Awesome article - Important update ! S. Africa legalizes gay marri

[captainrick]

I actually had to read this twice to make sure it wasn't some kind of bad joke.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20061120/...sitscredibility

 

hugs,

 

I've edited this post today, Friday 11/24/06 to add the following:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5120100583.html

 

S. Africa's Top Court Blesses Gay Marriage

Parliament Given One Year to Amend Law

 

By Craig Timberg

Washington Post Foreign Service

Friday, December 2, 2005; A16

 

 

 

JOHANNESBURG, Dec. 1 -- South Africa's highest court on Thursday recognized the marriage of two Pretoria women and gave Parliament a year to extend legal marital rights to all same-sex couples.

 

The ruling, greeted with jubilation by gay men and lesbians but with frustration by some church leaders, will make South Africa the first country to allow marriages between gay people on a continent where homosexual activity is widely condemned and often outlawed.

 

Only four countries in the world -- the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Canada -- currently allow same-sex marriages nationwide. Several others, mostly in Europe, recognize civil unions between gay partners.

 

"I'm ecstatic," said Marie Fourie, 54, speaking by phone from Pretoria after the ruling by South Africa's Constitutional Court. "It is wonderful for the gay society."

 

Fourie married Cecelia Bonthuys, 44, on Dec. 11, 2004, a decade after they began living together and several weeks after they won the right to wed from the nation's second-highest court. But after the ceremony, officials in the government's Department of Home Affairs refused to recognize their union and appealed the decision to the Constitutional Court, the nation's highest.

 

That appeal resulted in Thursday's 111-page opinion giving the government a year to begin treating such unions in the same way as those between men and women.

 

Fourie predicted the change would lead to declines in what many gay leaders said was persistent discrimination, while also giving same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, such as the right to open joint bank accounts and visit each other as family members in hospitals.

 

"There's always remarks," said Fourie, who recalled often being addressed by a slur in the Afrikaans language for gay men and lesbians. "You learn to live with it. But after today, I think they will swallow all that."

 

The court's judges unanimously agreed that South Africa's 1996 constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, guarantees the right of gay men and lesbians to marry. One justice, in a limited dissent, argued that the law should be overturned immediately rather than within a year.

 

That delay upset some activists, but both supporters and opponents of the ruling agreed there would be no way for Parliament to avoid approving the required amendments to the law.

 

"We have to accept that," said Efrem Tresoldi, a spokesman for the Southern African Catholic Bishops' Conference, speaking from Pretoria. He added that the church would continue to lobby against same-sex marriages on moral grounds.

 

"The church respects that people have certain sexual orientations, but we will never accept speaking in the same breath of same-sex unions and heterosexual marriage," Tresoldi said.

 

Word of the ruling raced through the nation's tight-knit community of gay rights activists, who saw the case as crucial to curbing discrimination. One serious abuse, they said, is the rape of lesbians and even some gay men in a misguided effort to change their sexual orientation.

 

"It's really, really difficult to be black and a lesbian in South Africa," said Thuli Madi, director of Behind the Mask, a Web-based magazine focused on gay life and issues. "As a woman, you are constantly harassed by the males in your community."

 

Elsewhere in Africa, attitudes are even more harsh. Gay and lesbian sex is illegal on most of the continent, with the death penalty a possibility in some cases. Many religious and political leaders call homosexuality un-African.

 

In Nigeria, opposition to same-sex marriage is so passionate that Anglican leaders have broken off relations with their counterparts in Canada over the issue. Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo said last year that homosexuality was "unbiblical, unnatural and definitely un-African."

 

On Thursday, some South African religious leaders criticized the ruling, but reaction was generally muted. The South African Council of Churches said it provoked such diverse reactions that the body was unlikely to have a unified position.

 

Ray McCauley, a well-known pastor, said he believed most South Africans did not agree with the decision.

 

"It is a sad day for South Africa when the very bedrock foundation of society, the family, is redefined by a court," McCauley said, according to the South African Press Association. "This ruling totally undermines marriage as we know it and the cherished formation of healthy, loving families."

 

No law in South Africa has prohibited gay men and lesbians from holding weddings and living as spouses. Many have signed contractual agreements stipulating joint ownership of property or distribution of assets after death.

