This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Bernie Goldberg on gay marriage and religion.

#1oarphishmoePosted 7/2/2013 7:11:03 PM
http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/what-would-jesus-say-about-adam-and-steve/

Pretty interesting article if you ask me.

I find myself agreeing with him more and more these days..


What do you guys think?
---
Proud fan of The Miami Dolphins, Miami Hurricanes, Syracuse Orange Basketball and The New York Mets.
#2splodeymissilePosted 7/3/2013 1:46:42 AM
I agree with him.
---
One can not help but imagine Microsoft as being ran by a thousand Homer Simpsons. -Obturator
#3KNessJMPosted 7/3/2013 2:49:09 AM
It's really the only sensible position. People can fight against gay marriage acceptance in the Western world all they want, but it's an inevitability at this point. The current generation overwhelmingly accepts it, and the generations to come will accept it even more. Gay marriage is analogous to inter-racial marriage at this point.

And the statement "After all, if opponents of gay marriage are automatically bigots then President Obama was a bigot."

Yeah...and?
---
Quote of the Week: "Sinners, all committing their crimes with abandon, safe in the knowledge that their absolution was one quick church trip away"
#4C_MatPosted 7/3/2013 12:06:53 PM
What about the belief that it's wrong to vote against gay marriage on religious grounds, but then Barack Obama was praised for supporting gay marriage on religious grounds? Seems hypocritical to me.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#5C_MatPosted 7/3/2013 12:21:54 PM
Two comments I'll make about the article (which, as a Christian, I disagree with a lot of it- but I'll restrain myself to these two comments). One is on the just plain bad theology here:
It can make them forget that it was Jesus who aligned himself with those society shunned? It was Jesus who was on the side of the “outcast.”

Jesus spent time with people who were humble enough to admit they needed a savior. Most of the time, these were people society had rejected. But he didn't ally himself with them because they were rejects. He spent time with anyone who came to him humbly regardless of their wealth or social status. He never said, "Sorry Nicodemus, I'd love to chat but I only have time for outcasts."

For the author of the column to say this about Jesus is just showing his ignorance of the most significant figure in history of the world.

On this issue, religious conservatives are on the wrong side of a very powerful force. They are on the wrong side of history.

How is it possible to be on the wrong side of history when almost all marriages in history have been between a man and a woman. He could predict that religious conservatives are on the wrong side of the future, but it's impossible to say that we're on the wrong side of history. He would have to be alive many years from now and time travel back here to make that claim about 21st Century conservatives.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#6Moorish_IdolPosted 7/3/2013 12:51:00 PM
C_Mat posted...
How is it possible to be on the wrong side of history when almost all marriages in history have been between a man and a woman. He could predict that religious conservatives are on the wrong side of the future, but it's impossible to say that we're on the wrong side of history. He would have to be alive many years from now and time travel back here to make that claim about 21st Century conservatives.

I think that's more to do with heterosexuals being, by far, the majority throughout history. For that reason I don't think it's fair to appeal to numbers.

Also I believe he was referring to things like slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights, etc.; all of which had, at one time, a majority support and are now deemed being on the wrong side. If the current trend of support for same-sex relationships continues, it will inevitably be seen as wrong to be against it.
#7IndoriPosted 7/3/2013 1:13:33 PM
Homosexual acts will just become another in a long list of activities that Christians originally widely opposed and later accepted for convenience.
---
Me? I'm the king of the twentieth century.
I'm the bogeyman. The villain.
#8C_MatPosted 7/3/2013 5:22:05 PM
Moorish_Idol posted...
I think that's more to do with heterosexuals being, by far, the majority throughout history. For that reason I don't think it's fair to appeal to numbers.

Also I believe he was referring to things like slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights, etc.; all of which had, at one time, a majority support and are now deemed being on the wrong side. If the current trend of support for same-sex relationships continues, it will inevitably be seen as wrong to be against it.


That's my point; it's impossible to say right now who is on the wrong side of history.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#9Imperator420Posted 7/3/2013 11:38:38 PM
C_Mat posted...

How is it possible to be on the wrong side of history when almost all marriages in history have been between a man and a woman. He could predict that religious conservatives are on the wrong side of the future, but it's impossible to say that we're on the wrong side of history. He would have to be alive many years from now and time travel back here to make that claim about 21st Century conservatives.


Actually, history is viewed as a continuous progress and that sort of usage is common. "History will vindicate me", for instance, is a common claim. What I believe he's saying (haven't actually read the article) is that years in the future, anti-gay marriage activists will be viewed negatively - as being wrong. He doesn't have to time travel anywhere to make that claim, nor it is impossible to judge whether he is right. You would have to be an idiot in the 60's to not see that discrimination against non-whites was going to become less severe. Why? Because by and large, young people were more in support of civil rights than old people, and when old people started dying off, changes were bound to happen.

There are such things as a reactionary movement or a conservative backlash, but they go against the general trend. You can impede or even reverse progress for years, maybe decades, but in the course of centuries, it's very rare that a continuous society grows more conservative rather than more liberal without some sort of catastrophe. That's why conservatives are always trying to conserve things.
---
I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast ... for it repenteth me that I have made them. - Genesis 7
#10C_MatPosted 7/4/2013 8:07:46 AM
See, you're taking a very selective view of history when you say that. You could have said the same thing about pro-life advocates 40 years ago and, so far, you'd be wrong. In fact, the issue has been trending the other way in recent years. It's still impossible to say whether liberals or conservatives are on the correct side of history when we're still in the middle of the issue. I would also point out to you that every society/nation in history that has celebrated homosexuality is not around anymore.

Also, the only way the last sentence of your post makes any sense at all is if you're trying to say that conservatives desire catastrophe, which is dumb. Otherwise I have no idea what you meant by that sentence.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk