A Southern Baptist church in East Waynesville, North Carolina has expelled all of its Democrats

Well, actually 9 of them have been expelled and another additional 40 left as protest.

From another message board:


This seems to signal to me another step towards not just the gradual blurring of the boundary between church and state, but a full blown theocracy.

Ten Commandments in public places, debating homosexual marriage in the context of religion (when it's a secular government policy and wouldn't have any impact on churches as they wouldn't be required to perform homosexual marriage ceremonies), prayer in schools... the list goes on..


What think you? The States heading towards a theocracy, or am I just blowing things out of proportion? Would a theocracy be such a bad thing? Why? Why not? Please submit your essays by 5:00 p.m. 500 words or less.

¬.¬ I had nothing to do with this! I swear!

So that this post is entirely not spam, yes it happens and yes I've seen it happen. Sad to say. They kicked the preacher I grew up with out because he didn't want to waste money on things we didn't need, like new mowers and a new sound system and whatnot. It's sad, but we're stubborn.

WOW.

Well I can't say I am surprised. That portion of the state (I'm from North Carolina) is very rural. A lot of people from that area are poor mountain people. Most of their views have not changed much in the last 50 years. Southern Baptists are a fiery bunch that like to preach at people. Their views are very strict and if those are rebuked in anyway the first thing they do is move to eliminate that voice of dissent. I was raised in a traditionally Southern Baptist household. To this day I can't tell my father that I am gay. Not only would it break his heart, but also he would disown me. These are just the way that these people deal with issues. They have no concept of equality, no matter if it is racial or sexual. It was not uncommon to have churches in our community to divide. Either they would have a difference in opinion or their allegiance to one preacher over another would divide the church. But once they didn't agree with each other they were done being a part of each other’s lives. Kind of sad really.

As a country you are correct. GWB has brought faith as a centerpiece of his presidency. It is harder to keep a separation of church and state when the leader of the country can't keep from blurring the lines. Most Christian religions have always given me the impression they're are just more detailed forms of parenting. Take out the garbage or you'll get a spanking- honor your mother and father or burn in hell. It just seems like a way to scare people into following your lead. The president has done the same thing with the US people. He has used war and religion to do it. However I don’t think this case can apply to the US as a whole. I think that the traditions of the Southern Baptist Church and the region may be more at play here than the policies of the US government.

See Irish is from NC, he knows. They are just a really crabby bunch.

I find it disturbing that the people break their moral values in the name of their moral values.

I don't think we're close to a theocracy. We have a bit of a cultural war going on with both sides being blown out of proportion. Some people attacking any traces of religion and the religious fanatics adding more fuel to the fire and attacking people as well. Its quite stupid really. There's so much better things to sue and fight over than a display of the ten commandments or traces of dissenting opinion by the 'left'.

The ten commandments.. bleh. They were displayed histoically I think, at least in some of these cases. I don't see why thats more harmful to humanity than than other historic displays, honestly. For some people it is religious, but some people still revere pieces of their philosophy or religion. My school had a picture of Martin Luther King, I remember quotes of various writers in some classes, ect. I don't feel displays of philosophical/religious/historic nature have so much power that they convert people on the spot. Or that their presence instantly renders an atheist null and void. But I guessing that I'm laid back and mildly biased about this issue.

The gay marriage thing is a bit more complicated. There are people who have no intention of forcing it on religion and just want to live their lives. But then there's people fighting for them to be priests, pastors and for churches to accept it. Thats very much forcing it upon people. Some of which don't feel they can agree Biblically, as the Bible speaks rather bluntly on it. People are trying to make a cultural norm. Which is fine and happy if you believe in it.. if you don't believe its an acceptable option, its not near so simple.

As for voting on it.. it gets even more fun. I can see the secular issue arguments. There's just one problem with that. When it gets posted on the ballot, that no longer matters. To religious people God's Law is usually above the law of man. So whether you should have legally voted on something doesn't matter if its laid before you. All you can do then is make the decision you believe is right.

Edit- And I think kicking people out for voting democrat is asinine. God is not a freaking political party and the republican party misses huge key values such as caring for the poor and that 'love they neighbor' bit. meh.

There's a huge difference between gay marriage and ordaining gay pastors. Gay marriage is something that everyone can vote on and which is a secular issue (though a person's religious standing on it will probably come into effect when they vote on it, which is fine). Ordaining gay clergy is a church matter. It doesn't effect anyone outside that church, so the government shouldn't get invovled, and it doesn't.

But if you want my opinion on it, I think people who happen to be gay should be allowed to be clergy.

If you believe that the Bible told us that gays are sinners: The Bible also told us that women are unclean during periods and shouldn't be allowed in the church. We shouldn't eat pork. We shouldn't take into our bodies blood or blood products. We shouldn't eat an animal that we've found dead.

Now, I know plenty of people who aren't ostracized from the communities when they have their periods, lots of Christians who eat pork and many who will quite willingly take blood transfusions and eat black pudding. And what about butcher shops and grocery stores? You buy lots of animals there that you've never even seen with their skin on, let alone running around and shitting. There are plenty of religious laws in the Bible that people (or the large majority of people) don't follow anymore and other people don't shun them. I think people realize that the Bible is a historical document and that while there are alot of good parts to it, many of the things it preaches have to be taken with a grain of salt.

And, in recent years, some say that the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah weren't actually that the people were gay, but that they were inhospitable to guests who were angels to boot.
(new international version sucks...)

It's all a bit unclear. Lot had been providing hospitality to the angels beforehand and this could have been simply a good contrast to the hospitality that Lot had provided and as such a good example of why Lot and his family deserved to be saved and why the Sodomites didn't. It could really have absolutely nothing to do with them wanting to have sex with men.

Sure. I wasn't trying to state church affairs as a political issue, but to point out that some of the gay rights activists to try to enforce their will on some churches. (Now, all activists do this as far as I can tell. Part of advancing your cause and all. I also believe that voting often includes enforcing your will on people, so.. c'est la vie.) Its more something that influences voting opinion or how people view an issue. Or why some might consider it something that involves them, rather than being a purely secular issue.



These were Jewish laws for pre-medieval times, ones that the modern church hasn't enforced as well.. we aren't Jews. Neither Jesus nor the NT have instructed Christians to follow Jewish regulations. As for the laws themselves, soap in the form we know know it didn't exist, people often didn't bathe regularly and disease was very, very hard to treat. There were also no neat pads or tampons during your period. Men were also considered unclean for a certain period of time after their bodily emissions, so hey.. equal oppertunity. These cleanliness laws likely saved a lot of lives, even if men abused the reason for them occasionally. Samonella, e-coli, colds and the regular array of illnesses weren't exactly understood. Things that promoted not touching decaying and infected meat=good.

So yes, people don't follow these laws, but they aren't required too. Hence it not being a sin to eat steak. Blood transfusions also didn't exist then, making it a reference to drinking animal blood. Which was sometimes a ritual component in sacrificing or witchcraft and not something that was used to save people's lives.



heh. I always find this a little insulting, as a literal believer. People that believe that its God's word can in fact believe that the Bible is right, over popular opinion and demand. Its not a matter of if 'if you were just smarter/wiser you'd realize its not that true'. Some people just believe differently and sadly, its set up to where we won't know 100% who's right until we die.

You're right about the grain of salt, considering that a lot of people don't realize context at first glance. Context being that you're referring to Jewish laws from a different era and that Christians aren't required to follow those laws. The Jewish laws aren't really the problem in the homosexuality debate, considering that we don't follow most of those, excepting the Ten Commandments. Those are handily backed up in the NT. The bigger problem with the homosexuality debate is that its mentioned in the NT, which is followed.