 

But they still run into barriers when seeking to open joint checking accounts or visit each other in hospitals. More broadly, activists said, the prohibition against marriage made them second-class citizens.

 

"I'm not really sure I want to get married," said Glenn de Swardt of the Triangle Project, a gay and lesbian rights group in Cape Town, speaking by phone. "We want it because it will give us an equal opportunity. Whether I want to access that choice is a different thing."

 

The romance between Fourie, a carpet cleaner, and Bonthuys, a nurse, began after the two neighbors each discovered the other was a lesbian, Fourie said. They bought a house together and lived as a couple, deciding to have a wedding only after the first ruling, in November 2004.

 

They exchanged vows in the church of Andre Muller, a gay pastor driven from the Dutch Reformed Church.

 

"In the past, gay people have always been ridiculed, belittled," Muller said from Pretoria. "Now that this ruling has come, they are on an equal footing. Justice has been done."

 

 

[lustful_orcs]

Great article and it is good to see a minister approaches Leviticus and church dogma with honesty. Too bad it is one lonely spark of light in the vast darkness that is clergy dogmatics.

 

I am not a Christian, but I respect Christianity, as well as religion itself whatever the denomination.

 

I believe that homosexuality for a significant part is inborn, and this is good news, as it is part of your nature as well as nurture.

 

In my view, homosexuals have an auxiliary function to the human species. When parents die, homosexuals present childless couples to adopt the children and in a world without taboo on homosexcuality, such as primitive cultures, homosexuals act as a social intermediary, tending towards sensitivity and empathy.

 

Homosexuality is not a genetic defect - it is Nature's answer to enrich certain species beyond the standard procreative couple.

Homosexuals are just as essential to the human species as heterosexuals.

 

 

It's always good measure to include the news article in the thread discussing it, for archiving purposes. Here it is!

________________________________________________

When religion loses its credibility

 

By Oliver "Buzz" Thomas Mon Nov 20, 6:40 AM ET

 

What if Christian leaders are wrong about homosexuality? I suppose, much as a newspaper maintains its credibility by setting the record straight, church leaders would need to do the same:

ADVERTISEMENT

 

Correction: Despite what you might have read, heard or been taught throughout your churchgoing life, homosexuality is, in fact, determined at birth and is not to be condemned by God's followers.

 

Based on a few recent headlines, we won't be seeing that admission anytime soon. Last week, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops took the position that homosexual attractions are "disordered" and that gays should live closeted lives of chastity. At the same time, North Carolina's Baptist State Convention was preparing to investigate churches that are too gay-friendly. Even the more liberal Presbyterian Church (USA) had been planning to put a minister on trial for conducting a marriage ceremony for two women before the charges were dismissed on a technicality. All this brings me back to the question: What if we're wrong?

 

Religion's only real commodity, after all, is its moral authority. Lose that, and we lose our credibility. Lose credibility, and we might as well close up shop.

 

It's happened to Christianity before, most famously when we dug in our heels over Galileo's challenge to the biblical view that the Earth, rather than the sun, was at the center of our solar system. You know the story. Galileo was persecuted for what turned out to be incontrovertibly true. For many, especially in the scientific community, Christianity never recovered.

 

This time, Christianity is in danger of squandering its moral authority by continuing its pattern of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the face of mounting scientific evidence that sexual orientation has little or nothing to do with choice. To the contrary, whether sexual orientation arises as a result of the mother's hormones or the child's brain structure or DNA, it is almost certainly an accident of birth. The point is this: Without choice, there can be no moral culpability.

 

Answer in Scriptures

 

So, why are so many church leaders (not to mention Orthodox Jewish and Muslim leaders) persisting in their view that homosexuality is wrong despite a growing stream of scientific evidence that is likely to become a torrent in the coming years? The answer is found in Leviticus 18. "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination."

 

As a former "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" kind of guy, I am sympathetic with any Christian who accepts the Bible at face value. But here's the catch. Leviticus is filled with laws imposing the death penalty for everything from eating catfish to sassing your parents. If you accept one as the absolute, unequivocal word of God, you must accept them all.

