmas to spite the religious right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts