SCOTUS rules same sex marriage is constitutional right

[beltim]

Much of this thread frames the discussion as people of faith are holding back social progress, and your post is an exemplar of that framing.

I didn't mean to assert that a majority of religious people oppose social progress, but I stand by my (precise) assertion that most opposition has been organized by religious groups.  Do you know of ANY groups who oppose gay marriage for reasons other than their religion?

That's fine.  I don't know any groups that oppose same sex marriage for nonreligious reasons, but then I haven't done any research into it at all.  I do know a lot of religious people and groups who are tireless advocates for marriage equality.

There are county clerks in multiple states refusing to issue marriage licensed today to same sex couples because of their faith.  To my eyes, this is akin to the aforementioned Hindu refusing to slaughter a cow; why did you become a butcher?

If your religion prevents you from doing a job, don't do that job.  It's not discrimination when you are the one refusing to do what your employer has hired you to do.  It IS discrimination when you force your religious beliefs onto people who don't share them by violating their legally protected rights.

We're not talking about religious marriage, we're talking about filing legal paperwork with the county.  Priests and Shamans have always been able to refuse to marry anyone.  But a civil servant is not allowed to deny your driver's license or voter registration or marriage application because of their religious beliefs, any more than they are allowed to grant polygamous marriages if they are Mormon.  The law doesn't allow it.  Their job is to uphold the law.

No disagreement about any of this.  Remember - lots of Christians and members of other religions agree with us too!

I happily accept your criticism about framing the discussion in terms of how religion tramples rights, instead of the good things religions have done, because this is a thread about trampled rights.

Sometimes.   This is where your lack of precision bothers me again.  Sometimes religious people trample rights.  All religions have people who do this.  But it's not unique to religion.  When atheists come to power, they have trampled rights too.  Is there anything meaningful you can say about relative frequency?  If not, then you don't help your argument by saying that religious people trample rights when more religious support the right under discussion than don't. 

[Gin1984]

Much of this thread frames the discussion as people of faith are holding back social progress, and your post is an exemplar of that framing.

I didn't mean to assert that a majority of religious people oppose social progress, but I stand by my (precise) assertion that most opposition has been organized by religious groups.  Do you know of ANY groups who oppose gay marriage for reasons other than their religion?

There are county clerks in multiple states refusing to issue marriage licensed today to same sex couples because of their faith.  To my eyes, this is akin to the aforementioned Hindu refusing to slaughter a cow; why did you become a butcher?

If your religion prevents you from doing a job, don't do that job.  It's not discrimination when you are the one refusing to do what your employer has hired you to do.  It IS discrimination when you force your religious beliefs onto people who don't share them by violating their legally protected rights.

We're not talking about religious marriage, we're talking about filing legal paperwork with the county.  Priests and Shamans have always been able to refuse to marry anyone.  But a civil servant is not allowed to deny your driver's license or voter registration or marriage application because of their religious beliefs, any more than they are allowed to grant polygamous marriages if they are Mormon.  The law doesn't allow it.  Their job is to uphold the law.

I happily accept your criticism about framing the discussion in terms of how religion tramples rights, instead of the good things religions have done, because this is a thread about trampled rights.

I want to call out Sol for being inclusive here.  Not many would include Shamans when talking about religious.  Often those in non-Abrahamic religions sit on the side line with the non-religious arguing with the Abrahamic religions and the no one seems to consider that we are not agreeing with the Abrahamic religions.  So my hat off to Sol for his inclusion of religions that don't worship the God of Abraham.   

[sol]

you don't help your argument by saying that religious people trample rights when more religious support the right under discussion than don't.

I think this is probably just a matter of fighting your battles where you find them.

If you want to fight for equality, and the only people opposing equality are doing so for religious reasons, then it seems natural to attack the religious basis of the opposition as the unifying thread.

I would like nothing more than for the faith-based community to do a better job policing their own members when they promote intolerance and hate.  I would even stand at their side to help out.  It's not the belief in the supernatural that bothers me, I actually support everyone's right to find their own belief system, it's just the active discrimination against people who don't share your beliefs that gets me riled up.

So for anyone else our there who is feeling maligned, fret not. Atheists do not care what creation story or ancient book you believe in.  We only care that you allow everyone else to also choose their beliefs, free of discrimination or bias or oppressive laws.  We tend to think we've found the truth, and that the truth will eventually win out all by itself, so we're not threatened by your faith or trying to limit your freedoms.  We're trying to protect your freedoms, including your right to worship, just like we're trying to protect our own and everyone else's.

[Gin1984]

you don't help your argument by saying that religious people trample rights when more religious support the right under discussion than don't.

I think this is probably just a matter of fighting your battles where you find them.

If you want to fight for equality, and the only people opposing equality are doing so for religious reasons, then it seems natural to attack the religious basis of the opposition as the unifying thread.

I would like nothing more than for the faith-based community to do a better job policing their own members when they promote intolerance and hate.  I would even stand at their side to help out.  It's not the belief in the supernatural that bothers me, I actually support everyone's right to find their own belief system, it's just the active discrimination against people who don't share your beliefs that gets me riled up.

So for anyone else our there who is feeling maligned, fret not. Atheists do not care what creation story or ancient book you believe in.  We only care that you allow everyone else to also choose their beliefs, free of discrimination or bias or oppressive laws.  We tend to think we've found the truth, and that the truth will eventually win out all by itself, so we're not threatened by your faith or trying to limit your freedoms.  We're trying to protect your freedoms, including your right to worship, just like we're trying to protect our own and everyone else's.

I have to agree here.  I have found atheists who often think I'm nuts, but the general consensus seems to be, I don't care as long as you don't expect me to worship along with you.  Maybe those who are feeling attacked here, should figure out what the group you are identifying with has done to get this reaction and then decide if you should belong to it or not. 
I have friends who left the Republican Party because they got tired of being "attacked" for things they actually don't agree with but the party line stated.  Maybe the problem is your group, not those "attacking".

[beltim]

Sometimes Christians overwhelmingly support same-sex marriage: see Unitarian Universalists at 94%!

I don't think Unitarian Universalist is a Christian denomination. There's no discussion of Christ at all in their belief statements. And even a belief in God is not necessarily required.
http://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe

http://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/sacred-texts

Unitarian Universalists are agnostic, theist, atheist and everything in between.

