The World only Spins Forward -- Anna Quinlen gets it

[MNSnowman]

From her most recent column in Newsweek:


One of my favorite Supreme Court cases is Loving v. Virginia (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Virginia), and not just because it has a name that would delight any novelist. It's because it reminds me, when I'm downhearted, of the truth of the sentiment at the end of "Angels in America," Tony Kushner (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Tony+Kushner)'s brilliant play: "The world only spins forward."


Here are the facts of the case, and if they leave you breathless with disbelief and rage it only proves Kushner's point, and mine: Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Richard+Loving) got married in Washington, D.C. They went home to Virginia, there to be rousted out of their bed one night by police and charged with a felony. The felony was that Mildred was black and Richard was white and they were therefore guilty of miscegenation, which is a $10 word for bigotry. Virginia, like a number of other states, considered cross-racial matrimony a crime at the time.


It turned out that it wasn't just the state that hated the idea of black people marrying white people. God was onboard, too, according to the trial judge, who wrote, "The fact that He separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." But the Supreme Court, which eventually heard the case, passed over the Almighty for the Constitution, which luckily has an equal-protection clause. "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man," the unanimous opinion striking down the couple's conviction said, "fundamental to our very existence and survival


That was in 1967.


Full column here (http://www.newsweek.com/id/169157)

I'd prefer that we follow the course taken in several different countries (e.g. France, Japan). Couples obtain a civil union (not marriage) from the state that provides legal and contextual definitions to the relationship. If they so wish, they can then marry in a church that provides the religious definitions to the relationship. Civil unions would be granted to two people who willingly participate regardless of whether they are same-sex or heterosexual. The government stays out of telling churches what to do and churches decide whether to extend religious marriage to the couple.

(BTW, I searched for the earlier thread on Prop 8 but don't believe it was ported over from the old board.)
<!--AD BEGIN-->

[Schnoodler]

It would seem to be the logical resolution. The government get's out of the marriage business and leaves it to the churches.

[Gopher4Life]

>>...churches decide whether to extend religious marriage to the couple.<<

Don't you think that's an open invitation for "religious" denominations of all sorts to merrily do their own things with or without scriptural guidance?

[Schnoodler]

They already do that G4. That won't change.

[Gopher4Life]

I'm afraid you have a point. That's why I placed "religious" in quotes. There seem to be a lot of false prophets out there practicing Christianity Lite.

[Schnoodler]

I think everbody is "christian lite" in somebody's eyes, don't you think. What makes you think you got it right? I don't think there's a church out there that thinks they got it wrong.

[Gopher4Life]

It's not up to me to decide. Its' not even up to a preacher or a church to decide. It's about adherence to God's Word.

[Schnoodler]

you don't even know what God's word is. You've only got a good guess. And you what, a lot of other folk have guesses too, and they think they got the right version. Your guess is no better than theirs.

[MNSnowman]

G4L writes:
It's not up to me to decide

Amen.

[diehard]

I know what God's Word is. He talks to me and tells me. There is no doubt. If you would listen to your Creator instead of telling Him how and what He got wrong, you would know what His Word is too. Notice references to my Maker are capitalized, while references to myself and my ego are not.

[Gopher4Life]

That doesn't mean that liberals are free to make up their own theology, disregarding Scripture. The result has been the proliferation of various sorts of Christian-ish denominations, or what I term Christianity Lite.

Schnoodler,
You apparently believe that rationalization. However, much of our Holy Scripture is very, very clear.

diehard,
Good post.

[Schnoodler]

Only to you pal. And why isn't another group free to make up there own theology? Or to interpret the scripture in a way that you might disagree with, that maybe doesn't agree with what is very, very clear to you.

[monk10]

I know what God's Word is. He talks to me and tells me. There is no doubt. If you would listen to your Creator instead of telling Him how and what He got wrong, you would know what His Word is too. Notice references to my Maker are capitalized, while references to myself and my ego are not.

Gotta agree God is still speaking.
http://www.ucc.org/god-is-still-speaking/

[From the Barn]

The result has been the proliferation of various sorts of Christian-ish denominations, or what I term Christianity Lite.


Like all of protestantism?

[Schnoodler]

how about all of christianity. Jesus was a Jew, his goal was the inclusion of others into the jewish faith, not another religion. So really until G4 returns to the Jewish faith he is following a non made up scriptural base.

[diehard]

Amen, Brother Monk. If all came to the Lord, many would be healed.

[From the Barn]

Amen, Brother Monk. If all came to the Lord, many would be healed.

I think you might want to read of on the UCC, they would seem to fall under some people heres definition of "pseudo-christianity".

[MNSnowman]

That doesn't mean that liberals are free to make up their own theology, disregarding Scripture. The result has been the proliferation of various sorts of Christian-ish denominations, or what I term Christianity Lite.

And as you wrote, it's not your decision to make. I'm saddened that you acknowledge this yet insistently place your judgment above His.

The result of this behavior has been a proliferation of so-called Christians and churches who place more value on excluding "liberals" -- despite the fact that liberal theology rests upon the concepts of Loving God and Loving One Another. Far too much energy is spent by those same so-called Christians and churches on proclaiming why their theology is better -- and far too little on actually demonstrating Christ's love and acting upon His commandments in Mark 12: 28-35.

[From the Barn]

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.
G4L, like it or not, you are on the wrong side of history. And whether you are around when people can marry regardless of their sexual orientation, or whether it happens when you are long gone, it will happen, and there is nothing you can do about it.

[Gopher4Life]

>>I'm saddened that you acknowledge this yet insistently place your judgment above His.<<

I don't think I do that at all. I remind people that God has promised to be a loving but harsh judge in spite of the well-intentioned follies we've invented to make us feel good. I don't believe the Holy Bible is a living document in the sense that we are free to change, reject, or accept its contents as we see fit. There ain't no line item veto when it comes to the Bible.

>>...proclaiming why their theology is better...<<

I don't think it's a matter of better or worse. It's a question of following the whole message or ignoring the parts we don't really care for. It all boils down to accepting the entirety of inspired scripture as given to us or fashioning new theology for every new age. Some of us take a very conservative approach; others are more comfortable branching out.

[Schnoodler]

>>I'm saddened that you acknowledge this yet insistently place your judgment above His.<<

I don't think I do that at all. I remind people that God has promised to be a loving but harsh judge in spite of the well-intentioned follies we've invented to make us feel good. I don't believe the Holy Bible is a living document in the sense that we are free to change, reject, or accept its contents as we see fit. There ain't no line item veto when it comes to the Bible.

>>...proclaiming why their theology is better...<<

I don't think it's a matter of better or worse. It's a question of following the whole message or ignoring the parts we don't really care for. It all boils down to accepting the entirety of inspired scripture as given to us or fashioning new theology for every new age. Some of us take a very conservative approach; others are more comfortable branching out.


Which bible is it that we're all suppose to follow verbatim? I want to make sure I get the right one.

[MNSnowman]

I'll let God decide whether you're making a judgment when you refer to certain churches and/or denominations as "Christianity Lite" (or "Christian-ish").


There ain't no line item veto when it comes to the Bible.

And yet, modern Christians disregard dietary and other prohibitions identified in Leviticus 11. And work with lepers despite Leviticus 13. And some modern Christian males forego circumcision. Nope, no line item vetoes when it comes to the bible.

[From the Barn]

"I don't think I do that at all. I remind people that God has promised to be a loving but harsh judge"

Either proclaim you're a deity, or stop judging. Do neither and continue to be a hypocrite.

[Gopher4Life]

You all judge me, yet I'm expected to shut up, live and let live, and adopt "I'm okay, you're okay"? The truth is in front of our eyes for those who will accept it. Various popular, comforting, but uninspired modern versions of the truth are also out there. We were all given free will and the right to select the path we will follow.

[Schnoodler]

You all judge me, yet I'm expected to shut up, live and let live, and adopt "I'm okay, you're okay"? The truth is in front of our eyes for those who will accept it. Various popular, comforting, but uninspired modern versions of the truth are also out there. We were all given free will and the right to select the path we will follow.


Not speaking for others, but what I object to is the "I'm OK, and if you don't think like me you're NOT OK" crap.

If you would stop at I'm OK, I'd be fine with it.

[bga1]

So if a church decides to give one man three mariage certificates to three women- what to do?

A church decides to allow a man to marry a dog? What to do?

Just give them marital status the equal of normal heterosexual marriage and call it a day?

[Schnoodler]

You do realize BGA that it is perfectly legal for a man to live with three women.

And it's perfectly legal for a man to love his dog, just not sexually.

This is the point, what a church does need not be consistent with what government does.