 

For many of gay America's loudest critics, the results are unthinkable. First, no more football. At least not without gloves. Handling a pig skin is an abomination. Second, no more Saturday games even if you can get a new ball. Violating the Sabbath is a capital offense according to Leviticus. For the over-40 crowd, approaching the altar of God with a defect in your sight is taboo, but you'll have plenty of company because those menstruating or with disabilities are also barred.

 

The truth is that mainstream religion has moved beyond animal sacrifice, slavery and the host of primitive rituals described in Leviticus centuries ago. Selectively hanging onto these ancient proscriptions for gays and lesbians exclusively is unfair according to anybody's standard of ethics. We lawyers call it "selective enforcement," and in civil affairs it's illegal.

 

A better reading of Scripture starts with the book of Genesis and the grand pronouncement about the world God created and all those who dwelled in it. "And, the Lord saw that it was good." If God created us and if everything he created is good, how can a gay person be guilty of being anything more than what God created him or her to be?

 

Turning to the New Testament, the writings of the Apostle Paul at first lend credence to the notion that homosexuality is a sin, until you consider that Paul most likely is referring to the Roman practice of pederasty, a form of pedophilia common in the ancient world. Successful older men often took boys into their homes as concubines, lovers or sexual slaves. Today, such sexual exploitation of minors is no longer tolerated. The point is that the sort of long-term, committed, same-sex relationships that are being debated today are not addressed in the New Testament. It distorts the biblical witness to apply verses written in one historical context (i.e. sexual exploitation of children) to contemporary situations between two monogamous partners of the same sex. Sexual promiscuity is condemned by the Bible whether it's between gays or straights. Sexual fidelity is not.

 

What would Jesus do?

 

For those who have lingering doubts, dust off your Bibles and take a few hours to reacquaint yourself with the teachings of Jesus. You won't find a single reference to homosexuality. There are teachings on money, lust, revenge, divorce, fasting and a thousand other subjects, but there is nothing on homosexuality. Strange, don't you think, if being gay were such a moral threat?

 

On the other hand, Jesus spent a lot of time talking about how we should treat others. First, he made clear it is not our role to judge. It is God's. ("Judge not lest you be judged." Matthew 7:1) And, second, he commanded us to love other people as we love ourselves.

 

So, I ask you. Would you want to be discriminated against? Would you want to lose your job, housing or benefits because of something over which you had no control? Better yet, would you like it if society told you that you couldn't visit your lifelong partner in the hospital or file a claim on his behalf if he were murdered?

 

The suffering that gay and lesbian people have endured at the hands of religion is incalculable, but they can look expectantly to the future for vindication. Scientific facts, after all, are a stubborn thing. Even our religious beliefs must finally yield to them as the church in its battle with Galileo ultimately realized. But for religion, the future might be ominous. Watching the growing conflict between medical science and religion over homosexuality is like watching a train wreck from a distance. You can see it coming for miles and sense the inevitable conclusion, but you're powerless to stop it. The more church leaders dig in their heels, the worse it's likely to be.

 

Oliver "Buzz" Thomas is a Baptist minister and author of an upcoming book, 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can't Because He Needs the Job).

________________________________________________

[Graeme]

While I applaud what he's said, I couldn't help notice that he's about to publish a book. The cynic in me can't help wonder how much he's trying to controversial, just to raise publicity to increase sales.

 

Overall, though, he's said nothing new. He's just presenting the liberal instead of conservative view on the bible. The Religious Tolerance website has a series of essays on the subject, contrasting the two points of view. I've found it a great site because it explains both sides and where they are coming from.

 

I would like to think that as a minority, we would object to people stereotyping gays. We should always try to avoid stereotyping others as well -- not all Baptist ministers agree with the leadership position, even if very few are vocal in their opposition. I remember an interesting survey here in Australia that had only 30% of Catholics (not just the leadership) believing homosexuality was a sin (I think it was about 60% for Baptists -- still not an overwhelming majority).