They are kind of a non-religious religion. Perhaps that's why they are so overwhelmingly in support of same-sex marriage.

Sorry, that should have read "Unitarian/Universalist."  Unitarians are definitely Christian.

[beltim]

you don't help your argument by saying that religious people trample rights when more religious support the right under discussion than don't.

I think this is probably just a matter of fighting your battles where you find them.

If you want to fight for equality, and the only people opposing equality are doing so for religious reasons, then it seems natural to attack the religious basis of the opposition as the unifying thread.

Attacking religions definitely has a long glorious past.  It seems like a smart.

This is arbitrarily narrow.  There are state sponsored reductions of rights - including same sex marriage - in many countries with no religious basis (China, Russia). 

I have no problem with you attacking religious reasons - that's a good idea.  But many of your posts lean towards attacking religion.  If your argument only affects a minority of the people you're characterizing, then you need to be more specific.   That's the precision I'm asking for, but you seem to be doubling down on religion as the problem.

[Annamal]

  We tend to think we've found the truth, and that the truth will eventually win out all by itself, so we're not threatened by your faith or trying to limit your freedoms.  We're trying to protect your freedoms, including your right to worship, just like we're trying to protect our own and everyone else's.

There are some limited cases where I (as a committed atheist) genuinely do believe that the beliefs of others should be able to restrict my actions even though those beliefs are not rational by my definition.

There are places in my country which are considered sacred by local Maori and where the behaviour of visitors is restricted in ways that it is not restricted in other places. I support the practice while not sharing the belief.

[sol]

There are state sponsored reductions of rights - including same sex marriage - in many countries with no religious basis (China, Russia). 

Oooh, now there's an interesting tidbit.  Why do they do that?

Five minutes of internet research suggests that Russian opposition to homosexuality is primarily driven by the orthodox church, but supplemented with cold war era attitudes about the corrosive influence of western culture.

In China, by contrast, the opposition is apparently due to western influence.  Ancient China openly tolerated homosexuality (and polygamy), but they eventually imported western social mores and have just held onto them longer than the west has.

So in both cases, I think religion is still at least partially on the hook as the primary cause.  So much for that "no religious basis" claim.

I'm not sure you're helping, beltim.  You're reinforcing my suspicions that organized religion has been the primary obstacle to social progress, certainly in America but maybe everywhere else, too.

[sol]

There are places in my country which are considered sacred by local Maori and where the behaviour of visitors is restricted in ways that it is not restricted in other places. I support the practice while not sharing the belief.

Your voluntary compliance with someone else's belief is not the same as legally mandated compliance for everyone.  Would you support a law restricting all access to Tongariro National park?

What if one tribe thinks a site is sacred and their neighbor tribe thinks it's good hunting grounds?  Do you forbid a tribe access to their usual and accustomed hunting grounds on the basis of some other groups beliefs?

It's much harder to enforce equality for everyone by placing restrictions on everyone than it is by granting freedoms to everyone.  You respect your sacred land and I'll respect mine.

[FIreDrill]

First off, I am a Christian and I find it very interesting reading through this thread.  It does seem that religion is getting attacked quit a bit in this discussion but that could just be me reading into things.    With all that has happened in the last week I have been pretty silent and just observing the two sides basically attack each other non stop.  Also, I'm not just talking about this thread but everything that I am seeing over Facebook and social media.  So this is what I am seeing from both sides so far...

Christians:

OMG! The Supreme Court passed marriage equality!  How can they redefine marriage like that! 

Growing up in the Church it seems like the majority of Christians believe that the U.S. was brought up on purely christian values and they want it to stay that way.  I have noticed that the majority of Christians I see freaking out are really worried about society in general and how our societies views are changing.  The reasoning for these people on being against marriage equality is extremely simple, it's a sin according to the Bible and they don't want to see society moving to sinful ways.  So now let me get to what I am seeing on the other side.

Marriage Equality:

Everyone has the right to love and to join into marriage!  Yay marriage equality!  Christians are horrible people because they discriminate against gays!

I have literally seen a ton of Pro Equality FB friends attacking Christian FB friends for there beliefs.  I find it kinda ironic because the Pro Equality group is demeaning towards the Christian group for their beliefs.  But this totally goes the other way too.  It's like a full on Hate/Hate battle.

So from my point of view the reason it is so hard for both sides to comprehend each other is due to the fact that the correct answer on each side is just so simple...  You have one side rooting for equality and the other side rooting for their beliefs.



All of this is just what I have observed.  I try to keep an open mind in order to understand both sides usually in whatever I am looking into.  Now for what I think...

My thoughts:

I do not support of same sex marriage because I believe it is a sin.  That being said, I don't want to rant and rave about how stupid this decision is because what good does that do.  It doesn't help me show the love of Christ to anyone and honestly I can't control what the Supreme Court decided.  The only thing I control is how I treat others and hopefully I treat them as Christ would have treated them, with love and respect.  As Christians, we have a lot to think about and ponder and we must continue to focus on our relationship with Christ because that's the relationship we have the most control over.  We also must remember that sin is sin, being homosexual isn't any worse than the other sexual sins like adultery, sex outside of marriage, and divorce.  Seriously, Christians have the same divorce rate as the rest of society so we have plenty to work on ourselves.  My wife posted this scripture after the ruling came out and I think it sums things up nicely.


Matthew 7:5
Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye.


Sorry for grammar/spelling mistakes.  Was in a rush to finish the post....

[Gin1984]

First off, I am a Christian and I find it very interesting reading through this thread.  It does seem that religion is getting attacked quit a bit in this discussion but that could just be me reading into things.    With all that has happened in the last week I have been pretty silent and just observing the two sides basically attack each other non stop.  Also, I'm not just talking about this thread but everything that I am seeing over Facebook and social media.  So this is what I am seeing from both sides so far...

Christians:

OMG! The Supreme Court passed marriage equality!  How can they redefine marriage like that! 

Growing up in the Church it seems like the majority of Christians believe that the U.S. was brought up on purely christian values and they want it to stay that way. I have noticed that the majority of Christians I see freaking out are really worried about society in general and how our societies views are changing.  The reasoning for these people on being against marriage equality is extremely simple, it's a sin according to the Bible and they don't want to see society moving to sinful ways.  So now let me get to what I am seeing on the other side.

