social conservatives: what does "conservative values" mean to you?

[cg2112]

Um, thats not an open mind. If someone doesn't believe in gay marriage, that doesnt mean they hate gays. If someone doesn't trust folks of a religion that gives reward point in heaven for killing folks who dont share their beliefs, it doesn't mean they hate them.

You sound as if you already have made up your mind.

I agree with this, but only because "hate" is a really strong word.

Certainly, though, if you don't believe that gays should be married, while you may not hate gays, you certainly have enough dislike to want to continue depriving them of the same rights that everyone else has.

There's really no non-bigoted reason to oppose gay marriage, regardless of the religion you practice.

Likewise, it takes a certain amount of willful ignorance to not take the time to educate yourself in order to continue dislike practitioners of a particular religion (for instance, the 72 virgins myth, or the rewards in heaven for suicide bombing).

[Rod38um]

Certainly, though, if you don't believe that gays should be married, while you may not hate gays, you certainly have enough dislike to want to continue depriving them of the same rights that everyone else has.

There's really no non-bigoted reason to oppose gay marriage, regardless of the religion you practice.

Likewise, it takes a certain amount of willful ignorance to not take the time to educate yourself in order to continue dislike practitioners of a particular religion (for instance, the 72 virgins myth, or the rewards in heaven for suicide bombing).

Hmmm, where to start.... This is getting away from the topic a bit and into my personal beliefs.... but...........Lets break it down a bit. As a Christian, I love every human being. In a Christian perspective, we are all children of God and each of us has the potential to enter into heaven. Very few will choose the path that leads them there. As a Christian I can not accept or endorse sin. Sure we are all weak and we all commit sin. In reality, gay sex is a sin, adultry is a sin. Murder is a sin. But for a Christian to accept gay marriage is akin to saying its alright to enter into a binding commitment of sin and attempt to force Gods blessing on it. That can not happen any more than a Christian could accept a contract muderer as a legitimate occupation and bless him with prayer before he starts his day of killing. No dont let that get twisted. I'm not comparing the two, I'm just saying the sin is not relevant in the issue, its the endorsement or acceptance of its continuation versus the understanding it is sin and asking forgiveness.

Now lets back up again..... gay sex..... ask forgiveness, do you best not to be weak and sin again......... acceptable.

Murder someone.... same deal. to accept any sin as a continuing situation and try to distort Gods word into acceptance of a sin is not going to happen.

So in reality your assertion that "There's really no non-bigoted reason to oppose gay marriage, regardless of the religion you practice" is completely false. It is not the sin, it is not the person, it is the acceptance or endorsement of the continuation of the sin. Gay has nothing to do with it.

As far as the muslim thing, I agree with part of what you said. It takes a certain amount of willful ignorance to not take the time to educate yourself or willfully ignore the facts, the actions and the words of muslims around the world. However, again from a Christian perspective, they are brothers and I have love for them all and wish that they turn from their sinful ways.

As to the issue of rights. I do not believe in granting anyone special rights or extra rights simply because they belong to a certain group. We have way too much of that on the books now and it needs to stop. All people should be treated as equals, any law that grants anyone a special status is wrong.

[Cheech]

Hmmm, where to start.... This is getting away from the topic a bit and into my personal beliefs.... but...........Lets break it down a bit. As a Christian, I love every human being. In a Christian perspective, we are all children of God and each of us has the potential to enter into heaven. Very few will choose the path that leads them there. As a Christian I can not accept or endorse sin. Sure we are all weak and we all commit sin. In reality, gay sex is a sin, adultry is a sin. Murder is a sin. But for a Christian to accept gay marriage is akin to saying its alright to enter into a binding commitment of sin and attempt to force Gods blessing on it. That can not happen any more than a Christian could accept a contract muderer as a legitimate occupation and bless him with prayer before he starts his day of killing. No dont let that get twisted. I'm not comparing the two, I'm just saying the sin is not relevant in the issue, its the endorsement or acceptance of its continuation versus the understanding it is sin and asking forgiveness.

Now lets back up again..... gay sex..... ask forgiveness, do you best not to be weak and sin again......... acceptable.

Murder someone.... same deal. to accept any sin as a continuing situation and try to distort Gods word into acceptance of a sin is not going to happen.

So in reality your assertion that "There's really no non-bigoted reason to oppose gay marriage, regardless of the religion you practice" is completely false. It is not the sin, it is not the person, it is the acceptance or endorsement of the continuation of the sin. Gay has nothing to do with it.

As far as the muslim thing, I agree with part of what you said. It takes a certain amount of willful ignorance to not take the time to educate yourself or willfully ignore the facts, the actions and the words of muslims around the world. However, again from a Christian perspective, they are brothers and I have love for them all and wish that they turn from their sinful ways.

As to the issue of rights. I do not believe in granting anyone special rights or extra rights simply because they belong to a certain group. We have way too much of that on the books now and it needs to stop. All people should be treated as equals, any law that grants anyone a special status is wrong.

This last statement is contradictory. Your belief system commands that gay people are "sinful", and therefore morally unacceptable to you. Fair enough. When you're talking about codifying, however, is where you start to lose me. Either all people are treated as equals or they aren't. It's really that simple. You can't say that you support a law that expressly forbids same-sex marriages (and in doing so, by default creates a "special class" of people), then turn around and say something like "everyone should be treated as equals". That is the very definition of cognitive dissonance, and something that I've heard time and again from people carrying the "social conservative" flag.

Since you brought up sin, I'd like to dive deeper into this as well. Again, you believe that homosexuality is a sin. Leviticus 20:13 clearly outlines the punishment for gay sex: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." You are clearly both authorized and commanded to kill the sinning couple. Let's turn to the Bible-allowed man/woman sex, shall we? How about the stereotypical preacher's daughter? "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.--Leviticus 21:9" How about rape? Deuteronomy 22:28-29: "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." So a sack of money later and she's yours?

I can go on and on. How is it possible to pick and choose what is and isn't a sin from the book that you hold to be the cornerstone of your beliefs and morality?

[C-bus]

Damn, I'm outa sheckels.

[magley64]

"Social Conservative" just seems like code for "evangelical zealot" which is a fine thing to be, if you find the bible to be your one source for all morality, and law...so be it.

Why sugar coat it, or PC it up by changing the name to "social conservative"?

Is it the same with creationism taking the PC term "intelligent design"?

Seems as though it's just a semantics trick to get religion a foothold into politics, and biology respectively.

[Rod38um]

I can go on and on. How is it possible to pick and choose what is and isn't a sin from the book that you hold to be the cornerstone of your beliefs and morality?

Where you are getting confused with Christianity is you are trying to apply old testament law in place of the Grace covered in the new testament (after Jesus) Before Jesus = live under the law After Jesus= same standards just the ability ask forgiveness because your sin has been paid for. All men have the ability to ask for forgiveness.

[Cheech]

Where you are getting confused with Christianity is you are trying to apply old testament law in place of the Grace covered in the new testament (after Jesus) Before Jesus = live under the law After Jesus= same standards just the ability ask forgiveness because your sin has been paid for. All men have the ability to ask for forgiveness.

But gay people aren't asking for forgiveness. You stated that "It is not the sin, it is not the person, it is the acceptance or endorsement of the continuation of the sin." Since these people are clearly not repenting for their sin, what's a Christian to do? It sounds to me that instead of using the clearly defined punishments set out in the Bible, Christian society is opting to foist their belief structure on the rest of us by codifying Christian morality in laws, and in so doing creating those "special classes" that according to you are wrong.

[Rod38um]

No sinner who is actively engaged in the sin is asking for forgiveness. I can’t speak for folks who are not Christian. I work with several conservative folks who are not the least bit religious. One is a self-proclaimed atheist. Their opinions may come from a different place.

I just like every other voter, vote my beliefs. I cannot in good conscience, vote for something that furthers the acceptance of gay marriage any more than I could vote to legalize contract killing as legitimate occupation. It doesn't mean I hate gays, I don’t hate killers. It’s quite the opposite. I hope they live a long enough life that they eventually find the path that leads them to salvation. If my child was into drugs, I would not vote to legalize drugs so she could gain better access to them. I would hope that eventually she would be able to see that her behavior is harmful to her and that she would find a better path. You may say that being gay is not harmful, well, if your perspective is simply an earthly one, you may be correct but if it’s an eternal one then you must think about eternal consequences.

When you talk about the clearly defined punishments in the bible, it’s clear that you do not understand Christianity.

I understand that you would like to make clear some revelation that would suddenly make me and others not "hate gay people" but your entire premise that to be against gay marriage you must dislike gays could not be further from the Christian perspective and I don’t honestly know how to make it clearer to you without you spending quite a bit of time in church.

[magley64]

You may say that being gay is not harmful, well, if your perspective is simply an earthly one, you may be correct but if it’s an eternal one then you must think about eternal consequences.

here is where you lost me...

From your perspective, being hindu, buddhist, wiccan, atheist would have the same "eternal" consequences... yet you aren't suggesting that people be prohibited from practicing these beliefs... in fact you support their rights to practice their religions (or none)... so why the special pleading for gay marriage?

Wh not propose legislation to make your religion the only acceptable one? we're talking about people's futures here... aren't we?

how can you make a case for one and not the other?

Some gay people believe that being married to their chosen partner will make them happy, and since their marriage affects you very little (if at all) why try to prohibit them from their DOI protected pursuit of happines?

[Rod38um]

Why not propose legislation to make your religion the only acceptable one? we're talking about people's futures here... aren't we?

For one, the whole idea of Christianity is for people to accept and freely give their love to God. To force anyone into it would be defeating the purpose. If your wife was forced into a relationship with you, would it be as valuable to you? And... Do you really want to set a precedence of a state religion? I for one don’t want the government involved in my religion and I don’t think anyone else does. Historically, combining the two in any manor has led to corruption and oppression as the government sees religion as a tool to control the people. I want the people to be the supreme authority and the government to do the will of the people. I don’t endorse any other religion, I don’t want the government to make special rules, laws, rights, privileges or allowances for them or any other group.

Some gay people believe that being married to their chosen partner will make them happy, and since their marriage affects you very little (if at all) why try to prohibit them from their DOI protected pursuit of happiness?

I'm not trying to prohibit them from their pursuit of happiness. I'm just not endorsing a sin and I'm not in favor of granting them any special rights or privileges. I want the same rules, laws, rights, etc. for all people.

Why do you want to force my religion to accept and endorse a sin?

Edited January 4, 2012 by Rod38um

[tyler524]

I'm not trying to prohibit them from their pursuit of happiness. I'm just not endorsing a sin and I'm not in favor of granting them any special rights or privileges. I want the same rules, laws, rights, etc. for all people.

How is gay marriage a special privilege? If two straight people can get married but two gay people can't, doesn't that go against giving one group special rights over another?

[Rod38um]

How is gay marriage a special privilege? If two straight people can get married but two gay people can't, doesn't that go against giving one group special rights over another?

Marrriage is a religious ceramony, defined by law as a union between a man and a woman. Allowing same sex marriage would require a special right be given to a group. Right now any man may marry a woman, any woman may marry a man, it doesn't matter how you describe yourself.

In states where gay marriage has been added as a special right, the next thing that happens is discrimination law suits trying to force pastors into performing the ceramony. (state defining religion)

Instead of trying to force religion to conform to sin, why would a gay person who is actively engaging in the sin want to enter into a religious ceramony anyway? Whether they are living together in sin or whether they have been falsly blessed in a ceramony, its still living in sin. It makes no difference to them. Why would they want it if for no other reason than to stir the religious pot, so to speak?

[magley64]

Marrriage is a religious ceramony

wrong... you can get married in this country with no mention of any religion whatsoever. my parents got married in a courthouse in jeans on a random tuesday, no religion expressed or implied, a judge asked them if they would love honor and cherish one another, til death do they part, he then pronounced them married, i think it cost them $25.

this gives them rights to each other's property, and power to make decisions on the other's behalf, as well as visitation rights in hospitals after terrible accidents.

Why do you want to force my religion to accept and endorse a sin?

I don't want your religion to do anything except "butt out" of what is a civil matter, and has nothing to do with religion. Nobody is asking your church to perform the ceremony, nobody is asking your religion to endorse it.

Edited January 4, 2012 by magley64

[Rod38um]

I don't want your religion to do anything except "butt out" of what is a civil matter, and has nothing to do with religion. Nobody is asking your church to perform the ceremony, nobody is asking your religion to endorse it.

It has everything to do with religion. Besides 83% of Americans claim a religion. 76% claim Christianity. 4% identify themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual. You are asking more than 76% to endorse a sin they believe to be wrong in order to placate the portion of the 4% who would choose a same sex marriage.

You may not want a church wedding but some same sex couple will.

If by butt out you mean for me to not vote the way I want to...... sorry, its never gonna happen. Voting your way would be an endorsement.

I could ask you to just butt out also. Just butt out and stop trying to change things for the worse........... but I wont...........

Edited January 4, 2012 by Rod38um

[Cheech]

If my child was into drugs, I would not vote to legalize drugs so she could gain better access to them. I would hope that eventually she would be able to see that her behavior is harmful to her and that she would find a better path. You may say that being gay is not harmful, well, if your perspective is simply an earthly one, you may be correct but if it’s an eternal one then you must think about eternal consequences.

When you talk about the clearly defined punishments in the bible, it’s clear that you do not understand Christianity.

First of all, your drug metaphor is inaccurate. Drugs are illegal for everyone, everywhere, irrespective of sexual orientation.

4 years of Catholic school, I understand Christianity just fine. I also understand why we're having this circular debate here; I can't reason you out of your position since you didn't reason yourself in there to begin with since you're operating completely on faith, and you can't faith me out of my position since faith tends to crumble in the face of logic and reason. However, despite the impasse, I honestly believe that this is a conversation that must be had, simply for the reason that it someone else reads this and starts to question their views on gay people and the equality of society as a whole, then I've done my job.

I understand that you would like to make clear some revelation that would suddenly make me and others not "hate gay people" but your entire premise that to be against gay marriage you must dislike gays could not be further from the Christian perspective and I don’t honestly know how to make it clearer to you without you spending quite a bit of time in church.

Rod, you haven't been listening. My entire premise is this: Not allowing gay marriage on basis of religion is totally allowed for the religion you believe in. It's your belief system, you can make it whatever you want. Restricting civil freedoms and discriminating based on sexual orientation, however, is not, and what I thought was anathema to the whole "conservative" view of smaller government, more individual freedoms. That's it, that's my entire argument.

Also, I would like to understand, in the context of "earthly" law, how this statement isn't completely contradictory:

I'm not trying to prohibit them from their pursuit of happiness. I'm just not endorsing a sin and I'm not in favor of granting them any special rights or privileges. I want the same rules, laws, rights, etc. for all people.

Why do you want to force my religion to accept and endorse a sin?

I could ask the same thing, why do you want to force your religious beliefs on the rest of us?

Marrriage is a religious ceramony, defined by law as a union between a man and a woman. Allowing same sex marriage would require a special right be given to a group. Right now any man may marry a woman, any woman may marry a man, it doesn't matter how you describe yourself.

In states where gay marriage has been added as a special right, the next thing that happens is discrimination law suits trying to force pastors into performing the ceramony. (state defining religion)

Instead of trying to force religion to conform to sin, why would a gay person who is actively engaging in the sin want to enter into a religious ceramony anyway? Whether they are living together in sin or whether they have been falsly blessed in a ceramony, its still living in sin. It makes no difference to them. Why would they want it if for no other reason than to stir the religious pot, so to speak?

Slippery slope argument, eh? It just so happens I was at a same-sex marriage in a church in Columbus a month ago. There are churches out there that will do it, no strongarm tactics needed.