Well, there's a bit more to it than that. This was a town so corrupt that they were ready to jump two strangers and rape them. Because they were handsome, innocent or whatever. Lot proved his er, goodness by offering his two virgin daughters to the mob, which was another shining moment. Those are all sins and have to be taken into account. Which fanatics rarely do when quoting the story. heh.

As for Lot being saved, him being Abraham's nephew probably needs to be taken into consideration. Abraham was the patriach and a man generally devoted to God. Lot had contact/training about God through Abraham and Abraham likely had prayed for him at some point. As to just why Lot was spared, well.. I think you're probably right about the hospitality. Lot was the only one that even tried to protect the angels, for all his other sins and fabulous parenting.

On the slightly tangential topic that has come up: it does not seem to me as if the Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality anywhere. The citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah were not being punished for homosexuality, and that one verse in Leviticus is a lot less clear than many people make it out to be - it's definitely not obvious what kind of activity is being prohibited.

There's a lot more than that one verse in Leviticus, even when leaving out Sodom and Gomorrah.

For those that are interested, I decided a link would be more.. polite, considering the array of opinions here.

http://www.geocities.com/one_of_you_is_lying/verses.html

There goes Bush and most of the world then! A list like that does put things in perspective though: how can such values be applied to modern life when even the leaders of our countries are incapable of resisting things that are placed on an equal level with being 'sexually immoral'.

I think this is where I get stuck with fundamental Christianity. Here's a bit from the final reply I got from the creationist website people that I emailed a while ago:



I get frightened by people who say things like 'Our actions have no direct bearing on our salvation', that to me speaks of a disregard for personal responsibility and accountability.

Sorry, this has wandered rather off-topic.

Because (I hope) we don't live by what people fail to do, but by what we should do. People murder, lie and generally be abusive at times, but we don't cease to apply those values because people fail at it. (And no, I'm not comparing sexuality to murder, ect personally, so please don't flame me.)



Er.. I think (hope) he's just mentioning a part of it, in order to avoid they 'you can be saved by deeds alone' bit. Only Jesus can save us according to the Bible, sure. Actions aren't a ticket to Heaven.. but if you love God enough to follow Him and mean it.. your actions are supposed to show it. Obediance and good deeds are mentioned as the 'proof' of love. Proof that you aren't just saying it on Sundays and ignoring it 9 times out of 10 because you don't care. Like if I say I love anyone, it should show in how I treat them. I'm hoping thats what he meant. A lot of people do seem to get the idea that they must be perfect to get to heaven and make themselves miserable trying to be perfect and then failing.

The impression that I got from that guy was that all people are universally sinful and that this was their nature. I start from the opposite perspective, assuming that people naturally want to do the right things but give themselves excuses to avoid doing them because sometimes it's easier to give in and be weak.

The guy in the email gave me the distinct impression that he could happily go through six days being weak because on the seventh he would repent. More than this, his attitude suggested that he treats his weakness as proof of the Bible! Like I say, that's the kind of thing that scares me: original sin gives people the biggest scapegoat ever. 'I was made to be sinful', so rather than feeling normal when they're good they feel proud.

Normality should always be common decency. Arguing that normality is sin just develops a very dangerous precedent, it gives the anticipation that people will be evil which then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. People might say 'I beat my wife, but now I feel bad for giving in to my sinful nature', instead of 'I went outside of normal decent behaviour and beat my wife, so it's my fault'. It doesn't sound like a big difference, but it just makes the individual responsible rather than deferring blame onto a distant ancestor that even a lot of Christians are quite doubtful ever really existed. Call me crazy, but I think a religion should encourage personal responsibility rather than deferrence.

Many things that are wriiten in the bible are meant to protect society. Gay marrige will probably give a major blow to the family, and that is why it is forbidden in the bible (besides the fact that it is disobeying gods design for sex).
As for the creationists, They have no right to say who and who isn't going to hell. They've never been there. According to my religion teacher, Adolf Hitler himself could make it into heaven. It would be very difficult to do so, but it is possible according to the bible(I believe it is in the parable about the son who left his father and returned after he blew his inheritance).