Marriage Equality:

Everyone has the right to love and to join into marriage!  Yay marriage equality!  Christians are horrible people because they discriminate against gays!

I have literally seen a ton of Pro Equality FB friends attacking Christian FB friends for there beliefs.  I find it kinda ironic because the Pro Equality group is demeaning towards the Christian group for their beliefs.  But this totally goes the other way too.  It's like a full on Hate/Hate battle.

So from my point of view the reason it is so hard for both sides to comprehend each other is due to the fact that the correct answer on each side is just so simple...  You have one side rooting for equality and the other side rooting for their beliefs.



All of this is just what I have observed.  I try to keep an open mind in order to understand both sides usually in whatever I am looking into.  Now for what I think...

My thoughts:

I do not support of same sex marriage because I believe it is a sin.  That being said, I don't want to rant and rave about how stupid this decision is because what good does that do.  It doesn't help me show the love of Christ to anyone and honestly I can't control what the Supreme Court decided.  The only thing I control is how I treat others and hopefully I treat them as Christ would have treated them, with love and respect.  As Christians, we have a lot to think about and ponder and we must continue to focus on our relationship with Christ because that's the relationship we have the most control over.  We also must remember that sin is sin, being homosexual isn't any worse than the other sexual sins like adultery, sex outside of marriage, and divorce.  Seriously, Christians have the same divorce rate as the rest of society so we have plenty to work on ourselves.  My wife posted this scripture after the ruling came out and I think it sums things up nicely.


Matthew 7:5
Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye.


Sorry for grammar/spelling mistakes.  Was in a rush to finish the post....

Uh, I went to Catholic school and they educated me a bit better than that.  You do realize that the USA is NOT a Christian country and we don't have "Christian values".  The US was modeled after Ancient Greece.  And when you try to restrict people from basic rights they really don't find that ok.  It is not about your beliefs, it is about you forcing them on others that people are hating. 

[Tyson]

The problem with saying homosexuality is a sin is that it's not a CHOICE like adultery or divorce.  It's an inherent quality, like being black.  In other words, saying it's a sin is the equivalent of saying being black is a sin.  Of course, growing up in the South, I HAVE heard christians say that being black is a sin.  The referred to it as the mark of Cain, and the reason black people can be subjugated is because of that belief.  Seriously, I can't make this stuff up.

[Annamal]

There are places in my country which are considered sacred by local Maori and where the behaviour of visitors is restricted in ways that it is not restricted in other places. I support the practice while not sharing the belief.

Your voluntary compliance with someone else's belief is not the same as legally mandated compliance for everyone.  Would you support a law restricting all access to Tongariro National park?

What if one tribe thinks a site is sacred and their neighbor tribe thinks it's good hunting grounds?  Do you forbid a tribe access to their usual and accustomed hunting grounds on the basis of some other groups beliefs?

It's much harder to enforce equality for everyone by placing restrictions on everyone than it is by granting freedoms to everyone.  You respect your sacred land and I'll respect mine.

There are some places where access really is forbidden, there are also places like Mount Taranaki where behaviour on the summits is restricted by both local Iwi and DOC (things like not eating directly on the summit).

If two tribes have that kind of dispute then there are ways for them to resolve it.

Maori culture and tradition is tied into the law via the Treaty of Waitangi, it might not always be respected and there are frequently clashes but it is part of our legal system.

Of course public places such as memorials also have restrictions that are not strictly rational and I respect those as well

[beltim]

There are state sponsored reductions of rights - including same sex marriage - in many countries with no religious basis (China, Russia). 

Oooh, now there's an interesting tidbit.  Why do they do that?

Five minutes of internet research suggests that Russian opposition to homosexuality is primarily driven by the orthodox church, but supplemented with cold war era attitudes about the corrosive influence of western culture.

In China, by contrast, the opposition is apparently due to western influence.  Ancient China openly tolerated homosexuality (and polygamy), but they eventually imported western social mores and have just held onto them longer than the west has.

So in both cases, I think religion is still at least partially on the hook as the primary cause.  So much for that "no religious basis" claim.

I'm not sure you're helping, beltim.  You're reinforcing my suspicions that organized religion has been the primary obstacle to social progress, certainly in America but maybe everywhere else, too.

It seems a mistake to respond to any of your points - it only goes down a rabbit hole.  Perhaps you're right about Russia and China, honestly I don't care to research it.  My original point was only to point out that large majorities of most Christian denominations support same-sex marriage, and blaming all of a group for the actions of a minority is a classic logic error. 

[FIreDrill]

First off, I am a Christian and I find it very interesting reading through this thread.  It does seem that religion is getting attacked quit a bit in this discussion but that could just be me reading into things.    With all that has happened in the last week I have been pretty silent and just observing the two sides basically attack each other non stop.  Also, I'm not just talking about this thread but everything that I am seeing over Facebook and social media.  So this is what I am seeing from both sides so far...

Christians:

OMG! The Supreme Court passed marriage equality!  How can they redefine marriage like that! 

Growing up in the Church it seems like the majority of Christians believe that the U.S. was brought up on purely christian values and they want it to stay that way. I have noticed that the majority of Christians I see freaking out are really worried about society in general and how our societies views are changing.  The reasoning for these people on being against marriage equality is extremely simple, it's a sin according to the Bible and they don't want to see society moving to sinful ways.  So now let me get to what I am seeing on the other side.

Marriage Equality:

Everyone has the right to love and to join into marriage!  Yay marriage equality!  Christians are horrible people because they discriminate against gays!

I have literally seen a ton of Pro Equality FB friends attacking Christian FB friends for there beliefs.  I find it kinda ironic because the Pro Equality group is demeaning towards the Christian group for their beliefs.  But this totally goes the other way too.  It's like a full on Hate/Hate battle.

So from my point of view the reason it is so hard for both sides to comprehend each other is due to the fact that the correct answer on each side is just so simple...  You have one side rooting for equality and the other side rooting for their beliefs.



All of this is just what I have observed.  I try to keep an open mind in order to understand both sides usually in whatever I am looking into.  Now for what I think...

