If I feel like opening a QEII-sized can of worms with a post directly on either of those subjects, though, you’ll be the first to know.

People think they are so much one way… So much more tolerant than they are, so much more forgiving and generous. That’s why that joke works so well… The one like this: “If someone says ‘I’m not a racist, but…’ you can pretty much guarantee the most racist thing you’ve ever heard is about to come out of their mouth.”

Is it the same with people who are against both homosexuality AND homosexuals? Do they believe that they are loving the sinner, even when they are saying to people that the guy is “Disgusting” or “an abomination”? How about letting their children hang out with gay kids? How about tolerating their children bullying gay kids?

Are those acts of people who are loving the sinner?

I still, honestly, cannot understand how someone can believe that a law should be made (Amendment One) based upon religious beliefs, about something that does not affect anyone but the alleged sinner. I honestly want someone to explain that to me. I understand SO much of the religious right’s politics i.e. Abortion (that removes the civil/human rights of a fetus, and parental rights of a father)… But this one eludes me.

Dang, you type fast.

1. Whether it is illegal or not is immaterial for the purposes of this question. The fact is that many societal Christians supported slavery because it wasn’t specifically condemned by Jesus. So saying that “If He didn’t say anything, it must be okay” opens a can o’ worms.

Prior to right here, right now, gay marriage wasn’t just illegal — it wasn’t even CONCEIVED of in just about every culture ever, Christian or not. That’s not justification for its illegality, but it does demonstrate that it’s not simply because of Christian doctrine that it has never existed before now.

(Who had “first comment” in the Mentions Interracial Marriage pool? Step to the cashier to collect your winnings.)

2. Again, we’re still edging around any working definition of “persecuting.” Not recognizing it to be expedient to change the definition of marriage as a male/female thing doesn’t really qualify as such.

3. Skip.

4. Actually, I don’t necessarily disagree — I’m a Mormon from a long line of Mormons, so I don’t assume polygamy to be evil a priori. That said, I don’t chafe at the restriction. All of which is beside the point, which is that the only way rights are being violated by restrictions on state-sanctioned marriage is if one posits that ANY restriction of ANY kind EVER for ANYONE is similarly a violation of an intrinsic human right.

5. I agree, as stated elsewhere, that a solely personal belief in what someone else does is just that: a belief to be held personally, not one which obligates any action. The original post did not, however, make a distinction between “personal” and “political,” a distinction which I see as useless at best.

6. You’re saying the same thing in more words that the original list said in few, but it isn’t more convincing because of that.

7. Agreed. Skipped.

8. Firstly, it’s really not up for debate except among those who are trying to find wiggle room; it’s pretty clear. Secondly, not that my personal life has any bearing on this, but no, I have never had sex with anyone except my wife, and that after our marriage. Third, this really isn’t a good place for a long description of the power of repentance and Christ’s atonement in cleansing sinners, except to say that I DO condemn fornication, in that I consider it a sin. And fourth, I did not and do not extrapolate any civic or civil obligation which Christians have because of 1 Corinthians 9; my point was to show that Rigby’s contention that only the OT condemns homosexuality is false. (Re “effeminate,” the Greek term so rendered refers to the “recipient” in a homosex act, i.e., the partner playing the “female.” I really don’t think Paul was speaking about male hairdressers and interior designers.)

9. Skip, as we’re in agreement.

10. I agree with everything you say here. I merely contend that there is a distinction between “Do not condemn others for their sins” and “Treat every sin as all good.”

All of which leads me back to the point of my comments, which were simply to show that the idea that “Christians are somehow obligated by their creed to support gay marriage” is something I can’t find support for. I’m not arguing that there aren’t civic reasons to support gay marriage, I’m not arguing that a Christian CAN’T support gay marriage, and I’m CERTAINLY not saying that a Christian should use someone else’s position regarding homosexual behavior or gay marriage as a justification for being less kind or loving to that person. I’m simply saying that Christian belief or devotion does not necessarily obligate support of same-sex marriage.

Second, I am going to explain to you what I think you’re missing.

1. The reason slavery is illegal is not because Christians said it was a sin according to the Bible. Slavery was made illegal because it was decided it violated the constitutional right of all men to pursue liberty.

Gay marriage is illegal specifically because Christians believe it to be against the Law of God. Not because gay marriage violates the civil or human rights of anybody else or challenges any other American’s freedoms. Therefore, your comparisons of other laws are false equivalencies.

Interracial marriage was also illegal based upon the Bible. But that was eventually made legal because we believed we were violating people’s civil rights by not allowing them to marry.

2. “Persecution” being that many heterosexual people claim that gay marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage. That’s what “persecution” they feel. They feel attacked by same-sex people who want to marry. But their rights to marry are not in question.

