Okay, let’s just pretend for a minute that homosexuality IS purely a “choice.”  So what?  Anyone who “chooses” it is still a citizen of this country, has committed no crimes, and is still deserving of equal rights:  that is, the right to marry the person they love. 

I think a lot of people have the tendency to try to depict gay people as a separate group:  “Those People.”  They are not a separate group.  They are our friends, our children, our parents, our neighbors. 

Oh, and Rick?  Your being “in the closet” about your religion in school isn’t even close to oppression.

When you are approached by people who say they want to pray with you, and then beat you up for being a Christian;

When eleven states, including your own, pass laws against your establishing any churches;

When it’s only a couple of years ago that it stopped being a crime for you to pray even in the privacy of your own home;

When you are described in public all over the country as being sick, unnatural, and less than human for being a Christian;

When Christians in this country are beaten and left to die on a fence for their beliefs;

then you can describe yourself as oppressed.

Adam- You say America is a purple nation, and that we should stop shouting at one another, and that each side must give a little.

To me and the probably the rest of the world, America is either a Red nation or Red and Blue. America has a long ways to go towards purpledom.

Rick- I do apologize for the sarcasm, as you have been perfectly civil.  But my content stays, and I would love to hear a response.  It is good to hear a reasoned view from the Christian camp, even if I disagree with it.

Adam- You say America is a purple nation, and that we should stop shouting at one another, and that each side must give a little.  Amen, in general.  But this issue, gay marriage, is one of civil liberties (or what should be considered civil liberties) being denied, with no demonstrated justification, other than religion.  As Neoncat93 asks, what is the government doing in the business of regulating marriage anyway?  In such cases, I’m not willing to give even a little.  At least in principle.  Tactically, it might be necessary to consider where and how best to fight intolerance, at the state or at the federal level, but intolerance must be fought.

Adam

By your own definition of Evangelical, the existence of an “Evangelical Moderate” is about as plausible as the existence of a Jewish Nazi. Secondly, if you cannot cite even a single credible source or proof of your argument it becomes moot. Thirdly, you argue that homosexual behavior may be the end result of cultural and enviornmental factors. This may be so, but homosexual behavior does not indicate that one is a homosexual. It is even possible to argue that one could have sex with a member of the same sex but as long as their are not ATTRACTED to members of their own sex then they are NOT homosexual.

Sorry, I’m not sure how to use the blue quote box. So please take the following as a (long) quote:

20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

24 It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

25 There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

26 It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution, in those intrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way, which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

27 Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

——-Ok, done with the quote.  Hopefully some of you already know this piece and who wrote it, but for those who don’t, this is from George Washington’s farewell address.  The purpose of my quoting this is to show how far we (Americans) have deviated from our founders’ visions of how our government should operate.  Washington was trying to warn against the upcoming divisiveness between the Federalist and the Democratic-Republican parties.  His warning failed. 

I also post this to warn that not all acts done during an administration can easily be undone.

I don’t have anything more to add that hasn’t already been said.  I just hope this helps put extra perspective on this thread’s topic.

Great, a little flame war.  Just let me pull out my soapbox here…

Please. The notion that homosexuality is solely determined by biology is just as simplistic and bigoted as the notion that it is always a matter of choice. Homosexuality is a behavior, not a brain condition or a mood. A look at sociology and history will show us that homosexual behavior can be caused by cultural or environmental factors; a look at neurology and biology tell us that it can also be caused by differences in the brain. These assertions come from credible studies that I have read about or seen information about on the news or some educational program. No, I can’t cite sources. Look it up—do your own damn work.

Not all evangelical Christians are bigoted wackos who spend their evenings polishing their automatic weapons and kissing the Bible. “Evangelical” is a term that has been co-opted by fundamentalist Christians who would prefer a more credible-sounding identifier, especially since 9/11. Evangelical actually means:

1. Of, relating to, or in accordance with the Christian gospel, especially one of the four gospel books of the New Testament.
2. Evangelical Of, relating to, or being a Protestant church that founds its teaching on the gospel.
3. stolen fundie definition intentionally omitted
4. Evangelical, Of or relating to the Lutheran churches in Germany and Switzerland; Of or relating to all Protestant churches in Germany.
5. Of or relating to the group in the Church of England that stresses personal conversion and salvation by faith.
6. Characterized by ardent or crusading enthusiasm; zealous: an evangelical liberal.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Yes, even liberals can be evangelical. An evangelical Christian simply believes in the importance of spreading the message of their faith to the rest of the world. I don’t agree with many of Rick’s views, but he is not as radical as you are painting him. He spends a lot of time on his weblog railing against the hypocrisy he sees among “conservatives” that have forsaken some of their core tenets and values at the expense of the less fortunate. Whether you like what he says or not, he deserves some respect for trying to create change in his party from the inside.

Now. We do not live in red states an blue states. We liberals do not live in an “urban archipelago” of blue city-states. We live in a purple nation, and we are all Americans. As long as we keep talking at each other from our red and blue sides of the fence, no real and lasting change will be achieved in this country.