Can you explain how gay marriage will be a major blow to the family? I would really like to know your rationale for that statement.

Also here is a update on the story that started this rambling thread.
http://www.wral.com/news/4462953/detail.html

Can't carry on the family bloodline if you don't have children. And last time I checked, shagging someone of the same sex doesn't result in kids.

That still doesn't explain how that is a blow to family. Children don't make a family. That line of logic eliminates heterosexual couples that can’t conceive children or chose not to have kids. Should they abstain from sex and marriage? Do they pose a blow to family as well? As far as carrying on a bloodline there is adoption and artificial insemination.

The family has consisted of a mother, father, and children for thousunds of years. Changing that has to have some sort of effect. Consider how hard it is for the children of a divorced couple to move on.

Actually...

Most psychologists have found that as long as the parents are supportive and loving, the number and gender of said parents is irrelevant. As long as the home is a stable and nurturing one, the kids will be fine.

Since you brought up children of divorced homes...gay couples tend to remain with one person longer than straight couples.

Personally I find it appalling that gay couples aren't allowed to adopt when there are so many children stuck in foster care who really need good homes.

Studies show that children raised in homosexual families are just as well adjusted as children raised in heterosexual families. Here is great article concerning it that already has it sources outlined.
http://www.ucc.uconn.edu/~britner/borisjuk.html
I find that the biggest worry of kids growing up in a homosexual household is being picked on in school. Now whose fault is that? The child with gay parents or the children doing the picking on. I don't think the problem is with the children of homosexuals as much as the children who are brought up with a lack of tolerance for people with different religious, social and sexual beliefs as their parents.

Again with that line of reasoning should we not allow people to get divorced? Or should we bar people who have a high probability of divorce from getting married or bare children? As far as "family has consisted of a mother, father, and children for thousands of years" there have been single parent families for just as long. As well as homosexual families. Just cause you don't hear about them doesn't mean they are not around. I think that heterosexual couples are striking a blow to family without any help from homosexuals at all. Almost 50% of marriages end in divorce ( http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml ) and homosexuals are fighting for a opportunity that they toss away.

I fail to see how two blokes living together and wearing wedding rings affects a traditional family living 3 states away. Whether or not you allow gay marriage has no bearing on whether gay folk are going to be living together or not. All it changes is the legal nature of their union while they're living together.

As pointed out, heterosexual relationships are more of a danger to 'The Family', as they're more likely to produce children who are going to affected when the parent divorce, and the family dissolves.

Mata:

Wow. I really admire your optimism, if I can't entirely comprehend where you get that from. No condescension intended. Although the Bible states it as well, my cynical view on human nature is due more to statistics, news and the yearly atrocities.



heh. I do think human weakness is proof of the Bible. I don't see how much else justifies all the evil in the world. Using original sin is a scapegoat isn't Biblical and is rather stupid. There's a difference between knowing you'll fail sometimes and working toward improvement anyway.. and not giving a damn but 'repenting' once a week or so. Pride is mentioned as a very, very bad thing. One of which for the reason you mentioned, that of calling yourself good and feeling like its okay to stop there.



I don't think them twisting doctrine makes the doctrine bad. Sin nature is never, ever mentioned as an excuse to go be bad. Its mentioned as a very damning and something thats harmful to others. Worse, something that can seperate man from God. Half hearted 'repentence' like the sort you're mentioning as slammed as well. People that choose to mis-use the original sin as an excuse, are doing just that. Twisting things is hardly limited to religion, especially if I want self justification for doing wrong.