My thoughts:

I do not support of same sex marriage because I believe it is a sin.  That being said, I don't want to rant and rave about how stupid this decision is because what good does that do.  It doesn't help me show the love of Christ to anyone and honestly I can't control what the Supreme Court decided.  The only thing I control is how I treat others and hopefully I treat them as Christ would have treated them, with love and respect.  As Christians, we have a lot to think about and ponder and we must continue to focus on our relationship with Christ because that's the relationship we have the most control over.  We also must remember that sin is sin, being homosexual isn't any worse than the other sexual sins like adultery, sex outside of marriage, and divorce.  Seriously, Christians have the same divorce rate as the rest of society so we have plenty to work on ourselves.  My wife posted this scripture after the ruling came out and I think it sums things up nicely.


Matthew 7:5
Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye.


Sorry for grammar/spelling mistakes.  Was in a rush to finish the post....

Uh, I went to Catholic school and they educated me a bit better than that.  You do realize that the USA is NOT a Christian country and we don't have "Christian values".  The US was modeled after Ancient Greece.  And when you try to restrict people from basic rights they really don't find that ok.  It is not about your beliefs, it is about you forcing them on others that people are hating.

Ok, that section was supposed to be what I have observed from other Christians and do not reflect what I think.  I actually get really annoyed when I hear other Christians speaking as if that was true or when they talk like the USA somehow has more "Favor" with God than other nations.  The "Christians" and "Marriage Equality" sections are simply what I have observed from each group.  Anything after "My thoughts" is all me ;)

[Sparafusile]

It seems a mistake to respond to any of your points - it only goes down a rabbit hole.  Perhaps you're right about Russia and China, honestly I don't care to research it.  My original point was only to point out that large majorities of most Christian denominations support same-sex marriage, and blaming all of a group for the actions of a minority is a classic logic error.

This fits into a lot of the things you hear Christians saying on the news: The evidence doesn't align with my world view and is therefor irrelevant. Maybe Sol's wrong - but I guess we'll never know since it's apparently not worthy of research or debate. That doesn't mean it's a "rabbit hole" however.

There are a couple things I think we can agree on here: 1) Gays had a hard time achieving equality and 2) This was do in large part to religious parties standing in the way. You say that most Christians supported same sex marriage. If we were to assume that is true, how do you explain why it was the elected representatives, who mostly self define as Christian, that were the spearhead preventing gay rights?

Here is a relavent image I found today. Too large to embed, please enjoy!

http://queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com/wp/docs/2015/05/1-onCEha4zx1dnu0crkEahcg.png

[Gin1984]

It seems a mistake to respond to any of your points - it only goes down a rabbit hole.  Perhaps you're right about Russia and China, honestly I don't care to research it.  My original point was only to point out that large majorities of most Christian denominations support same-sex marriage, and blaming all of a group for the actions of a minority is a classic logic error.

This fits into a lot of the things you hear Christians saying on the news: The evidence doesn't align with my world view and is therefor irrelevant. Maybe Sol's wrong - but I guess we'll never know since it's apparently not worthy of research or debate. That doesn't mean it's a "rabbit hole" however.

There are a couple things I think we can agree on here: 1) Gays had a hard time achieving equality and 2) This was do in large part to religious parties standing in the way. You say that most Christians supported same sex marriage. If we were to assume that is true, how do you explain why it was the elected representatives, who mostly self define as Christian, that were the spearhead preventing gay rights?

Here is a relavent image I found today. Too large to embed, please enjoy!

http://queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com/wp/docs/2015/05/1-onCEha4zx1dnu0crkEahcg.png

That amused me, especially the line on the bottom.  :)

[beltim]

It seems a mistake to respond to any of your points - it only goes down a rabbit hole.  Perhaps you're right about Russia and China, honestly I don't care to research it.  My original point was only to point out that large majorities of most Christian denominations support same-sex marriage, and blaming all of a group for the actions of a minority is a classic logic error.

This fits into a lot of the things you hear Christians saying on the news: The evidence doesn't align with my world view and is therefor irrelevant.

I provided evidence that apparently doesn't agree with your worldview.  I think sol has clarified that he never intended to say that most Christians oppose same sex marriage - so I got my point across with him.

Maybe Sol's wrong - but I guess we'll never know since it's apparently not worthy of research or debate. That doesn't mean it's a "rabbit hole" however.

Swing and a miss!  I didn't say it was irrelevant.  I said it got us down a rabbit hole, i.e. away from my original point, that you cherry picked data when surveys in fact show most members of most Christian denominations support same-sex marriage.

There are a couple things I think we can agree on here: 1) Gays had a hard time achieving equality and 2) This was do in large part to religious parties standing in the way. You say that most Christians supported same sex marriage. If we were to assume that is true, how do you explain why it was the elected representatives, who mostly self define as Christian, that were the spearhead preventing gay rights?

We don't have to assume - I have now twice provided evidence. And the explanation for why some Christians spearheaded preventing gay rights is easy - they're in the minority.  No one said ALL Christians supported same sex marriage.

[Sparafusile]

It seems a mistake to respond to any of your points - it only goes down a rabbit hole.  Perhaps you're right about Russia and China, honestly I don't care to research it.  My original point was only to point out that large majorities of most Christian denominations support same-sex marriage, and blaming all of a group for the actions of a minority is a classic logic error.

This fits into a lot of the things you hear Christians saying on the news: The evidence doesn't align with my world view and is therefor irrelevant.

I provided evidence that apparently doesn't agree with your worldview.  I think sol has clarified that he never intended to say that most Christians oppose same sex marriage - so I got my point across with him.

You made a claim that Sol disagreed with. He came up with a hypothesis that perhaps contradicted your claim. You said you didn't care to research it any further. If it wasn't relevant in the first place then why did you bring it up? This is not how you convince anybody of your point of view.

Maybe Sol's wrong - but I guess we'll never know since it's apparently not worthy of research or debate. That doesn't mean it's a "rabbit hole" however.

Swing and a miss!  I didn't say it was irrelevant.  I said it got us down a rabbit hole, i.e. away from my original point, that you cherry picked data when surveys in fact show most members of most Christian denominations support same-sex marriage.

"Going down a rabbit hole" is a metaphor for going into the unknown, not for getting off topic. Nothing that was said by Sol is something that couldn't be proven or disproven with a little bit of effort and knowledge.

There are a couple things I think we can agree on here: 1) Gays had a hard time achieving equality and 2) This was do in large part to religious parties standing in the way. You say that most Christians supported same sex marriage. If we were to assume that is true, how do you explain why it was the elected representatives, who mostly self define as Christian, that were the spearhead preventing gay rights?