[bga1]

diehard has it right. One can KNOW the truth. I know this for certain - Jesus Christ is the Son of God and is the one true vine and the one path to God. God has stated with clarity that the proof is in all of creation also buried in our hearts. He not anyone here is the judge, but he asks that those who hear the Word spread the Word- not to exclude but rather to include. Not out of malice or arrogance but out of love. The acceptance of Christ does not make one better than those who have not. It only make them better off. The acceptance of Christ is not statement of personal perfection - far from it. Rather it is a statement of surrender and an admission of imperfection.

[bga1]

[QUOTE=Schnoodler;2198]You do realize BGA that it is perfectly legal for a man to live with three women.

Live with: yes it is.

And it's perfectly legal for a man to love his dog, just not sexually.

By what moral basis - without religion - could a man marrying a dog be excluded legally?

[From the Barn]

An animal is not capable or rationale thought, and lacks opposable thumbs necessary to sign a marriage license.

[From the Barn]

I know this for certain - Jesus Christ is the Son of God and is the one true vine and the one path to God.

Prove it.

[bga1]

I don't have to prove it to you. That's your job and your choice to seek it or not. I know it. The proof for all man will be seen on one day when every knee will bow and every tongue will confess. The proof for a believer is known in the heart and seen in the Word. Faith is the assurance of things not seen and in faith is the victory.

The beautiful thing, From the Barn, is that the choices are yours- a believer offers you only information not force. What is available to me is available to you as well.

[Gopher4Life]

From the Barn,

Being a wise a$$ is one thing. Being part of the problem is another altogether.

[Gopher4Life]

Schnoodler,

>>what I object to is the "I'm OK, and if you don't think like me you're NOT OK" crap.<<

I think you might be making up crap and missing the point.

I'm not okay, but I'm trying. Nobody has to think as I do, but deviating from scripture while contending to be on the right track is not okay either. This I believe, and agnostics and skeptics will not dissuade me.

[From the Barn]

I don't have to prove it to you. That's your job and your choice to seek it or not. I know it. The proof for all man will be seen on one day when every knee will bow and every tongue will confess. The proof for a believer is known in the heart and seen in the Word. Faith is the assurance of things not seen and in faith is the victory.

The beautiful thing, From the Barn, is that the choices are yours- a believer offers you only information not force. What is available to me is available to you as well.

You see, the thing is, a believer and a knower are not the same thing.

[From the Barn]

And will you two just admit you want a christian theocracy and we can all move on?

[monk10]

Another moon cycle passes, and another thread of Christians attacking Christians. Still haven't found any poster who follows the Bible to the word. Lots of picking and choosing going on. Lots of feathers puffing out.

[Schnoodler]

Schnoodler,

>>what I object to is the "I'm OK, and if you don't think like me you're NOT OK" crap.<<

I think you might be making up crap and missing the point.

I'm not okay, but I'm trying. Nobody has to think as I do, but deviating from scripture while contending to be on the right track is not okay either. This I believe, and agnostics and skeptics will not dissuade me.


I stand corrected. If you would stop at the "I'm not OK" that would be fine.

[bigtenchamps1899]

i think that rationalizing that anything is "good" as long as it is "progress" or "progressive" is a dangerous idea. yes the world only spins forward, but the world's spinning has a purpose, a beginning and an end. i am not worried that the end result of the world spinning forward is going to be harmful for our society (although it will in the long run--the world is very slowly being attracted to the sun until one day POOF in a big fireball--but i still know how it will affect us in the long run).

but when we start talking about "progressive" ideology, no one knows to where we will be progressing. no one knows what the consequence of our "progress" might be.

comparing prop 8 to centuries of racism is wrong, and bordering on intentional misleading. it says that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in california. that has been the de facto definition of marriage for millenia. the proposition is a reaction to unelected officials in california attempting to define marriage de jure. if anyone can cleary state where this seismic shift in social institutions will lead, i will listen. but the simple fact is that no one knows how this may affect society. "progressives" say: well it is progressive so it must be good. but that only scans if progress for the sake of progress can be considered good

[From the Barn]

And women not being allowed out of the home, and slavery, and all sorts of abominations were not only considered acceptable, but mandated by those in power, and considered de facto for millenia as well. . Progressives were mocked, ridiculed, and some killed for thinking that just because something is the way it is and the way is was is not the way it should be. No one knew how women having rights, or blacks having freedom would affect society either. Other than making baby jesus cry, no one has yet given a reason why this would harm society.