To use your example about the wife-beating.. they don't lack excuses, the vast majority of which blame the woman. I don't think the man is taking the time to think that original sin gives him more right than her 'back talk' or whatever supposed sin is setting him off. And even if he were, well.. religion isn't required for denial. The nazi's, communists and may everyday folk abuse philosophy and more just fine.

The Bible is quite big on responsibility to God and your neighbors, even if some people conveniently 'forget' that in their daily lives. My argument is that people that want to be in denial have little trouble doing so, even with religious excuses removed. As it happens in sectors far outside religion, I'm not sure religion can really be blamed for this aspect of human nature. Like you said, people like the easy way out quite often. It is easier to give in and blame something or use excuses.

Back on the topic that this thread started on - since it's rapidly becoming a Generic Morality Thread...

I don't see how a church kicking out some of its members equals theocracy. A theocracy is when the state is controlled by the church. The church in question isn't exerting any influence on government, is it? They're a private institution, I guess that if they want to kick out all the Democrats, or Republicans, or black people, or left-handed people, or people with red hair, well, that's their business.

On gay marriage, well, there's a couple of points I wanted to bring up.

For one, gay couples and persons getting more rights and protection has coincided with a lot of things that have been quite destructive to families. Higher divorce rates, unsafe and frequent sex, child abuse, absence of parents and the list goes on. Seperating homosexuality from that list and isolating as a factor or not, would be pretty damned hard. We don't have a sample group back from conservative times with the comparatively greater rights and protection they have now and making one isn't possible. I don't really see how it can be proven, unless you argue its proven by association according to the Bible. Thats not scientific exactly, which leads us back to what you place faith in (or not).

Another point is that the Biblical view of health and harm is not the same as the ones of the average person or generally those of these studies. I'd argue that there's some radicial differences in the definition of harm here. The greatest harm would be things that seperate you from God, hurt others or cause you to sin and so on. Eternity and your soul is added into the mix. Health would involve things that brought you closer to God, as well as fulfilled you and the rest.

Accepting or being satisfied with something isn't the same thing. A lot of people are satisfied or pleased with doing some bad things. Such as stealing, lying, hurting people and so on. Some people repeat dysfunctional relationships or choices and the rest. If you place some sexual preferences in the category of sin or inappropriate, whether the children and people around them find it acceptable doesn't make it healthy by religious standards. It certainly speaks well of how individuals treat and raise children, but thats not healthy in the sense that some Christians will mean it.



People will and do bring up the divorces caused by finding out one partner is gay. While its a very sad situation, I don't think its entirely applicable considering the fear of coming out and stuff. My best guess from what I've read is that the harm would be considered people seeing it as an option and perhaps acting on it from the examples around them. What we see as an option definitely affects what we do or what we feel we can do and would there affect parents, children, ect.



Yes. Yes they are. And its horribly sad for everyone involved. heh.

The argument I saw on The Daily Kos was that the church was attempting to influence its parishoners political choices rather forcefully and therefore shouldn't have its tax exempt status. Or something along those lines. I don't think people mentioned it being illegal, beyond being stupid.

Tax-exempt status for religious institutions has always annoyed me... but that's neither here nor there. They have every right to try to influence people's political beliefs. When I argue politics on here, I'm trying to influence people's political beliefs. In fact, I'm always slightly suspicious of people who don't try to influence others - it makes me think they lack conviction.

Here is a update on this issue.

http://www.wral.com/news/4464161/detail.html

Here is the final update on this.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/10/church.po...s.ap/index.html

CommieBastard: Here's a simplified version of the article I was reading on The Daily Kos.

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll...S/50506020/1001

You can't say that these things have been increasing because of increased rights for gay people, which seems to be what you're insinuating. Eispecially promiscuity; straight people don't decide to have "unsafe and frequent sex" because gay people are allowed to. Also child abusers are not the same thing as gay people; infact they are totally different. And funnily enough most divorces are not because one partner is gay, plus we won't even know if the rate of divorce for that reason has increased because back when being gay was illegal people weren't going to state that as a reason.