[colinian]

I would like to think that as a minority, we would object to people stereotyping gays. We should always try to avoid stereotyping others as well -- not all Baptist ministers agree with the leadership position, even if very few are vocal in their opposition. I remember an interesting survey here in Australia that had only 30% of Catholics (not just the leadership) believing homosexuality was a sin (I think it was about 60% for Baptists -- still not an overwhelming majority).

 

I don't actively think of myself as a "gay" guy. I think of myself as a normal guy who just happens to be in love with another guy, and is not interested in being in love with a girl. I sometimes refer to myself as "gay" because people need to pigeonhole and classify and label and limit everyone and everything, and sometimes I have to respond to that necessity to categorize. And I understand that. Like this forum wants to know my Sexuality. "Normal" isn't one of the choices. Like sometimes I have to refer to something as "gay" to make what I'm saying clear to others.

 

Everyone is pigeonholed, has a pigeonhole that they maintain.

 

My pigeonhole has all kinds of sticky notes stuck all over the walls that define me. Here are a few of them:

 

I'm normal. I like guys. I like to watch football. I like school. I love to laugh and make jokes. I love my folks. I try to not stereotype. I like to hike. I love my sisters, even the pest Liz. I'm into computers, big time. I am in love with Doug, my life partner. I get good grades, actually great grades. I love to write. I don't have enough time to write. I love my cousin Chris who's the brother I never had. I like almost everyone I meet. I found Spanish tough to learn. I like sex, a lot! I'm applying to attend UC Berkeley in the fall. I hate prejudice. I'm kind, and helpful. I have messy hair. I go to bed too late. I love to read.

 

There are lots more, hundreds of 'em, maybe thousands.

 

Oh, yeah, over there in the corner, between the side of the bookcase and the wall, there's that one that I sometimes have to use: I'm "gay".

 

That's too bad. I shouldn't need that one.

 

Maybe in my lifetime things will have changed, or, at least, continue to change, for the better for normal people who want to be in love with people of the same gender.

 

Is that weird? Is that depraved? Is that sick? Is that a sin?

 

For me, the answer is "NO". But my opinion is just one voice that's part of a small minority. At least now, at this time.

 

That's immeasurably too bad.

 

Colin

[Razor]

Okay, I might have to stop offending every single Christian I come into contact with. Maybe there's hope for them after all. I've been telling them all over and over that if they're really Christians (Jews can still get away with it), then they're supposed to take the teachings of the new testament over the old.... and it seems like this is sinking in with a few people. Jesus did always say to just be nice to everybody (in so many words).

 

I will say that I strongly disagree that homosexuality is a product of birth in and of itself. I think that it is mainly a psychological thing, and that perhaps certain genes contribute to the likelihood that a person will be homosexual.

 

I do, however, believe that it is completely involuntary. There is no "choice" involved. And, as the APA has said countless times, I think it would be extremely risky and potentially very harmful to a person to attempt to change a person's orientation. This is something that develops naturally, and some things just shouldn't be screwed with.

 

I like that a Baptist is being so intelligent about things. Normally they're the hellfire and brimstone preaching ones, so this is nice. Maybe in the future this will be the common view of Christians. It's something to hope for, anyway.

 

I'm not gonna hold my breath, though.

[C James]

I look at it this way: ten years ago, had a Baptist Bishop siad this, it would have raised a firestorm. Today, it hasn't. And that, my freinds, is what I call progress. :king:

[Myk]

Very interesting article! I think I like his reasoning...very fair and forward.

[shadowgod]

I don't actively think of myself as a "gay" guy. I think of myself as a normal guy who just happens to be in love with another guy, and is not interested in being in love with a girl. I sometimes refer to myself as "gay" because people need to pigeonhole and classify and label and limit everyone and everything, and sometimes I have to respond to that necessity to categorize. And I understand that. Like this forum wants to know my Sexuality. "Normal" isn't one of the choices. Like sometimes I have to refer to something as "gay" to make what I'm saying clear to others.

 

Everyone is pigeonholed, has a pigeonhole that they maintain.

