Southern Baptists - 'Same Sex Marriage is Not a Civil Rights Issue'

Christian Post - Southern Baptists say Same Sex Marriage is Not a Civil Rights Issue

NEW ORLEANS — Messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in America, went on record Wednesday to oppose any attempt by gay rights activists to frame same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue.

On the last day of their annual meeting, Southern Baptist messengers overwhelmingly adopted a resolution that denounces "the effort to legalize 'same-sex marriage' as a civil rights issue since homosexuality does not qualify as a class meriting special protections, like race and gender."

The resolution, titled "'Same-Sex Marriage' and Civil Rights Rhetoric," was a direct response to President Obama's personal affirmation of gay marriage and recent federal lawsuits against the Defense of Marriage Act, according to the Resolutions Committee spokesperson.

'Homosexuality does not qualify as a class meriting special protections like race and gender' - they say.
They are entitled to their opinion but ... who are they to decide what qualifes?
And since when is being allowed to marry who you want something that needs 'special protection'?

I understand that practicing homosexuality is against their religion and all.
And I understand they have a right to their opinion.
But as far as I'm concerned - two consenting adults being able to marry whomever they wish IS a civil right.

The majority of states and people do not want this to happen.

The problem with this country is that the minority desire changes that the majority do not want.

Popular opinion is what this country is supposed to make their decisions on.

If the majority decide they want it, then allow it to happen. But while the majority are against it, it should not be allowed to happen.

I was raised Southern Baptist... Ooooo-eeee! Of course they're not going to see marriage as a civil right. Not if the gays are doing it... And sex is bad, dirty, nasty and shouldn't be discussed, and you should save it for the person you love... Even as a child, I began questioning their logic.... I never have understood it. :shk:

reply to post by MentorsRiddle


That's really what you think, is it? Do I have to be the guy who points out interracial marriage, suffrage for women, the end of slavery, Jim Crow laws, etc?

The majority is not always right.

reply to post by MentorsRiddle


So, if the majority decides that all men should pay more child support and alimony?
Or if they decide that blacks really shouldn't be sharing public drinking fountains?

You get the idea... We are a republic, not a democracy...

Majority Rules - Minority Rights

The American founders—Anti-Federalists and Federalists alike—considered rule by majority a troubling conundrum. In theory, majority rule was necessary for expressing the popular will and the basis for establishing the republic. The alternative—consensus or rule by everyone's agreement—cannot be imposed upon a free people. And minority rule is antithetical to democracy. But the founders worried that the majority could abuse its powers to oppress a minority just as easily as a king. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both warn in their letters about the dangers of the tyranny of the legislature and of the executive. Madison, alluding to slavery, went further, writing, "It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part."

Are you really trying to compare racial issues, and hypothetical situations with gay relationships?

The majority of the population is extremly opposed to gay marriage. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

If "The People" truly wanted this to be legal then it would be.

However, like it or not, as it stands the majority do not want this.

You can try to twist our natioal rights and the wording around all you'd like - but the support of minority was not referncing homosexuals when it was written. It was referencing those who were downtrodden, and weak. Be serious.

Besides - at that time the majority of the Nation wanted slavery to end, which is why there was a war over it: because a minority, the south, didn't want it to end.

You know what - give it enough time and let the liberals fully take over - you will see this country crumble.

It is a historical fact, if you'd even bother to open a history book, that when the liberal ideas begin to take over, and morals and ethics decline - a country falls apart.

Open your eyes - and see that what's going on here is planned by higher powers, who laugh at you as you march into bondage while cheering and clapping your hands.

Why are people so freggin' blind to what's going on?

The media is hyping this "gay rights" because they, the powers that be, want people squabbling over bull crap that doesn't matter.




As far as protecting minorites go - that was about protecting the lower class from the elite!!!!!!!!! DO YOUR HISTORY!

They were trying to get away from the problems that they had in England.... How did they know how to fix those problems? They did their history research, and experienced power corruption first hand.....

That is all.

Society is currently trying to shame the majority into accepting gay marriage/sex and if that fails, the law will step in.

Since when does 'civil rights' extend to sexual practices ?

Race yes
Gender yes

Sexual practice? No.

Demographically speaking, I've consistently found myself in about the 3-7% range, in a lot of different respects. My avatar here, in World of Warcraft was a Survival Hunter, which occupied about that sort of percentage of WoW's playerbase. I've spent a fair amount of time using the FOSS UNIXes as well; Linux and FreeBSD hold a market share of less than 4%.

It happens with food reasonably regularly, as well. I tend to like more obscure forms of health food. A local supermarket was selling some delicious canned lentil soup here a bit back, which was imported from America, incidentally. It became a discontinued line though, because nobody was buying it. My first can of it, was ironically the last can they had; I would be buying it regularly if they were still selling it, but apparently nobody else did.

So this is one area where I can definitely empathise with the gay community. In a society with our economic paradigm, unless you're very wealthy, it's very difficult being a person with preferences that are shared by less than 5% of the overall population.

As for the Southern Baptists, truthfully I try hard not to care about what Christians think, any more. Judaism held that it was a person's actions which determined their standing with God, and James supported that idea as well. It was only Paul who tried to claim that a person was saved irrespective of their behaviour, depending on their beliefs.

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
Since when does 'civil rights' extend to sexual practices ?

Race yes
Gender yes

Sexual practice? No.

We live in a society where celibacy is considered unthinkable. Sexual abstinence, in Western society, is not even so much taboo, as it is simply not mentioned at all. The view is that a person literally cannot survive without being sexually active.

If a person is not permitted to be sexually active in the way they want, it is considered repressive. Personally, for me sex is in the "want," rather than the "need," category; it's nice, but non-essential, and the degree of negative consequences often makes it far better to avoid it.

A lot of people within the gay community, however, apparently don't feel that way. Sex is apparently considered more or less as essential to life as oxygen. I would tend to feel pity towards such an attitude myself, (on either the gay or hetero side of the fence) viewing it as both immature, and somewhat morally degenerate...but again, that's just me.

reply to post by WhoKnows100

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
Since when does 'civil rights' extend to sexual practices ?

It doesn't. Since when is marriage a "sexual practice"? People don't have to get married to engage in sexual practices.

How Marriage Works

...there are 1,138 federal benefits, rights and responsibilities associated with marriage

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
Since when does 'civil rights' extend to sexual practices ?

Those 'sexual practices' extend into civil rights when it comes to marriage.
This isn't about sexual rights because consenting adults can have sex with whoever they want.
It's about marriage rights - which is a civil right.

reply to post by FlyersFan


They are right and Iagre with them. However what they are not saying is that it is purely a "religious" issue and if they claimed it just for religious reasons that they would big time!

This is a religious issue and that is the main reason why gay marriage should not be banned. In my opinion is that if one can not outlaw homosexuality (I know some state have but were over turned) that gay unions can not also be outlawed.

As a person who has been engaged for 19 years it really doesn't matter to me ...

married or not; gay or not;

a piece of paper does not keep a man or woman faithful..

Originally posted by petrus4
[We live in a society where celibacy is considered unthinkable.

I hear ya' and I feel the same way .. that we are an over sexed society. It's a distraction from more important things ... from 'higher' things. But that's kind of a different issue. Maybe one for the metaphysical forum. The question is .. should two consenting adults be able to marry each other and have all the legal rights that other married consenting adults have?

I understand that the baptists don't buy homosexuality as a natural thing.
I understand that they follow their bible and think that it's wrong.
Okay. Fine. So don't teach it to your kids and don't hire homosexuals to work in your church.
Whatever. That's their right. Fine.

But the question still is - should two consenting adults be able to marry each other and have all the legal rights that other married consenting adults have?

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns


Think about this for a second... When you buy a car, you sign a contract. If you default on that contract, the state comes in and holds you to the conditions of your contract. There are hundreds of contracts a citizen can make with the state. Marriage is simply another contract people enter into with the state.

Would you support disallowing gay people to buy cars?

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns
This is a religious issue and that is the main reason why gay marriage should not be banned.

My husband and I are atheists. We married in a courthouse and no religious words were spoken... How can you claim that marriage is a religious issue when people can get married completely without any religious implications at all?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

My husband and I are atheists. We married in a courthouse and no religious words were spoken... How can you claim that marriage is a religious issue when people can get married completely without any religious implications at all?

First marriage is a product of the church and the "state" got involved when there were legal benefits to being married.