Can’t we stop shouting at each other, Crossfire-style, about these important issues as though we expect to change one another’s minds? People on each side of the partisan divide see the world in dramatically different ways. Each side must give a little if we’re going to have anything other than political stalemates and elections won by one or two percentage points. It’s not “pandering to the red states” or “giving in to the liberals.” It’s acceptance and tolerance. It’s teamwork. It’s the American fucking Way, and I’m sick of all this partisan bullshit.

Yes, I’m preaching. I don’t care. Call me an “evangelical moderate.”

Now pardon me while I burn this soapbox and go back to playing Halo 2.

elwedriddsche: I’m not a freaking Vulcan!

HarHarHar.

Take the alleged Red Herring… I’m saying that, suppose a Court extends a right to gay marriage.  Okay… My question is, where does it stop?

Why, it stops with gay marriage. Anything you introduce beyond the scope of the discussion is a red herring. Or would you prefer if I call it reverse goal post shifting?

Granting same-sex couples the right to legally marry is either the right thing to do or not. If somebody wants to pursue other forms of marriages, they can have their own discussion.

I’m afraid we will all continue to talk past one another….

More movement on the federalism front.

The New Liberal Federalism, Continued

BTW – I do happen to know someone personally who professes to have no homosexual tendancies.  He could be lying sure.  Also, my “statistics” come from the organization, Exodus International.  You should give them a call some day and schedule a time to meet with them and discuss this with them.  I’ve heard representatives from their organization speak on numerous occassions.

Look, “Changing” may never be possible without Christ. Whether it be biological or genetic or whatever, God has the power to undo all this.  My God is bigger than “physics” or “genetics” because he invented these things.  This sounds crazy to you, but that is because you do not believe. 

Trust me, if I didn’t have an encounter with Christ, I certainly would be in your camp.  I would probably be leading the charge against ignorant and bigoted Christians. 

So I do not blame you for your views.  You cannot help yourself.  Jesus asked for God to forgive His own executioners for they knew not what they were doing.  Also, I am not perfect, but I am forgiven.  Even my hubris is forgiven.  I don’t mean to be arrogant, I just mean to be a faithful and obedient servant of Christ.

Neoncat93- Amen.  Your characterization of intolerence as anti-American has a long and distinguished history, but is in sadly short supply nowadays in some circles…

I’ve found this discussion quite interesting.  I must say that when I was in my early teens I was essentially an evangelican Christian, but eventually I saw the light (or the dark, if you prefer) and ceased to be Christian altogether, in part because I was disgusted at the thought that so many modern Pharisees would (presumably) go to heaven while my “sinful” lesbian, Wiccan and/or atheistic friends would burn in hell for all eternity.  I felt that I could not believe in a deity that would be that jackass.
Returning to the matter at hand, am I mistaken when I think that many if not most of the arguments put forth by the ECs are the same that were put forth over miscegenation, back in the day?  That was the end of the world, too, wasn’t it?
I have never understood the Federal Government’s belief that it could regulate marriage, from their war on the Mormon church to today.  Where in the Constitution does it spell out the government’s power to decide what is and is not a legitimate marriage?  If 2 people or 20 people, of whatever gender or race, want to marry each other, what business is it of mine or anyone elses if those people consent to it?  The idea of a republic is that it protects the minority from mob rule.  However, this substantial mob, the ECs, has, through its organization and financial strength, accumulated significant political power which they seem to hope to use against anyone who disagrees with them, something which disturbs and angers me.  Disturbs, because I so completely disagree with them, and angers, because in essence I believe they are bullies hoping to turn the government into a big brother to do their dirty work for them.
My main problem with Federalism is that I don’t trust state governments either.  Having lived in three Southern states in my life, I must say their legislatures seem to me to be dominated by rural bigots and nimrods who act as if Christian tolerance is when you don’t look down on Presbyterians and Methodists, even though as a good Southern Baptist you know they are not going to sit in Jesus’s lap in heaven.  I fear that allowing the states to go their own way with these controversial human rights issues may only delay conflict over them, in much the same way the Missouri Compromise delayed the War between the States.  I don’t think the ECs would be content with, say, banning abortion and gay marriage just in the red states, but would seek to make a crusade out of banning it everywhere, at the federal level.  I believe they would take measures like the Runaway Slave Act, making it illegal to travel to Free states for abortions or gay marriages, invoking the Commerce Clause to make it a Federal issue.
Or perhaps I am taking counsel of my fears, and the ECs would be content to turn the South, Midwest and Mountain states to the rule of the Lord they so desperately desire.  In which case, I guess I’d have to move.
If ECs are treated badly in this society, which I think ECs really want to believe, true or not, it may be because they come across as so anti-freedom.  Anyone who tells me that I do not own my body, that I cannot marry whomever I choose, that I don’t have the right to read, watch, listen to or consume that that they say is forbidden by their god- that person is no friend of mine, that person is a theocrat and I would say anti-American.