If I'm quoting out of context tell me but we are talking secular, it won't hurt Christians or Muslims of whatever if other people, i.e. people who are not them, have same sex marriages in a civil ceremony. It will not hurt them because it will not affect them and it will not insult god because it's secular, secular ok? Gay people will live together anyway and a marriage just gives decent inheritence and property rights. People who are not Christians (or Musilims or whatever) should not be affected by other peoples religeous views.

{quick note - My impression was that Believe was playing devil's advocate (pun intended) by explaining the views of some more enthusiastic religious groups towards homosexuality rather stating her own views. I just wanted to point this out early to prevent what I see as a misunderstanding from escalating - Mata}

Other things that have increased as gay rights have increased:

- Global warming
- The Internet
- Re-runs of That 70s Show
- Ikea furniture
- Mobile phones

Correlation ain't causation, and all the wishing in the world won't make it so. If causation can't be established, it probably doesn't exist and pointing out the correlation is misleading.

No.. I'm saying that if we go with the rather conservative viewpoint and say that homosexuality is an effect of embracing sin, part of whats causing these bad things that are happening and so on.. we can't prove any it as a cause with any sort of science. There's no way to isolate gay people living more freely and percentages either growing or just being more visible from other extremely harmful factors. Child abuse, divorce, far too early sex, violence and so on. You can't take one factor, ignore all the other evidence and say 'oh, this causes it'. Which I think you agree with, judging by your post.



You are, yes. Many of the conservatives or other religious people are not. If you consider your religion a part of you, you aren't like to just 'forget' it because some people consider it a purely secular issue. Marriage has a tradition that was entwined with religion, such as the marriage vows, seeing a pastor and getting married in a church. If you want people that are religious to forget all that and consider it purely secular.. I don't think its going to happen. *shrug* I'm not going to start suddenly taking it as just that because some people do. Respecting their decision doesn't mean agreeing.

I consider equal rights a seperate-ish and more secular issue than marriage because of the connotation and whatnot and support that. People are abusive enough to each with equal rights and I'm not sure how helping that pettiness and sadistic side would bring people to God. And preventing cruelty and the rest should be a goal anyway, regardless of whether you approve of someone's decisions. But thats just my take.

Thats what I said in my post.

For one, gay couples and persons getting more rights and protection has coincided with a lot of things that have been quite destructive to families. Higher divorce rates, unsafe and frequent sex, child abuse, absence of parents and the list goes on. Seperating homosexuality from that list and isolating as a factor or not, would be pretty damned hard. We don't have a sample group back from conservative times with the comparatively greater rights and protection they have now and making one isn't possible. I don't really see how it can be proven, unless you argue its proven by association according to the Bible. Thats not scientific exactly, which leads us back to what you place faith in (or not).

believe, I'm having trouble getting the hang of your posting style. I can never tell when you actually mean an argument, when you're arguing Devil's Advocate, or when you're quoting an argument to refute it. It did seem to me like you were presenting that as a legitimate argument worthy of consideration.

CommieBastard: My apologies. I'm just trying to be very tactul with this, considering feelings run pretty strong on both sides of the spectrum. >_o Hence watching wording and things very, very carefully. While I understand the Biblical point of view and don't feel I can deny it without denying my faith, I think that that particular argument is moronic and doesn't do anything but look stupid. 'oh, all these hideous things aren't hurting our children is much as the gay agenda/tv/whatever here'. Just bah.

What I feel people forget (and why I posted most of that) is the completely and utterly different world views involved. What might be a secular issue to someone, is a moral or religious one with a lot more to it and so on. You don't have to believe the other side to argue it obviously, but I think it helps make the debate a more intelligent and/or effective one. My naive side also hopes that people can eventually stop arguing over who's right and work on results.

But unless we know who's right, we won't know which results we're aiming for. My results are very, very different from those of, say, your average Methodist preacher.

