Skip to comments.Southern Baptists: Gay rights not civil rights
Posted on 06/21/2012 7:03:53 AM PDT by scottjewell
NEW ORLEANSA day after electing their first African-American president in a historic move that strives to erase its legacy of racism, Southern Baptists passed a resolution opposing the idea that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue. Thousands of delegates at the denomination's annual meeting in New Orleans on Wednesday were nearly unanimous in their support for the resolution that affirms their belief that marriage is "the exclusive union of one man and one woman" and that "all sexual behavior outside of marriage is sinful." . . . The resolution acknowledges that gays and lesbians sometimes experience "unique struggles" but declares that they lack the "distinguishing features of classes entitled to special protections." It includes a call for the U.S. Justice Department to cease efforts to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act and for the Obama administration to ensure that military personnel and chaplains canfreely express their religious convictions about homosexuality. . . "It's important to sound the alarm again, because the culture is changing," [said Mckissic] [adding]it was "an unfair comparison" for gays to equate same-sex marriage with civil rights because there is not incontrovertible scientific evidence that homosexuality is an innate characteristic, like skin color.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
Well, it is by the Associated Press. But I think it is pretty clear that it is NOT a call for gay rights, but a challenge and assertion that gay rights are not the same as civil rights. That it is preceded by “Southern Baptists:” leaves no doubt.
Of all the government protected classes of official victims gays (now LGBTs) are defined by the most questionable definition.
The other victims are defined by physical appearance whereas LGBTs Gays are defined by their behavior, although it is claimed to be their ‘feelings’ or ‘desires’; but it is their behavior that is protected, not their being or 'feelings'. American NEVER outlawed 'feelings' so the whole thing is based on a faulty premise.
Let me debate those libs LOL
The argument over innateness is a red herring that plays into the homosexual lobby's hands. The reference point needs to be shifted from the individual, whose inner convolutions are unknowable, to society. Whereas society experiences your race as something you are, it experiences your sexuality as something you do, regardless of whether it's innate or not. And society has a right to pass laws that take into account what you do. That's what makes gay marriage not a civil rights issue.
“The resolution on same-sex marriage and civil rights includes a statement that the SBC stands against “any form or gay-bashing, whether disrespectful attitudes, hateful rhetoric, or hate-incited actions.”
But even with those disclaimers, statements such as this one could hurt evangelism efforts because they are likely to be objectionable to many people who are “not necessarily affirming, but also not rejecting” of gay rights issues, Key said.”
The Gospel starts with the call to REPENT. If one accepts sin, there is nothing to be saved FROM.
“McKissic, who is black, said it was “an unfair comparison” for gays to equate same-sex marriage with civil rights because there is not incontrovertible scientific evidence that homosexuality is an innate characteristic, like skin color.
“They’re equating their sin with my skin,” he said.”
There is no right to be a PERVERT!
If you chose to be a pervert you alone are responsible for the problems that choice causes you
Everyone has the right to be a pervert with other consenting perverts. The consequences of perversion are their own ‘reward.’
They don’t have the right to forced integration of perversion onto others, and especially not other people’s children.
Freedom of association - the freedom not to associate with perverts and to reject their perversion is a constitutional right.
That "right" certainly does not originate from God. Allowing such a status for practitioners of immorality is granting a status which they have seized. I reject the legitimacy of the seizure.
There is no right to do wrong.
Disclaimer: (This is not a Baptist ping)
But you can be reading this while I am deciding to ping the Baptist list or just wait and see if it happens anyway.
The argument would be that what you DO is inseperable from what you ARE, that the latter dictates the former. A diabetic doesn’t CHOOSE to go into a coma; he does so because he is diabetic. He may choose to inject insulin, which may stave off the coma, but even in that case, his behavior (the injection) is a function of his nature (being diabetic). Don’t shoot me; I don’t believe any of that claptrap. I’m just playing the Devil’s advocate.
The real answer to this specious defense is that we are not opposing homosexuality or even homosexual behavior. That will be judged by the Ultimate Authority. What we oppose is the false normalization of deviancy and the insistence that society grant it its imprimatur.
Are you not the keeper of the sbc ping list anymore?
“. . . in a historic move that strives to erase its legacy of racism, . .”
Was this a declaration made by the Southern Baptist body or is a pure surmise on the part of the article’s author? I believe it is the latter which makes this article wholly subjective.
Freedom of association is NOT a constitutional right, at least not since Brown vs. Board. You are not free to deny public accommodations to anyone, nor are you at liberty to follow your beliefs if they by their very nature exclude certain protected individuals or groups.
I posted that on the wrong thread. I guess it was meant to be that way. But yes I still have the list but anyone is free to use it, even people that are not Baptists. :>)
ooo eye sea...
“. . . in a historic move that strives to erase its legacy of racism, . .
Was this a declaration made by the Southern Baptist body or is a pure surmise on the part of the articles author? I believe it is the latter which makes this article wholly subjective.”
I would agree, there is no reason to believe that by appointing this black leader, that the SBs were in any way trying to erase a legacy of racism. They likely thought he was qualified. Yes, that had to have been inserted subjectively by the article’s author.