As for the second part, that's where the individual freedoms come back into play. Apparently one of the women in said marriage was pretty devoutly Christian. If she's made peace with her situation and her God, who are you to say that she can't exercise that freedom to get married at a church that performs the ceremonies? Sure, that freedom goes both ways and some churches won't perform the ceremony, but that's their choice as a private, religious-based enterprise (which has certain protections being religion-based)

[magley64]

It has everything to do with religion.

You may not want a church wedding but some same sex couple will.

If by butt out you mean for me to not vote the way I want to...... sorry, its never gonna happen. Voting your way would be an endorsement.

I could ask you to just butt out also. Just butt out and stop trying to change things for the worse........... but I wont...........

so you can make that decision for every church (not to mention every person) in this country?

and since when is allowing all people in this country the same rights and priveledges "worse"? isn't that kinda contrary to your sig line?

[Rod38um]

so you can make that decision for every church (not to mention every person) in this country?

No, but I have a little understanding of my religion, your the one who would like the majority to conform to the whims of the minority.

and since when is allowing all people in this country the same rights and priveledges "worse"? isn't that kinda contrary to your sig line?

Apparently you dont read my posts. I dont know how many times or how many ways I have to say that I want the want the same rights for everyone, you are the one who wants to create special rights for certain groups.

[magley64]

No, but I have a little understanding of my religion, your the one who would like the majority to conform to the whims of the minority.

wait...wut?

Apparently you dont read my posts. I dont know how many times or how many ways I have to say that I want the want the same rights for everyone, you are the one who wants to create special rights for certain groups.

No, you're obviously opposed to people having their rights based on their gender... Prohibiting someone from marrying the person they choose, simply because that person happens to have the same number of X chromosomes.

and we haven't even gotten into the murky stuff yet...

What if the woman wanting to marry a woman happened to have a sex change operation (born a man, is now a lesbian) the persons have similar genitals, but opposite chromosomes... should they be allowed to marry?

Edited January 4, 2012 by magley64

[Rod38um]

Restricting civil freedoms and discriminating based on sexual orientation, however, is not

Without creating a special law to allow same sex marriage, nobody is being discriminated against. Each man can marry a woman, each woman can marry a man. I contend that creating that special law to allow that special right for any group, discriminates against other groups.

Isn’t it time we stopped lumping people into groups for the sole purpose of simplified discrimination? Can’t we all just be people and all of us play by the same rules.

Also, I would like to understand, in the context of "earthly" law, how this statement isn't completely contradictory:

I'm not trying to prohibit them from their pursuit of happiness. I'm just not endorsing a sin and I'm not in favor of granting them any special rights or privileges. I want the same rules, laws, rights, etc. for all people.

It’s not the least bit contradictory, I don’t know how you could even ask that question. I'm not endorsing it with my vote. I want the same playing field, same laws, taxes, rights, etc. for everyone.

I could ask the same thing, why do you want to force your religious beliefs on the rest of us?

I don’t, force would defeat my purpose.

It just so happens I was at a same-sex marriage in a church in Columbus a month ago. There are churches out there that will do it, no strongarm tactics needed.

Don’t know what kind of church that was but it sure wasn't Christian. As with anything though, there are those will warp anything to suit their wants and desires.

Is there any place you would draw the line? I mean, there was an organization in the news recently because they advocate the legalization of consensual sex between adults minors. Apparently they have a web site that many would like shut down but can’t because they are not actually crossing the legal line yet. They actual use the same sex marriage argument. Are they being discriminated against in your eyes? Are their civil rights being denied? What about polygamists? There are some who are now making the argument that if same sex couples can, then they should be able to also? At what point does marriage no longer hold any value or worth? When the word "family" no longer hold meaning?

[magley64]

Without creating a special law to allow same sex marriage, nobody is being discriminated against. Each man can marry a woman, each woman can marry a man. I contend that creating that special law to allow that special right for any group, discriminates against other groups.

nice try, but it was just recently that marriage was "defined" as a man and a woman in many states, and it was just recently that DOMA came into play...