If you look at the oppsition to gay marriage it is all about religious doctrine and that is a fact that no one wants to really put out front.

I am agnostic and I don't believe in God but I have seen some amazing things so I don't discount it totally (99.999999 %) so I might as well be an atheist.

lastly, if there was not any "religious" aspect of "marriage" why and how could a ban from Justices of the Peace or someone else marrying a gay couple?

Clearly, there must be some religious aspect of even a "public" marriage cermony.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns

 

Think about this for a second... When you buy a car, you sign a contract. If you default on that contract, the state comes in and holds you to the conditions of your contract. There are hundreds of contracts a citizen can make with the state. Marriage is simply another contract people enter into with the state.

Would you support disallowing gay people to buy cars

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns
This is a religious issue and that is the main reason why gay marriage should not be banned.

My husband and I are atheists. We married in a courthouse and no religious words were spoken... How can you claim that marriage is a religious issue when people can get married completely without any religious implications at all?

????? Would you support disallowing gay people to buy cars ?????


That is a very poor analogy ....

so how exactly is that akin to gay marriage? In your analogy it would like you support "not selling a car to two men or two woman who are living together or in a relationship"?

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns
First marriage is a product of the church and the "state" got involved when there were legal benefits to being married.

Bzzzt! Wrong. Better do a little more research. Marriage predates religion and even recorded history.

If you look at the oppsition to gay marriage it is all about religious doctrine and that is a fact that no one wants to really put out front.

Oh, I know religious people THINK they own marriage, but they are wrong.

Many people ADD a religious aspect to their marriage, by having the ceremony in a church and talking about their god. But that's not at all necessary. Marriage is a state contract an you can add whatever meaning to it that you want.

lastly, if there was not any "religious" aspect of "marriage" why and how could a ban from Justices of the Peace or someone else marrying a gay couple?

I'm not sure I understand the question... But if I understand you correctly, the answer is that religion is influencing the law... One thing we're not supposed to have in this country.

Now, can you answer this question?

My husband and I are atheists. We married in a courthouse and no religious words were spoken... How can you claim that marriage is a religious issue when people can get married completely without any religious implications at all?

Claiming a poor analogy is just a way to avoid answering the question... I see you have no answer. That's OK. There isn't a good one. But it's something for you to think about. Since you don't like the car-buying analogy, how about a personal loan? Would you support disallowing gay people to enter into a contract for a personal loan? A contract that the state would oversee? How about a contract to build a house? Would you allow a gay contractor to build a house for another gay man?

If sexual preferences (including same gender relationships) are not a civil right, then what gives any adult the right to make sexual choices or marry a partner?

It sounds to me like the Southern Baptists do believe sexuality is a civil right, however they only want their definition of correct sex and marriage to enjoy civil rights and special protection.
While its great for religious groups to have views based on their preferences, since when does a particular sect of religion decide what constitutes civil rights for others?
How long before religious pseudoscience is taught in public schools, and the rights of other religions and rival sects are attacked by similar arguments?
History shows that when religions determine human rights its the start of the dark ages, and homophobic countries today often also don't allow freedom of speech or freedom of religion.
People are fleeing from, rather than to such countries.

Surely the right for all citizens to marry somebody of the same gender does fall under gender rights.
Then there's the irony that fundamentalist religious groups constantly treat gays as an identifiable minority in their own literature and statements (such as "God hates Fags", or "Ain't no homo gonna make it to heaven"), so they actually create an identifiable minority outside the mere act of "homosexuality". Once a minority is recognized by targeted persecution then surely their civil rights also become relevant as a minority, similar to racial minorities.
Not that this matters, since same-sex marriage will be open to the majority, and expand the gender rights of all, and not just a self-identified gay minority.

There might of course be other arguments in the US, but simply saying that one form of sexuality doesn't deserve being a civil right just because it falls outside the preferences of another is not really an argument at all.

reply to post by FlyersFan


What I don't get is..

Theres a lot of people, a lot of things in this country that goes on that doesn't comply with christianity, but why is it they are so damn adamant about gay marriage?

I don't think this is about religion. I know religious people that are completely cool with gays, and gay marriage. Actually a lot of people. This is about something much more primal. Primal and incredibly stupid.