In preventing same-sex marriage, or by making homosexual sex illegal, you are persecuting others. If society says to you, “LIsten, you can’t persecute gays any more, you’re infringing upon someone else’s civil rights” then YOU are not being persecuted. You’re merely being prevented from persecuting others.

3. I think he’s simply saying that you don’t take “truth” and let it be for a long time and hope it’s still good or even better. You have to actively seek it out and be consciously aware of it when you see it. How that relates to homosexuality is up to you to interpret.

4. Frankly, I don’t see why consensual polygamy isn’t legal either. I’m certain you disagree, but that’s okay. We’re starting from a point of disagreement. I think that consenting adults should be able to marry whomever they want. I’m cool with that. So is the Bible, FYI.

As far as marrying your mother or sister — yeah, that’s dicey. As I said, if you wanted to marry your mom or sis, I would say that’s fine by me (but gross). Problem is, there are such massive health problems from inbreeding that this is illegal. However, one could argue that there are even worse (potential) health problems from doing drugs or smoking while pregnant, and that’s not illegal.

Personally not sure if inbreeding should be legal, or if smoking/drugs while pregnant should be illegal. Either way, you point out a problem in the law.

This problem, however, doesn’t keep me from believing that same-sex marriage should be legal. It just makes me think deeper on more obscure issues.

5. If you’re bothering someone (i.e. making their consensual adult sex illegal or keeping them from marrying) then it’s not your PERSONAL belief, it is your POLITICAL belief. You’re entitled to both, but don’t’ confuse them.

Why does it matter? Because personally I don’t like cats. They gross me out. They poop in the house, which is gross. That’s my personal belief. Should I legislate against people letting cats poop in the house? No. My political belief is that if you want to have a bunch of cats poop in gravel in a box in your mud room – go for it. You should have the freedom to do so.

6. It’s a civil ceremony – there are civil responsibilities and benefits to being married. IE taxes, property laws, inheritance, etc. Therefore, consenting adults should be able to have equal access to that RIGHT. If a church or religious organization wants to ban gay marriage and not recognize same-sex married couples as married in the eyes of God, that’s their legal right. But that’s separation of Church and State, as set forth in our constitution.

7.Frankly, I just don’t care about this. If banning same-sex marriage has become the gas that starts your engine every day, then I’m bummed for you. It’s sad that adults consensually loving one another makes you sad and angry. But yeah, so you don’t do that, I’m happy for you. So is Rigby, most likely.

8. You can interpret “abusers of themselves with mankind” as gay, I know a lot of people do, but that’s seriously up for debate. Second, are you not a fornicator?! Are you not having sex with someone? Wait, since you’re so serious about God’s laws as the Christian Church puts forth, I assume you didn’t have sex until you were married, and while you did, you never coveted anyone else’s wife… Either way, you are fornicating. You are an evil fornicator. So am I! Let’s make sure no one fornicates ever again. Because of 1 Corinthians.

Hold on, I bet you take that to mean “gay fornication” — but that’s not in the Bible there, is it?

Also, is it bad to be gay if you’re not effeminate? Just curious. My best gay friend is super into sports and has a crazy manly 5 o’clock shadow and never wears flip-flops, and he doesn’t like Barbra Streisand. LMK if he’s a sinner or not.

9. I like this statement, but I agree that I”m not sure it’s relevant to this discussion. Personally I think that if you believe homosexuality to be a sin, you think you’re doing RIGHT by making it illegal. So then you think you actually are doing the right thing. So yeah, if I had been the original editor I would’ve said, “I like this, but it doesn’t belong here”.

10. Yeah, we all judge. But we should all do our best not to, as Christians, and to leave it to God to be the final say. We should pray and ask for forgiveness for our judgements, and ask God to open our hearts and soften our souls to those who are different from us, so that we can love others as Jesus has so loved us.

If (rather, when) we fail at this, we can know it is because we are humans, and even when we think we’re doing what’s best, we are faulted. Then we go out again and ask for forgiveness, because that is the gift Christ has given to us. But simply because we will be forgiven our sins if we repent does not mean we should stop striving to do better, to judge less, to love more and to be more accepting.

Feel free to comment back here or on the post at GMP

Joanna Schroeder
Senior Editor, The Good Men Project

I tried reading Lovecraft decades ago. But after a couple of pages of “oh no! It’s got tentacles! The horror of it!” or “it was barrel-shaped with lots of tentacles and eyes. It looked so terrible that I lost my mind.” and so on, I gave up.

Did you actually read 5 whole stories?

Good luck with everything. Here, have all the virtual chocolate you can stand…