True. With issues like this, people are also not overly likely to agree. At least not for a long time. There are concerns in the middle that people can hopefully agree on though. Such is preventing people from being beaten, teen suicide and all sorts of issues that could be tackled more efficiently without expecting people to renounce views they hold dear and are still arguing over. But I might be more used to the insane parts of America. My own state appears to be much more sane and Britain might be as well.

Sorry I misunderstood what you meant. By marriage I don't mean marriage in a church or the religeous ceremony, I mean the civil rights, registry office and paperwork, which as far as I know is what people are campaigning for politically. I do think it would be wrong to force religeous leaders to marry people who are gay if the religeous leaders believe such an act sinfull. My point was that the marriage of individuals, (regardless of sexuality), when not in the form of a religeous ceremony will not affect believers; thus by preventing them from marrying their rights to happinness and financial security are being infringed (is that the right word?). Many religeous people are opposed to it because they feel more young people will be "persuaded" to be gay if they can marry. No one is persuaded to be gay, your sexuality is something you are born with. By allowing religeous people to prevent another group of people from an action that doesn't actually harm anyone is to give them unfair dominance; if one religeon was given dominance over another there would be outcry (I don't mean a state religeon like C of E by the way, I mean a theocracy).

Well, while I'm sure definitions of religious signifigance vary, there's more to this than just the rights of involved people even if thats what on the paperwork. Even with all the changes going on in our society, marriage is still a legitimancy stamp for relationships and has culture connotations. Which is why this issue is so much more inflammatory to some people, than hate crime laws or whatnot. I don't think that going after marriage first is an accident, as its what I'd do if I was planning to change public perception.



Er. I have to disagree with the not affecting people part. Cultural changes and shift affect people that live in that culture. Unless all believers get teleported to mars, changes like this affect them and everyone else. If marijuana was made legal tomorrow for example, this would make several changes. It would be legal, at least somewhat more acceptable and the people that believe its a legit choice would have a lot more solid backing.

This isn't quite the same category, but judging from possibilities and history, I'd say the aftermath would be somewhere in that category. If you could something a not acceptable option for whatever reason, generally, you wouldn't want the federal government proclaiming it legal, right, necessary and equal. Or at least not acceptable. That does encourage people to see it as all right and to do it if they want. Some people obviously believe its acceptable and that the rights of those involved outweight whatever else, but thats not my point. I just consider cultural changes an affect and one that people could well take into consideration.



I have to disagree here. I don't think sexuality is always the firm, ingrained people make it out to be. Certainly, some people display same sex attractions at ages that still boggle my mind. Some studies suggest that for some people, there's differences in the brain as well. I read one of those a while back and I'm not going to pretend they don't exist. That also doesn't apply to every gay man and women, every bi one or every straight one, for that matter.

There's a lot of people that display... flexibility. Some girls and more rarely (in my personal experience) boys, that have flings with the other sex and eventually return to mostly straightness. Some are bi, but may or may not practice it and all the grey areas in between. You could argue that they weren't gay in the first place and that might be true, but sexuality seems to have some malleability for a decent share of the population if studies, stories and the rest are anything to go by.

The scary sexual abuse numbers in the US also likely deserve some consideration. I don't believe abuse alone necessarily makes someone gay or not, or that its the only reason. As numbers are frighteningly high and as profound as the affect is on children, I don't see how we can rule it out as something that can affect either orientation. My own experience wasn't a dramatic one, but it threw my sexuality and views of off-kilter for several years. For people that have more traumatic ones, well.. its something that does affect people's urges, beliefs and sometimes inclinations. That some of the inclinations could involve orientation for people with more flexibility would seem reasonable.