We don't have to assume - I have now twice provided evidence. And the explanation for why some Christians spearheaded preventing gay rights is easy - they're in the minority.  No one said ALL Christians supported same sex marriage.

You missed my point. The people in power that apposed gay rights were representatives of the people. They were elected into office, sometimes with a majority vote. These officials were elected by a country that is a majority Christian. Each person has one vote. How is it that these representatives were against gay rights if the majority of Christians are for gay rights? They were not elected by a minority, but they did not share the views of their constituents. How do you explain that discrepancy? And if you can't explain it (it's entirely possible that it cannot be explained) how do you explain why these same constituents did not speak out against their representatives in this matter?

[beltim]

It seems a mistake to respond to any of your points - it only goes down a rabbit hole.  Perhaps you're right about Russia and China, honestly I don't care to research it.  My original point was only to point out that large majorities of most Christian denominations support same-sex marriage, and blaming all of a group for the actions of a minority is a classic logic error.

This fits into a lot of the things you hear Christians saying on the news: The evidence doesn't align with my world view and is therefor irrelevant.

I provided evidence that apparently doesn't agree with your worldview.  I think sol has clarified that he never intended to say that most Christians oppose same sex marriage - so I got my point across with him.

You made a claim that Sol disagreed with. He came up with a hypothesis that perhaps contradicted your claim. You said you didn't care to research it any further. If it wasn't relevant in the first place then why did you bring it up? This is not how you convince anybody of your point of view.

I never said it was irrelevant.  It was a sidebar that distracted from my original point.

There are a couple things I think we can agree on here: 1) Gays had a hard time achieving equality and 2) This was do in large part to religious parties standing in the way. You say that most Christians supported same sex marriage. If we were to assume that is true, how do you explain why it was the elected representatives, who mostly self define as Christian, that were the spearhead preventing gay rights?

We don't have to assume - I have now twice provided evidence. And the explanation for why some Christians spearheaded preventing gay rights is easy - they're in the minority.  No one said ALL Christians supported same sex marriage.

You missed my point. The people in power that apposed gay rights were representatives of the people. They were elected into office, sometimes with a majority vote. These officials were elected by a country that is a majority Christian. Each person has one vote. How is it that these representatives were against gay rights if the majority of Christians are for gay rights? They were not elected by a minority, but they did not share the views of their constituents. How do you explain that discrepancy? And if you can't explain it (it's entirely possible that it cannot be explained) how do you explain why these same constituents did not speak out against their representatives in this matter?

Look up gerrymandering.

[Sparafusile]

Look up gerrymandering.

The gerrymandering in my state is done by the Republican party which is comprised of conservative Christians. Perhaps it's different in other locations. Nonetheless, when Governor Pence enacted the "Religious Freedom" act, there was a tremendous backlash. If the majority of Christians are for equality, why didn't this happen more often when these types of laws were enacted? Why didn't the representatives know how their constituency felt so they wouldn't put their foot in their mouth over and over again? Why did gays have to fight so hard and long if everybody was in favor of their equality?

[beltim]

Also consider the 11 states where voters or legislators legalized same sex marriage. 

[beltim]

Why did gays have to fight so hard and long if everybody was in favor of their equality?

Majority support for same sex marriage is pretty recent in the US.  Support is up 20-ish percentage among most groups over the last 15 years.

[forummm]

It seems a mistake to respond to any of your points - it only goes down a rabbit hole.  Perhaps you're right about Russia and China, honestly I don't care to research it.  My original point was only to point out that large majorities of most Christian denominations support same-sex marriage, and blaming all of a group for the actions of a minority is a classic logic error.

This fits into a lot of the things you hear Christians saying on the news: The evidence doesn't align with my world view and is therefor irrelevant. Maybe Sol's wrong - but I guess we'll never know since it's apparently not worthy of research or debate. That doesn't mean it's a "rabbit hole" however.

There are a couple things I think we can agree on here: 1) Gays had a hard time achieving equality and 2) This was do in large part to religious parties standing in the way. You say that most Christians supported same sex marriage. If we were to assume that is true, how do you explain why it was the elected representatives, who mostly self define as Christian, that were the spearhead preventing gay rights?

Here is a relavent image I found today. Too large to embed, please enjoy!

http://queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com/wp/docs/2015/05/1-onCEha4zx1dnu0crkEahcg.png

That amused me, especially the line on the bottom.  :)

My favorite is the prohibition on wearing clothes made from two different cloths. Too bad it didn't make it on the list.

[davisgang90]

What I find hilarious is that many religious people will pick and choose which parts of their respective doctrines to follow depending on their own desires. For example, many a Christian that was interviewed about gay marriage were, unsurprisingly, against it. When asked how many of them had been divorced, many of them had been! Both things are banned in the bible, but only one is followed.

• eating shell fish
• getting tattooed
• masturbating
• watching porn
• gossiping
• eating too much
• playing football
• working every day of the week

Why are any of these things less important than being gay and getting married? They are all banned in the bible.

Not interested in wading into this debate, but the above is an often misunderstood concept of Christianity.  Most Christians don't follow Old Testament rules and laws against shellfish, bacon (mmmmm  bacon....), stoning adulterers etc.  We view the old testament law has been perfected by the sacrifice Christ made on the cross.

Here's a quick read on the topic for anyone who wants to educate themselves.  http://www.bible-apologetics.com/articles/otntlaw.htm

Carry on.

[Kris]

What I find hilarious is that many religious people will pick and choose which parts of their respective doctrines to follow depending on their own desires. For example, many a Christian that was interviewed about gay marriage were, unsurprisingly, against it. When asked how many of them had been divorced, many of them had been! Both things are banned in the bible, but only one is followed.

• eating shell fish
• getting tattooed
• masturbating
• watching porn
• gossiping
• eating too much
• playing football
• working every day of the week

Why are any of these things less important than being gay and getting married? They are all banned in the bible.

Not interested in wading into this debate, but the above is an often misunderstood concept of Christianity.  Most Christians don't follow Old Testament rules and laws against shellfish, bacon (mmmmm  bacon....), stoning adulterers etc.  We view the old testament law has been perfected by the sacrifice Christ made on the cross.

Here's a quick read on the topic for anyone who wants to educate themselves.  http://www.bible-apologetics.com/articles/otntlaw.htm

Carry on.

Yes, that's true... But the ones who are most virulently against homosexuality are using an Old Testament argument. Which means, for consistency they ought also to be condemning the things above.

ETA: and If they were consistent, and condemned homosexuality, but also didn't eat shellfish, or have tattoos, or wear clothing of more than one fiber, I'd be pretty impressed... But that still wouldn't give them the right to impose their ways on others.

[davisgang90]

What I find hilarious is that many religious people will pick and choose which parts of their respective doctrines to follow depending on their own desires. For example, many a Christian that was interviewed about gay marriage were, unsurprisingly, against it. When asked how many of them had been divorced, many of them had been! Both things are banned in the bible, but only one is followed.

• eating shell fish
• getting tattooed
• masturbating
• watching porn
• gossiping
• eating too much
• playing football
• working every day of the week

Why are any of these things less important than being gay and getting married? They are all banned in the bible.

Not interested in wading into this debate, but the above is an often misunderstood concept of Christianity.  Most Christians don't follow Old Testament rules and laws against shellfish, bacon (mmmmm  bacon....), stoning adulterers etc.  We view the old testament law has been perfected by the sacrifice Christ made on the cross.

Here's a quick read on the topic for anyone who wants to educate themselves.  http://www.bible-apologetics.com/articles/otntlaw.htm

Carry on.

Yes, that's true... But the ones who are most virulently against homosexuality are using an Old Testament argument. Which means, for consistency they ought also to be condemning the things above.

ETA: and If they were consistent, and condemned homosexuality, but also didn't eat shellfish, or have tattoos, or wear clothing of more than one fiber, I'd be pretty impressed... But that still wouldn't give them the right to impose their ways on others.

Homosexuality is also condemned in the New Testament.

[Kris]

What I find hilarious is that many religious people will pick and choose which parts of their respective doctrines to follow depending on their own desires. For example, many a Christian that was interviewed about gay marriage were, unsurprisingly, against it. When asked how many of them had been divorced, many of them had been! Both things are banned in the bible, but only one is followed.

• eating shell fish
• getting tattooed
• masturbating
• watching porn
• gossiping
• eating too much
• playing football
• working every day of the week

Why are any of these things less important than being gay and getting married? They are all banned in the bible.

Not interested in wading into this debate, but the above is an often misunderstood concept of Christianity.  Most Christians don't follow Old Testament rules and laws against shellfish, bacon (mmmmm  bacon....), stoning adulterers etc.  We view the old testament law has been perfected by the sacrifice Christ made on the cross.

Here's a quick read on the topic for anyone who wants to educate themselves.  http://www.bible-apologetics.com/articles/otntlaw.htm

Carry on.

Yes, that's true... But the ones who are most virulently against homosexuality are using an Old Testament argument. Which means, for consistency they ought also to be condemning the things above.

ETA: and If they were consistent, and condemned homosexuality, but also didn't eat shellfish, or have tattoos, or wear clothing of more than one fiber, I'd be pretty impressed... But that still wouldn't give them the right to impose their ways on others.

Homosexuality is also condemned in the New Testament.

Huh.  I stand corrected.  Well, then, why don't all Christians condemn homosexuality, if the New Testament is what they follow? 

(And of course, again,  that still wouldn't give them the right to impose their ways on others.)

[davisgang90]

What I find hilarious is that many religious people will pick and choose which parts of their respective doctrines to follow depending on their own desires. For example, many a Christian that was interviewed about gay marriage were, unsurprisingly, against it. When asked how many of them had been divorced, many of them had been! Both things are banned in the bible, but only one is followed.

• eating shell fish
• getting tattooed
• masturbating
• watching porn
• gossiping
• eating too much
• playing football
• working every day of the week

Why are any of these things less important than being gay and getting married? They are all banned in the bible.

Not interested in wading into this debate, but the above is an often misunderstood concept of Christianity.  Most Christians don't follow Old Testament rules and laws against shellfish, bacon (mmmmm  bacon....), stoning adulterers etc.  We view the old testament law has been perfected by the sacrifice Christ made on the cross.

Here's a quick read on the topic for anyone who wants to educate themselves.  http://www.bible-apologetics.com/articles/otntlaw.htm

Carry on.

Yes, that's true... But the ones who are most virulently against homosexuality are using an Old Testament argument. Which means, for consistency they ought also to be condemning the things above.

ETA: and If they were consistent, and condemned homosexuality, but also didn't eat shellfish, or have tattoos, or wear clothing of more than one fiber, I'd be pretty impressed... But that still wouldn't give them the right to impose their ways on others.

Homosexuality is also condemned in the New Testament.

Huh.  I stand corrected.  Well, then, why don't all Christians condemn homosexuality, if the New Testament is what they follow? 

(And of course, again,  that still wouldn't give them the right to impose their ways on others.)

Some either disregard the letters Paul wrote (that make up the bulk of the NT) or feel that the discussions of social issues were relevant only to that timeframe.

For a more detailed answer I can ask at the next meeting.  ; )

[Kris]

What I find hilarious is that many religious people will pick and choose which parts of their respective doctrines to follow depending on their own desires. For example, many a Christian that was interviewed about gay marriage were, unsurprisingly, against it. When asked how many of them had been divorced, many of them had been! Both things are banned in the bible, but only one is followed.

• eating shell fish
• getting tattooed
• masturbating
• watching porn
• gossiping
• eating too much
• playing football
• working every day of the week

Why are any of these things less important than being gay and getting married? They are all banned in the bible.

Not interested in wading into this debate, but the above is an often misunderstood concept of Christianity.  Most Christians don't follow Old Testament rules and laws against shellfish, bacon (mmmmm  bacon....), stoning adulterers etc.  We view the old testament law has been perfected by the sacrifice Christ made on the cross.

Here's a quick read on the topic for anyone who wants to educate themselves.  http://www.bible-apologetics.com/articles/otntlaw.htm

Carry on.

Yes, that's true... But the ones who are most virulently against homosexuality are using an Old Testament argument. Which means, for consistency they ought also to be condemning the things above.

ETA: and If they were consistent, and condemned homosexuality, but also didn't eat shellfish, or have tattoos, or wear clothing of more than one fiber, I'd be pretty impressed... But that still wouldn't give them the right to impose their ways on others.

Homosexuality is also condemned in the New Testament.

Huh.  I stand corrected.  Well, then, why don't all Christians condemn homosexuality, if the New Testament is what they follow? 