 

My pigeonhole has all kinds of sticky notes stuck all over the walls that define me. Here are a few of them:

 

I'm normal. I like guys. I like to watch football. I like school. I love to laugh and make jokes. I love my folks. I try to not stereotype. I like to hike. I love my sisters, even the pest Liz. I'm into computers, big time. I am in love with Doug, my life partner. I gets good grades, actually great grades. I love to write. I don't have enough time to write. I loves my cousin Chris who's the brother I never had. I like almost everyone I meet. I found Spanish tough to learn. I like sex, a lot! I'm applying to attend UC Berkeley in the fall. I hate prejudice. I'm kind, and helpful. I have messy hair. I go to bed too late. I love to read.

 

There are lots more, hundreds of 'em, maybe thousands.

 

Oh, yeah, over there in the corner, between the side of the bookcase and the wall, there's that one that I sometimes have to use: I'm "gay".

 

That's too bad. I shouldn't need that one.

 

Maybe in my lifetime things will have changed, or, at least, continue to change, for the better for normal people who want to be in love with people of the same gender.

 

Is that weird? Is that depraved? Is that sick? Is that a sin?

 

For me, the answer is "NO". But my opinion is just one voice that's part of a small minority. At least now, at this time.

 

That's immeasurably too bad.

 

Colin

 

That is very poetic Colin, and I couldn't agree more... we shouldn't need that one...

[captainrick]

Very interesting article! I think I like his reasoning...very fair and forward.

 

When I posted the original thread, I wanted to start some debate on the hypocricy of the so called "Christian" churches that control the neo-con dogma that pervades the anti-gay movement. (Yeah, I know we're not s'posed to discuss politics here and I'm walking a damn fine line. but...) this is the closest thing to an olive branch that I've seen in a very long time. These are exciting times and evidence of change that some of us only dreamed of just a few years ago.

 

BTW, would someone mind posting some comment on my last chapter in the efiction story discussion forum. I don't care if you absolutely hate the last chapter, I'm starving for feedback!

 

Rick

 

[shadowgod]

When I posted the original thread, I wanted to start some debate on the hypocricy of the so called "Christian" churches that control the neo-con dogma that pervades the anti-gay movement. (Yeah, I know we're not s'posed to discuss politics here and I'm walking a damn fine line. but...) this is the closest thing to an olive branch that I've seen in a very long time. These are exciting times and evidence of change that some of us only dreamed of just a few years ago.

 

BTW, would someone mind posting some comment on my last chapter in the efiction story discussion forum. I don't care if you absolutely hate the last chapter, I'm starving for feedback!

 

Rick

 

 

Yo Rick!

 

I have yet to read, but seeing as your using inventive ways of encouraging feedback... I'll check it out tommorow and leave you a note or two.... Ask the resident shy and retiring lurker though ( CJ ) Once I start a rarely shut up

 

Steve

[colinian]

I actually had to read this twice to make sure it wasn't some kind of bad joke.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20061120/...sitscredibility

 

hugs,

 

Rick

When I posted the original thread, I wanted to start some debate on the hypocricy of the so called "Christian" churches that control the neo-con dogma that pervades the anti-gay movement. (Yeah, I know we're not s'posed to discuss politics here and I'm walking a damn fine line. but...) this is the closest thing to an olive branch that I've seen in a very long time. These are exciting times and evidence of change that some of us only dreamed of just a few years ago...

 

Rick

 

There's a column in the November 21st Contra Costa Times (and I'm sure lots of other newspapers) by syndicated Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman that uses the Ted Haggard situation to address the problem of organized religions' attitudes toward gays. It's here, and is a good read. She discusses some possible results from the Ted Haggard outing.

 

Rick, IMO, this column is a good start for the debate you wanted. :2hands:

 

My own opinion, NOI, is that most of the hate-mongering so-call "christians" (note capitalization) are like the nazis that put gays into concentration camps and gassed them along with Jews and anyone else they hated. They aren't real Christians (note capitalization) who honor God by loving and accepting everyone, even if they don't agree with their lifestyles.

 

Colin

[lustful_orcs]

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

-- Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi

 

Unfortunately that all too often is true.

But I do see the trend of Christianity slowly moving towards leaving intolerance behind.

 

If I "slowly move towards" getting you a cup of coffee, feel free to shoo me to the kitchen.

The same should happen to Christianity: they should get out of their comfy chair and back into the kitchen of Faith.

[Kadin]

There's a column in the November 21st Contra Costa Times (and I'm sure lots of other newspapers) by syndicated Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman that uses the Ted Haggard situation to address the problem of organized religions' attitudes toward gays. It's here, and is a good read. She discusses some possible results from the Ted Haggard outing.

 

Rick, IMO, this column is a good start for the debate you wanted. :2hands:

 

My own opinion, NOI, is that most of the hate-mongering so-call "christians" (note capitalization) are like the nazis that put gays into concentration camps and gassed them along with Jews and anyone else they hated. They aren't real Christians (note capitalization) who honor God by loving and accepting everyone, even if they don't agree with their lifestyles.

 

Colin

 

Colin;

 

Thanks for finding the article from Ellen Goodman, you're right, its a great read.

 

Still, we're a long way from seeing this kind of story in the Salt Lake Tribune, Dallas Morning news, or Denver Post.

 

There was an interesting article in Time magazine not to long ago that drew a similar distinction between true practicing Christians and what the article referred to as "Christianism". While not exactly the same subject, there are some interesting parallels. If you're interested, here's the article.

 

Link to Time.com

 

My Problem with Christianism

A believer spells out the difference between faith and a political agenda

By ANDREW SULLIVAN

 

Posted Sunday, May 7, 2006

Are you a Christian who doesn't feel represented by the religious right? I know the feeling. When the discourse about faith is dominated by political fundamentalists and social conservatives, many others begin to feel as if their religion has been taken away from them.

 

The number of Christians misrepresented by the Christian right is many. There are evangelical Protestants who believe strongly that Christianity should not get too close to the corrupting allure of government power. There are lay Catholics who, while personally devout, are socially liberal on issues like contraception, gay rights, women's equality and a multi-faith society. There are very orthodox believers who nonetheless respect the freedom and conscience of others as part of their core understanding of what being a Christian is. They have no problem living next to an atheist or a gay couple or a single mother or people whose views on the meaning of life are utterly alien to them--and respecting their neighbors' choices. That doesn't threaten their faith. Sometimes the contrast helps them understand their own faith better.

 

And there are those who simply believe that, by definition, God is unknowable to our limited, fallible human minds and souls. If God is ultimately unknowable, then how can we be so certain of what God's real position is on, say, the fate of Terri Schiavo? Or the morality of contraception? Or the role of women? Or the love of a gay couple? Also, faith for many of us is interwoven with doubt, a doubt that can strengthen faith and give it perspective and shadow. That doubt means having great humility in the face of God and an enormous reluctance to impose one's beliefs, through civil law, on anyone else.

 

I would say a clear majority of Christians in the U.S. fall into one or many of those camps. Yet the term "people of faith" has been co-opted almost entirely in our discourse by those who see Christianity as compatible with only one political party, the Republicans, and believe that their religious doctrines should determine public policy for everyone. "Sides are being chosen," Tom DeLay recently told his supporters, "and the future of man hangs in the balance! The enemies of virtue may be on the march, but they have not won, and if we put our trust in Christ, they never will." So Christ is a conservative Republican?

 

Rush Limbaugh recently called the Democrats the "party of death" because of many Democrats' view that some moral decisions, like the choice to have a first-trimester abortion, should be left to the individual, not the cops. Ann Coulter, with her usual subtlety, simply calls her political opponents "godless," the title of her new book. And the largely nonreligious media have taken the bait. The "Christian" vote has become shorthand in journalism for the Republican base.

 

What to do about it? The worst response, I think, would be to construct something called the religious left. Many of us who are Christians and not supportive of the religious right are not on the left either. In fact, we are opposed to any politicization of the Gospels by any party, Democratic or Republican, by partisan black churches or partisan white ones. "My kingdom is not of this world," Jesus insisted. What part of that do we not understand?

 

So let me suggest that we take back the word Christian while giving the religious right a new adjective: Christianist. Christianity, in this view, is simply a faith. Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist. Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.

 

That's what I dissent from, and I dissent from it as a Christian. I dissent from the political pollution of sincere, personal faith. I dissent most strongly from the attempt to argue that one party represents God and that the other doesn't. I dissent from having my faith co-opted and wielded by people whose politics I do not share and whose intolerance I abhor. The word Christian belongs to no political party. It's time the quiet majority of believers took it back.