[bga1]

Here's believing- when I was little I touched a hot stove in defiance of my mother. Now I believe it's hot and dangerous. In fact I know it. I once defied God, then I believed and now I know for sure. First you have faith- then you know.

Everything is done by faith, some things in greater measures.

[bigtenchamps1899]

And women not being allowed out of the home, and slavery, and all sorts of abominations were not only considered acceptable, but mandated by those in power, and considered de facto for millenia as well. . Progressives were mocked, ridiculed, and some killed for thinking that just because something is the way it is and the way is was is not the way it should be. No one knew how women having rights, or blacks having freedom would affect society either. Other than making baby jesus cry, no one has yet given a reason why this would harm society.
few problems there Barn, first, these abominations were not [I]de facto[I] but were in fact protected by law, [I]de jure[I].
second, i am talking about the social institution of marriage--morally a good institution. i am not talking about slavery and programs of denigrating women--morally bad institutions. the two are not analogous.
third, if i was one who got offended easy--which i am not, i would point out that you are implying that, just because i asked how disrupting the established institution of marriage, i am similar to those who "mocked, ridiculed, [or] killed" those "progressives" of the past. this is a form of [I]ad hominem[I]attack. maybe if you can get people to associate me with bigots of the past, then they will start believing that i am a bigot. it is also a way to shut down open and honest debate. because no one wants to be associated with a bigot, i won't air my concerns--mo matter how deep they are.

my question was simple and was not bigoted--how is redefining the institution marriage going to effect our society? i also said i am willing to listen if anyone has any reason to think that it won't affect society at all--but if there is no way to know whether altering this institution will have a positive or negative effect, then we should be having an open and honest discussion about its consequences.

i never made any implications on same-sex marriage--but perhaps you didn't read carefully enough.:)

[bga1]

monk- define what a "Christian" is in your view. Thanks

[From the Barn]

"i am not talking about slavery and programs of denigrating women--morally bad institutions"
Morally bad now. Not 400 years ago.

If you feel that gays do not have the same rights as heterosexuals, you are a bigot.

[bga1]

From the Barn- If you feel that someone that believes that way is a bigot - then you are a bigot.

Homosexuals have every single right that heterosexuals have - except they do not have the right to change the definition of marriage- to include their own particular sexual behavior. Society has chosen to favor the relationship between a man and a woman throughout history becasue these relationships are beneficial to society and the basis for the future of any society. This does not mean that these relationships cannot exist or are they denied any rights, they are only not offered any special rights because their sexual behavior does nothing to advance our future.

[From the Barn]

Because homosexuality is a choice, right?

[MNSnowman]

if there is no way to know whether altering (the) institution (of marriage) will have a positive or negative effect, then we should be having an open and honest discussion about its consequences.

Nice trick. If we don't know if it has a positive or negative effect, what "consequences" are going to be subject to this "open and honest discussion?"

[From the Barn]

becasue these relationships are beneficial to society and the basis for the future of any society

In light of continued overpopulation, gay marriage might just be what the world needs.

[MNSnowman]

Homosexuals have every single right that heterosexuals have - except they do not have the right to change the definition of marriage- to include their own particular sexual behavior.Do heterosexuals have the right to maintain -- or change -- the definition of marriage? If not, who or what does?


Society has chosen to favor the relationship between a man and a woman throughout history becasue these relationships are beneficial to society and the basis for the future of any society.Is this in addition to -- or in place of -- your past assertions that biblical injunctions outlawed homosexual acts and thus the concept of marriage must be denied in order to live in harmony with said injunctions?


This does not mean that these relationships cannot exist or are they denied any rights, they are only not offered any special rights because their sexual behavior does nothing to advance our future. Actually in Florida, gay/lesbian couples have been denied the ability (right?) to adopt. A juvenile court judge just ruled that this was a denial of rights and overturned the application of Florida law. Or is the right to adopt a "special right?"


__________________

"This is our time to turn the page on the policies of the past ... to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love."



<!-- / message --> <!-- controls --> http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/boards/images/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/boards/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2352)

[Ski U Mah Gopher]

Right now there are a couple states where gay marriage and civil unions have been in effect for 4-6 years. Vermont and Massachusetts. Massachusetts had a low divorce rate in 2003, before gay marriage. And in 2004-2005 the rate went down.