(And of course, again,  that still wouldn't give them the right to impose their ways on others.)

Some either disregard the letters Paul wrote (that make up the bulk of the NT) or feel that the discussions of social issues were relevant only to that timeframe.

For a more detailed answer I can ask at the next meeting.  ; )

Sigh.  I guess I forgot the cardinal rule of trying to make sense of people: they believe whatever they want to believe, randomly choosing what they think the important parts and ignoring the rest.

[Glenstache]

This quote from page 32 of the supreme court decision seems relevant:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.  The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their
lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.  The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.  In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate.   The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

[Midwest]

Sigh.  I guess I forgot the cardinal rule of trying to make sense of people: they believe whatever they want to believe, randomly choosing what they think the important parts and ignoring the rest.

That's not a trait unique to Christianity.  That's one of the problems when we try and put people into homogeneous groups.  Often they are not nearly as similar as we think they are.

[johnny847]

Sigh.  I guess I forgot the cardinal rule of trying to make sense of people: they believe whatever they want to believe, randomly choosing what they think the important parts and ignoring the rest.

That's not a trait unique to Christianity.  That's one of the problems when we try and put people into homogeneous groups.  Often they are not nearly as similar as we think they are.

Notice how Kris said it's a cardinal rule of people, not Christians.

[KodeBlue]

Why should anyone else's religious beliefs effect my decision to marry?

[Midwest]

Sigh.  I guess I forgot the cardinal rule of trying to make sense of people: they believe whatever they want to believe, randomly choosing what they think the important parts and ignoring the rest.

That's not a trait unique to Christianity.  That's one of the problems when we try and put people into homogeneous groups.  Often they are not nearly as similar as we think they are.

Notice how Kris said it's a cardinal rule of people, not Christians.

Reading it in the context of the previous discussion, i didn't interpret it that way. 

My point remains the same regardless of the interpretation is people or Christians.

[Tyson]

Christians are people too, my friend.

[arebelspy]

Why should anyone else's religious beliefs effect my decision to marry?

It shouldn't. If a religion believed no one except members of their religion should be able to get married (infidel marriage is illegal and immoral), no one would be all over "respecting" their religion.

[Squirrel away]

Why should anyone else's religious beliefs effect my decision to marry?

+1.

[johnny847]

Christians are people too, my friend.

When did I say or imply that? What I and I assume what I Kris meant as well is that the cardinal rule applies to all people including Christians

[forummm]

What I find hilarious is that many religious people will pick and choose which parts of their respective doctrines to follow depending on their own desires. For example, many a Christian that was interviewed about gay marriage were, unsurprisingly, against it. When asked how many of them had been divorced, many of them had been! Both things are banned in the bible, but only one is followed.

• eating shell fish
• getting tattooed
• masturbating
• watching porn
• gossiping
• eating too much
• playing football
• working every day of the week

Why are any of these things less important than being gay and getting married? They are all banned in the bible.

Not interested in wading into this debate, but the above is an often misunderstood concept of Christianity.  Most Christians don't follow Old Testament rules and laws against shellfish, bacon (mmmmm  bacon....), stoning adulterers etc.  We view the old testament law has been perfected by the sacrifice Christ made on the cross.

Here's a quick read on the topic for anyone who wants to educate themselves.  http://www.bible-apologetics.com/articles/otntlaw.htm

Carry on.

Yes, that's true... But the ones who are most virulently against homosexuality are using an Old Testament argument. Which means, for consistency they ought also to be condemning the things above.

ETA: and If they were consistent, and condemned homosexuality, but also didn't eat shellfish, or have tattoos, or wear clothing of more than one fiber, I'd be pretty impressed... But that still wouldn't give them the right to impose their ways on others.

Homosexuality is also condemned in the New Testament.

Huh.  I stand corrected.  Well, then, why don't all Christians condemn homosexuality, if the New Testament is what they follow? 

(And of course, again,  that still wouldn't give them the right to impose their ways on others.)

Being drunk is condemned in the same verse and in the same fashion as homosexuality in the NT. Why don't all Christians condemn drunkenness, require vows of alcohol abstinence, and push to ban alcohol? Same with premarital sex and divorce?

Oh, maybe it's because they like to drink, and approximately 97% of people have premarital sex, and half of people get divorced. Maybe it's easier to discriminate against a small minority instead of against pretty much everyone.

[forummm]

Some conservatives are talking about banning the issuance of marriage licenses altogether. When they said that allowing gays to marry would "destroy the Institution of Marriage" (always capitalized for some reason), I had no idea that they meant that *they* would destroy it themselves out of spite.

http://www.newsweek.com/following-supreme-court-decision-mississippi-may-stop-issuing-any-marriage-347740

[Midwest]

Being drunk is condemned in the same verse and in the same fashion as homosexuality in the NT. Why don't all Christians condemn drunkenness, require vows of alcohol abstinence, and push to ban alcohol? Same with premarital sex and divorce?

Oh, maybe it's because they like to drink, and approximately 97% of people have premarital sex, and half of people get divorced. Maybe it's easier to discriminate against a small minority instead of against pretty much everyone.

Have you been to a baptist/fundamentalist church?  I assure you some Baptists/fundamentalist congregations condemn those things as well.  I'm not saying some of the attendees aren't doing those things, but the church leadership is not preaching that its ok or ignoring it.

Did you miss the part about all people (Christians included) having different beliefs.  That's why all Christians are not condemning those things or gay relationships or gay marriage.

[beltim]

What I find hilarious is that many religious people will pick and choose which parts of their respective doctrines to follow depending on their own desires. For example, many a Christian that was interviewed about gay marriage were, unsurprisingly, against it. When asked how many of them had been divorced, many of them had been! Both things are banned in the bible, but only one is followed.

• eating shell fish
• getting tattooed
• masturbating
• watching porn
• gossiping
• eating too much
• playing football
• working every day of the week

Why are any of these things less important than being gay and getting married? They are all banned in the bible.

Not interested in wading into this debate, but the above is an often misunderstood concept of Christianity.  Most Christians don't follow Old Testament rules and laws against shellfish, bacon (mmmmm  bacon....), stoning adulterers etc.  We view the old testament law has been perfected by the sacrifice Christ made on the cross.

Here's a quick read on the topic for anyone who wants to educate themselves.  http://www.bible-apologetics.com/articles/otntlaw.htm

Carry on.