There is a messy issue, even for me. I've heard arguments (some good) that it shouldn't it even go to the ballot like it has. As long as it does though, the point becomes moot. While religion is the reasoning for a lot of the opposing argument, the bottom line is that people put measures to the ballot, had them voted for and won in the majority of cases. I consider unfair dominance the necessary evil of democracy, including when it applies to me. Religion holding that place in this issue doesn't seem more evil to me than the republicans or democrats doing the same thing about gun control, the death penalty or some other issue I might have strong feelings about.

Here's an example; at my school girls cannot wear trousers before 6th form. We asked to be allowed to wear trousers and were told we could not unless everybody in the entire school signed the list, including the boys. Girls wearing trousers does not affect the boys but many still refused to sign the form and we weren't allowed trousers. Ridiculous isn't it? That people who were unaffected by something we considered an ordinairy right should be allowed to deny us that. By straight people being allowed to prevent gay people from marrying they are doing much the same thing that those boys did to us; a group of people are denied something they want and that other people consider an ordairy right simply because those people denying them this feel they shouldn't have that right.

Drugs, if they became legalised, are something that would be open to all people. Gay marriage is only open to gays. The culture will change, and in that sense there will be an affect on believers; but if believers wish to go on believing homosexuality is a sin no one will stop them. It's not like legalising gay marriage will make believers marry people of the same gender, nor will churches be forced to preach it's acceptability. The gay marriage will be there, and believers may not like it but they do not have to participate, and in that sense it won't affect them. Also just because some people consider something not to be acceptable doesn't mean that it shouldn't be acceptable.

Also how will those changes affect them? You say that a change in culture will affect them, but what will those affects be?

Sure. This is something people don't agree on and aren't likely to anytime soon. The people that believe its wrong will continue to fight it and the people that consider it a necessary right will fight for it. Though for the record people often vote on things that don't affect them personally during elections. State policy, gun control laws, laws on oh.. political fund raising, rights of illegal immigrants and whatever else are examples of things that affect a state or society, but not necessarily the individual voting. You could argue that this is an issue of rights and not the same as most of those, but I don't see it stopping people from voting or passing measures, regardless.



At the moment it wouldn't force churches to marry people of whatever orientation, but somehow I can see discrimination lawsuits. Its definitely true that they don't have to participate. And the reverse is true as well. Just because some people consider something acceptable, doesn't make it so. Public opinion once considered slavery a right and justified and lots of horrible things to be acceptable, along with the good ones like various peace movements, people now considering racism horrible and such. There's arguments for both sides, but people considering it acceptable or not isn't my favorite for that reason.

And it could affect whats taught in school (like the battle over sex ed, ect), what they see in movies and popular culture (already happening, but it could progress), what people around or known to them are allowed to do and what their children or others might be encouraged to do. Its not always a personal affect, sure, but we don't live in a vaccuum and friends and family might well be affected by whatever law, even if I'm not.

This isn't a realistic fear. That kind of lawsuit wouldn't hold a drop of water anytime within the next few centuries; the Supreme Court has been very clear about the right to freedom of expressive association (they've made similar rulings in favour of the Boy Scouts).

heh. In America we can sue over hot coffee and all kinds of amazingly idiotic things, which is more what I was thinking of. If we can sue oreo's for being high fat, I wouldn't put other such things past that one crazy person thats out there.

I thought they'd ruled against the boyscouts, but I'm probably thinking of one of the cases before that. huh.

This is a tangent, but I'm kind of sick of the "hot coffee" story. The woman in question was in her 80s. The coffee was so hot she had third-degree burns over her abdomen and groin; not only excruciatingly painful, but leaving her with outstanding medical bills running to tens of thousands of dollars. She had every right to sue McDonald's.



The case I'm thinking of is when they ruled that the Boy Scouts were within their rights when they dismissed a troop leader for being gay.

True and true about the coffee woman. This was my dropping the ball, as it was very late and I elected to not look up a better list of stupid lawsuits for this debate. So I'll concede her legitimacy and still wish that other, far less legitiment claims didn't go to court.

Like.. http://www.atsnn.com/story/110030.html for a better example.