Lowest Divorce Rates in State Favorable to Gay Marriage (http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2006/07/lowest-divorce/)

[bga1]

Because homosexuality is a choice, right?

It is both a born tendency and a choice. One may be born prone to alcholism, addictive behavior, lying, angry behavior, violent aggressive behavior- all of these things can be born tendencies. In each case the behavior becomes no more legitimate because the tendency is born in. All of these things are born into us as a result of sin in the world and we all have sin issues to battle. But these are issues that are meant to be resisted not legitimized. None of us are perfect and we all need grace and we all need to be loved by others. By the same token we should not be taking our issues and selling them upon society as a right way to act.

[From the Barn]

It is both a born tendency and a choice. One may be born prone to alcholism, addictive behavior, lying, angry behavior, violent aggressive behavior- all of these things can be born tendencies. In each case the behavior becomes no more legitimate because the tendency is born in. All of these things are born into us as a result of sin in the world and we all have sin issues to battle. But these are issues that are meant to be resisted not legitimized. None of us are perfect and we all need grace and we all need to be loved by others. By the same token we should not be taking our issues and selling them upon society as a right way to act.

You have any science that supports that?

[bga1]

You have any science that supports that?

Sure. Read- Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth- Jeffrey Satinover MD

I'm sure we agree that homosexulaity has some elements of a born tendency right? So now we are just discussing whether one can has any choice in that matter. This book for one contends that there is a large choice factor involved.It is often reported that homosexuality is nearly impossible to turn from. But studies show much the opposite. Some of these are cited in the book.

What scientific evidence have you uncovered to the contrary?

[bga1]

Right now there are a couple states where gay marriage and civil unions have been in effect for 4-6 years. Vermont and Massachusetts. Massachusetts had a low divorce rate in 2003, before gay marriage. And in 2004-2005 the rate went down.

Lowest Divorce Rates in State Favorable to Gay Marriage (http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2006/07/lowest-divorce/)

For the sake of accuracy, the state of Massachusetts also has a very low and declining rate of people getting married. (Look it up) So if you have a historically low rate of marriage and also a declining rate of marriage is VERY likely that you will also see a low rate of divorce (per thousand people- per the statistics collected).
California another state that is known for it's high morals also has a low divorce rate. :)

You are essentially repeating propaganda from gay and lesbian groups.

If all states followed the pattern of Mass and trended toward more and more gay marriage and less and less heterosexual marriage do you think society will be better off? I don't.

One other thing- I believe it was you who earlier mentioned that we have an overpopulation problem. In most nations the opposite exists. In many countries we are now getting older on average and not replacing our population fast enough to support the aging population. We could use millions more productive citizens.

[From the Barn]

Sure. Read- Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth- Jeffrey Satinover MD

I'm sure we agree that homosexulaity has some elements of a born tendency right? So now we are just discussing whether one can has any choice in that matter. This book for one contends that there is a large choice factor involved.It is often reported that homosexuality is nearly impossible to turn from. But studies show much the opposite. Some of these are cited in the book.

What scientific evidence have you uncovered to the contrary?

Twin studies.

Now, when did you choose to be straight?

[From the Barn]

Sure. Read- Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth- Jeffrey Satinover MD

Same guy? (http://www.quantgen.com/) The same guy that was part of Clarence Thomas's nomination legal team. Do you have any non-ideologue/respected scientists to help you out?

[bga1]

Same guy? (http://www.quantgen.com/) The same guy that was part of Clarence Thomas's nomination legal team. Do you have any non-ideologue/respected scientists to help you out?

I hear Obama supported Reverand Wright and Bill Ayers :) - you mean that kind of association?

Translation: ideologue = disagrees with you. This is a popular device- if someone agrees with a view from the right by whatever means -then he/she is an ideologue. It's perfect if you can autmatically disqualify anyone that happens to hold a different view than you. You may want to read his book- considering you obviously are not a biased ideologue type. :) Tons of scientific facts are cited from a variety of sources.

As to the Clarence Thomas team I have no idea -this guy that I am citing is an MD by profession. If he somehow supported Thomas- good for him. So do I.

[From the Barn]

When did you choose to straight?
Why won't you admit you want this country to be a christian theocracy?
Your silence is deafening.

[From the Barn]

I hear Obama supported Reverand Wright and Bill Ayers :) - you mean that kind of association?