When the word "family" no longer hold meaning?

family (to me) means a collection of people who love each other unconditionally, I'm related to several people who I don't consider family, and there are those that I consider family that share none of my DNA.

Don’t know what kind of church that was but it sure wasn't Christian.

ahh. the "no true scottsman" fallacy... I know of several people who are gay, and christian... isn't the only requirement of a christian that they accept jesus as their personal lord and savior?

Edited January 4, 2012 by magley64

[Cheech]

Without creating a special law to allow same sex marriage, nobody is being discriminated against. Each man can marry a woman, each woman can marry a man. I contend that creating that special law to allow that special right for any group, discriminates against other groups.

Creating a law that allowed same-sex marriage and placed said union in tax-exempt status would be discriminating against other groups. Allowing same-sex marriages would merely be giving the same rights that 90% of Americans enjoy to the 10% that don't. Kinda similar to civil rights, giving the same rights to 30% of Americans that 70% already enjoyed. Also similar to slavery, giving freedom to the 20%, you get my point.

Your argument was used in all these examples. It was backwards then and it's backwards now.

Isn’t it time we stopped lumping people into groups for the sole purpose of simplified discrimination? Can’t we all just be people and all of us play by the same rules.

You mean straight people and gay people?

It’s not the least bit contradictory, I don’t know how you could even ask that question. I'm not endorsing it with my vote. I want the same playing field, same laws, taxes, rights, etc. for everyone.

Everyone, except gay people you mean. Would they by considered 3/5's of a person?

Don’t know what kind of church that was but it sure wasn't Christian. As with anything though, there are those will warp anything to suit their wants and desires.

North Congregational United Church of Christ. I find it amusing that you accuse me of not understanding Christianity yet you don't understand that Christianity itself is an umbrella with a ton of sects underneath it. Just like Islam has Shiite, Sunni, Sufi, and sub-sects of each.

Is there any place you would draw the line? I mean, there was an organization in the news recently because they advocate the legalization of consensual sex between adults minors. Apparently they have a web site that many would like shut down but can’t because they are not actually crossing the legal line yet. They actual use the same sex marriage argument. Are they being discriminated against in your eyes? Are their civil rights being denied? What about polygamists? There are some who are now making the argument that if same sex couples can, then they should be able to also? At what point does marriage no longer hold any value or worth? When the word "family" no longer hold meaning?

Bring forth the strawman. I'm not going to comment on the adult/minor sex legalization because there's no details to comment on. What I will comment on is the word "family". What's the divorce rate in the US? 2-time? 3-time? Broken families, state custody? Gay parents have to jump through hoops to have a child, either by IVF, adoption, etc. They have to WANT to be parents. Straight people pop out kids all the time that are unwanted and unloved. "Family" is a completely subjective term, as is "love" and "marriage". I have not a fuck to give what your personal sect of Christianity defines marriage as, I give a fuck that there are two people who want to be with each other for the rest of their lives, and in doing so want to enjoy the rights and privileges available to straight married couples, like being able to share medical information as partners, spousal medical insurance, married tax status, end-of-life planning, next-of-kin, stuff like that.

I'll leave you with this: You are correct in your statement that the US government defines marriage as a man and a woman, as cited in DOMA, passed in 1996. However, this is discriminatory and unconstitutional by definition. In 1883, Pace v. Alabama upheld a Alabama statute passed after the Civil War that made interracial marriage and sex a felony, punishable by 2-7 years of jail time. Anyone attempting to officiate said marriages could be fined up to one thousand dollars and could be imprisoned for up to six months. In 1967, Loving v. Virginia overturned Pace on Constitutional grounds, citing the Due Process clause and Equal Protection clause. I've linked the Wiki entries for both cases below, I suggest you give them a read.

Pace v. Alabama

Loving v. Virginia

You, my friend, are on the wrong side of history.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Cheech

[Rod38um]

family (to me) means a collection of people who love each other unconditionally, I'm related to several people who I don't consider family, and there are those that I consider family that share none of my DNA.