 

Visit Andrew Sullivan's blog, The Daily Dish, at time.com

[captainrick]

There's a column in the November 21st Contra Costa Times (and I'm sure lots of other newspapers) by syndicated Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman that uses the Ted Haggard situation to address the problem of organized religions' attitudes toward gays. It's here, and is a good read. She discusses some possible results from the Ted Haggard outing.

 

Rick, IMO, this column is a good start for the debate you wanted. :2hands:

 

My own opinion, NOI, is that most of the hate-mongering so-call "christians" (note capitalization) are like the nazis that put gays into concentration camps and gassed them along with Jews and anyone else they hated. They aren't real Christians (note capitalization) who honor God by loving and accepting everyone, even if they don't agree with their lifestyles.

 

Colin

 

Thanks, Colin, and guys,

 

This type of discourse is exactly what I was talking about. :2hands: Maybe, just maybe, there are those out there who are finally listening to reason and science and not the repeated dogma that so pervades the message of "the religious right." Maybe "tolerance" is finally becoming "acceptance". Maybe it's left over optimism after the elections a couple of weeks ago. Maybe, just maybe, it's becoming "fashionable" or "Politically correct" to accept gays as we accept other minorities. Whatever it is, maybe the momemtum has begun. Of course racism and bigotry and homophobia will unfortunately always be with us, but a basic understanding and acceptance of the biology over choice argument is a necessary first step in global acceptance of homosexuality. These are exciting times and they are our times, and will be what we make of them. (Ooops my pragmatism is showing!)

 

Thanks again guys.

 

 

Rick

[colinian]

Colin;

 

Thanks for finding the article from Ellen Goodman, you're right, its a great read.

 

Still, we're a long way from seeing this kind of story in the Salt Lake Tribune, Dallas Morning news, or Denver Post.

 

There was an interesting article in Time magazine not to long ago that drew a similar distinction between true practicing Christians and what the article referred to as "Christianism". While not exactly the same subject, there are some interesting parallels. If you're interested, here's the article.

 

Link to Time.com

 

Thanks for the Time Magazine article Kadin. It's going to take a long time, unfortunately, for hate to be eliminated. Articles like these really help, and can change minds. The way you change minds is one at a time. And each time you change a mind, you have a person who can change other minds.

 

Colin

[captainrick]

See my first post in this string, edited today. Great news. A fifth country has recognized Gay marriage on a national basis.

 

Rick

 

[lustful_orcs]

See my first post in this string, edited today. Great news. A fifth country has recognized Gay marriage on a national basis.

 

Rick

 

 

 

*takes a deep breath and starts singing Nkosi Sikelel' iAfrika until the neighbors call to STFU*

 

No seriously, that is great, great news, a giant leap forward in the struggle for rights or even acknowledgement of homosexuality in Africa, thanks to aforementioned Christian churches the most homophobic continent of the world. I hope it will be a first step towards Africans coming to terms with the role of homosexuality in their rich heritage of cultures.

[Graeme]

When this news first came out a week or so ago (though the legislation hadn't been passed at that stage -- there were still a few steps to go through, though they were considered formalities), a friend made a comment:

 

It's a sad state of events when the nation well-known for having had the Apartheid policy is more advanced in equal rights than our own nations (USA in his case, Australia in mine).

[DarkShadow]

When this news first came out a week or so ago (though the legislation hadn't been passed at that stage -- there were still a few steps to go through, though they were considered formalities), a friend made a comment:

 

It's a sad state of events when the nation well-known for having had the Apartheid policy is more advanced in equal rights than our own nations (USA in his case, Australia in mine).

 

I was just thinking something very similar.

 

How is it... what most people consider a third world country, can have such a new age consideration for equal rights.

 

The rest of us need to catch up! It's almost embarrassing that the US is so slow to adopt this obvious concession to equality. Here the nation was supposed to be 'built' on 'by the people/for the people'. And yet, here we sit. Gay bashing, and a never ending litany of bigotry and hate.

 

It's sad.