Translation: ideologue = disagrees with you. This is a popular device- if someone agrees with a view from the right by whatever means -then he/she is an ideologue. It's perfect if you can autmatically disqualify anyone that happens to hold a different view than you. You may want to read his book- considering you obviously are not a biased ideologue type. :) Tons of scientific facts are cited from a variety of sources.

As to the Clarence Thomas team I have no idea -this guy that I am citing is an MD by profession. If he somehow supported Thomas- good for him. So do I.

Surely, in all the world there must be a scientist without an agenda that agrees with you?

[BornandRaisedGopher]

ignore

[Sour1729]

It is both a born tendency and a choice. One may be born prone to alcholism, addictive behavior, lying, angry behavior, violent aggressive behavior- all of these things can be born tendencies. In each case the behavior becomes no more legitimate because the tendency is born in. All of these things are born into us as a result of sin in the world and we all have sin issues to battle. But these are issues that are meant to be resisted not legitimized. None of us are perfect and we all need grace and we all need to be loved by others. By the same token we should not be taking our issues and selling them upon society as a right way to act.

LOL.

bga, what exactly is it that makes you think homosexuality is a choice, aside from the ONE doctor you posted earlier? You think homosexuals can simply change their "tendencies" and become heterosexual, so then I will ask you if you think you could change your own (i'm assuming straight, or at least in the closet) "tendencies" and become gay. Should be easy, right?

This whole thing is laughable. I once met someone who told me that people cannot be born gay because God doesn't make humans that way. He said it was impossible for homosexuals to just have different brain chemistry than heterosexuals. I then asked him how any number of people are born with any different mental capacities, be it a super genius, someone with autism, or any sort of mental retardation. I don't even remember his response, but I think it was something about God tricking us with dinosaur bones to test our faith.

[bga1]

The real answer is that sin is in the world and it is hard to conquer for everyone. Is it hard for homosexuals to change? Of course? Is it hard to reform sex offenders . of course. Is it hard to get a serial cheater to reform? Of course? Is it hard to quit drugs? Of course. Is it hard to stopp smoking? Of course. If you read the book I referenced it has statistics from independent studies (not by this "one doctor") about people who have attempted and succeeded changing their homosexual lifestyle. Those stats are on par with recovery rates from other issues.

God did not make us this way. We chose to be this way. And the Bible clearly states that the sins of the fathers are passed through four generations. The exact sin? No but the effects of sin and the tendency to sin is passed to all of us in one form or another.

[bga1]

From the Barn- who is attempting to change the laws? Me? Christians? Nope. It's those who believe as you do (Yes you are pushing a belief system here- let's call it secular humanism). I just want the laws to remain as they have been. It's been very successful. The nation was ounded by Christians who meant for the nation to follow Judeo- Christian mroals and ethics but it was never found to tyranize anyone. Thwarting homosexual marital rights is hardly Christian tyranny.

[From the Barn]

. And the Bible clearly states that the sins of the fathers are passed through four generations.

Healing of the blind man?

[From the Barn]

I have no doubt that they could change their "lifestyle" but being gay is not merely a lifestyle choice.

[MNSnowman]

who is attempting to change the laws? Me? Christians? Nope. It's those who believe as you do (Yes you are pushing a belief system here- let's call it secular humanism).bga refuses to accept that there are Christians who have reached different conclusions regarding homosexuality.

Yes, Fundamental Christians and some other Christians (e.g. the Roman Catholic Church) are not attempting to change the laws.

However, there are other Christians who believe the laws are wrong and who lobbied and voted against Prop 8 (and other similar referenda and legislative initiatives) and who lobby for legislation that would extend the right of civil marriage to gay/lesbian couples. To marginalize these Christians as "secular humanists" is typically exclusive behavior and thought within the Religious Right.

[bga1]

I accept that other Christians may disagree. I find no evidence to support their disagreement in the Bible, which is exceedingly clear on the issue.

[From the Barn]

From the Barn- who is attempting to change the laws? Me? Christians? Nope. It's those who believe as you do (Yes you are pushing a belief system here- let's call it secular humanism). I just want the laws to remain as they have been. It's been very successful. The nation was ounded by Christians who meant for the nation to follow Judeo- Christian mroals and ethics but it was never found to tyranize anyone. Thwarting homosexual marital rights is hardly Christian tyranny.

Are all laws just?