That does not really surprise me. Kinda sad actually.

ahh. the "no true scottsman" fallacy... I know of several people who are gay, and christian... isn't the only requirement of a christian that they accept jesus as their personal lord and savior? As I covered before and you weren't listening; To commit a sin and ask forgiveness is not the problem. the problem is when you expect that you can just ignore that what you do on a daily basis is a sin and that God must accept your sin with no effort on your part to turn away from sin.

I actually like it when a gay person tells me that they are Christian because I know how their life will end up... generally speaking.

I've known several gay people over the years. You may be surprised, my best friend of several years spent many of those years as a lesbian.

Our topic of Social conservative values has kind of drifted into a religious debate of my personal beliefs. It seems I am just repeating myself and as usual in a conversation with folks who have already made up their mind, you guys seem willing to jump thru any amount of hoops to keep from seeing or at least acknowledging my point. Thats ok, I expect it. But I'm not going to keep banging my head against the wall. I think what I have already written is sufficient enough for folks who may read it with an open mind to understand my point of view which has been my only motivation for participating this thread even as it drifted. I knew going in, given that you started it, that the intent was an argumentative one rather than the informational request it was hidden behind.

I don't know whether either of you guys have any belief in a higher power at all. I have lived long enough to watch people go from where you are to where I am as far beliefs. The closer you get to your own mortality, the more one tends to view things with an open mind. I wish you both a long life. I say that with only good intent, please don't confuse it with sarcasm.

Thanks for keeping it reasonably civil. That's unusual in the political section of this forum.

[Rod38um]

Cheech I'm not trying to ignore your last post but again everything you have written attempts to paint me as something I'm not in order to prove your point. I dont harbor any ill will toward someone for being gay. Comparing this debate to black struggles with civil rights is ridiculous. Had I been old enough at that time I would have been an MLK supporter, I was just 3 when he died.

I will continue to vote my principals. I hope you do the same.

[Cheech]

That does not really surprise me. Kinda sad actually.

ahh. the "no true scottsman" fallacy... I know of several people who are gay, and christian... isn't the only requirement of a christian that they accept jesus as their personal lord and savior?

As I covered before and you weren't listening; To commit a sin and ask forgiveness is not the problem. the problem is when you expect that you can just ignore that what you do on a daily basis is a sin and that God must accept your sin with no effort on your part to turn away from sin.

I actually like it when a gay person tells me that they are Christian because I know how their life will end up... generally speaking.

I've known several gay people over the years. You may be surprised, my best friend of several years spent many of those years as a lesbian.

Our topic of Social conservative values has kind of drifted into a religious debate of my personal beliefs. It seems I am just repeating myself and as usual in a conversation with folks who have already made up their mind, you guys seem willing to jump thru any amount of hoops to keep from seeing or at least acknowledging my point. Thats ok, I expect it. But I'm not going to keep banging my head against the wall. I think what I have already written is sufficient enough for folks who may read it with an open mind to understand my point of view which has been my only motivation for participating this thread even as it drifted. I knew going in, given that you started it, that the intent was an argumentative one rather than the informational request it was hidden behind.

I don't know whether either of you guys have any belief in a higher power at all. I have lived long enough to watch people go from where you are to where I am as far beliefs. The closer you get to your own mortality, the more one tends to view things with an open mind. I wish you both a long life. I say that with only good intent, please don't confuse it with sarcasm.

Thanks for keeping it reasonably civil. That's unusual in the political section of this forum.

I don't believe it has drifted that much. The thought processes you have are the same processes that I've seen on almost everyone I've spoken to that claims to be a "social conservative". Sure, we've crystallized things down to a solitary issue, but it's still an issue that SC's claim as very near and dear to their hearts.

[Cheech]

Cheech I'm not trying to ignore your last post but again everything you have written attempts to paint me as something I'm not in order to prove your point. I dont harbor any ill will toward someone for being gay. Comparing this debate to black struggles with civil rights is ridiculous. Had I been old enough at that time I would have been an MLK supporter, I was just 3 when he died.

I will continue to vote my principals. I hope you do the same.

Trust me, I shall. I can only hope that logic, reason, and tolerance win out over faith, dogma, and fear.