Yes, that's true... But the ones who are most virulently against homosexuality are using an Old Testament argument. Which means, for consistency they ought also to be condemning the things above.

ETA: and If they were consistent, and condemned homosexuality, but also didn't eat shellfish, or have tattoos, or wear clothing of more than one fiber, I'd be pretty impressed... But that still wouldn't give them the right to impose their ways on others.

Homosexuality is also condemned in the New Testament.

Huh.  I stand corrected.  Well, then, why don't all Christians condemn homosexuality, if the New Testament is what they follow? 

(And of course, again,  that still wouldn't give them the right to impose their ways on others.)

Some either disregard the letters Paul wrote (that make up the bulk of the NT) or feel that the discussions of social issues were relevant only to that timeframe.

For a more detailed answer I can ask at the next meeting.  ; )

Sigh.  I guess I forgot the cardinal rule of trying to make sense of people: they believe whatever they want to believe, randomly choosing what they think the important parts and ignoring the rest.

The idea that the Bible is the literal word of God is a recent development in the history of Christianity (considering the length of the history of Christianity) and not one that most Christians agree with. 

[Midwest]

The idea that the Bible is the literal word of God is a recent development in the history of Christianity (considering the length of the history of Christianity) and not one that most Christians agree with.

Not an argument, but an honest question - Do you have a source or basis for that?  I'd like to see that viewpoint.  Not asking for a discussion or to tear you apart, just curious.

[beltim]

The idea that the Bible is the literal word of God is a recent development in the history of Christianity (considering the length of the history of Christianity) and not one that most Christians agree with.

Not an argument, but an honest question - Do you have a source or basis for that?  I'd like to see that viewpoint.  Not asking for a discussion or to tear you apart, just curious.

The Wikipedia article on the subject is a pretty good introduction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism

[Midwest]

The idea that the Bible is the literal word of God is a recent development in the history of Christianity (considering the length of the history of Christianity) and not one that most Christians agree with.

Not an argument, but an honest question - Do you have a source or basis for that?  I'd like to see that viewpoint.  Not asking for a discussion or to tear you apart, just curious.

The Wikipedia article on the subject is a pretty good introduction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism

Thanks

[Tyson]

Christians are people too, my friend.

When did I say or imply that? What I and I assume what I Kris meant as well is that the cardinal rule applies to all people including Christians

I have binders full of Christians!

Sorry, a little Romney humor...

[forummm]

Being drunk is condemned in the same verse and in the same fashion as homosexuality in the NT. Why don't all Christians condemn drunkenness, require vows of alcohol abstinence, and push to ban alcohol? Same with premarital sex and divorce?

Oh, maybe it's because they like to drink, and approximately 97% of people have premarital sex, and half of people get divorced. Maybe it's easier to discriminate against a small minority instead of against pretty much everyone.

Have you been to a baptist/fundamentalist church?  I assure you some Baptists/fundamentalist congregations condemn those things as well.  I'm not saying some of the attendees aren't doing those things, but the church leadership is not preaching that its ok or ignoring it.

Did you miss the part about all people (Christians included) having different beliefs.  That's why all Christians are not condemning those things or gay relationships or gay marriage.

They're in the same verse. I've heard arguments about ignoring the OT (thin but I hear it), or some parts of the OT (much less credible), or ignoring some parts of the NT (I don't understand this at all). But they're in the same verse.

I find it hard to square the things that people choose to ignore and choose to take as inscribed in blood on the foundation of the universe. It's a very common refrain for people to say 'XX is in the Bible so therefore YY must be this way'. I find the picking and the choosing to be suspect. Especially when another verse says that the whole book is the divinely inspired word of God.

I've spent a lot of time with fundamentalists, grew up in it, have a lot of family, etc. I've never heard of Baptists and fundamentalists requiring written vows of abstinence from alcohol or premarital sex as a part of membership in a church. But even less-conservative churches either ban entirely or require said vows from homosexuals. I don't know how those things could be seen differently if there weren't some prejudice at play.

[forummm]

The idea that the Bible is the literal word of God is a recent development in the history of Christianity (considering the length of the history of Christianity) and not one that most Christians agree with.

If I'd made these statements on a different topic, I know you'd immediately challenge them and ask me for references :)

I don't know what "most Christians" agree with, or when those beliefs evolved into what they are today. But what we're talking about is the beliefs asserted by people who are the Christian leadership in the country who seem to have a large number of followers and have a large influence on public policy. They are the ones who talk about inerrancy and literalist interpretations of the Bible (on some issues--ignoring others of course).

Here's one argument for inerrancy:
https://bible.org/seriespage/bible-inerrant-word-god

Support for Inerrancy from the Teachings of Christ

A study of what Jesus said about the Bible reveals not only His belief in its verbal, plenary inspiration, but that He also believed it was inerrant. In fact, the greatest testimony to the authenticity of the Bible as God’s inspired and inerrant Word is the Lord Jesus. Why is His testimony so important? Because God authenticated and proved Him to be His own divine Son by the resurrection (cf. Acts 2:22-36; 4:8-12; 17:30-31; Rom. 1:4). Christ not only clearly confirmed the authority of the Old Testament, but He specifically promised the New Testament.

Note what Christ taught about the inspiration of the Old Testament:

(1) Its entirety; the whole of the Bible is inspired (Matt. 4:4; 5:17-18). In Matthew 4:4, Jesus responded to Satan’s temptation by affirming verbal plenary inspiration when He said, man is to live by every word (plenary) that proceeds out of the mouth of God (inspiration). In Matthew 5:17-18, Christ promised that the entire Old Testament, the Law and the Prophets, would be fulfilled, not abolished. In fact, He declared that not even the smallest Hebrew letter, the yodh, which looks like an apostrophe (‘), or stroke of a letter, a small distinguishing extension or protrusion of several Hebrews letters (cf. the extension on the letter R with it absence on the letter P), would pass away until all is fulfilled. Christ’s point is that it is all inspired and true and will be fulfilled.

(2) Its historicity; He spoke of the Old Testament in terms of actual history. Adam and Eve were two human beings, created by God in the beginning, who lived and acted in certain ways (Matt. 19:3-5; Mark 10:6-8). He spoke of Jonah and his experience in the belly of the great fish as an historical event (Matt. 12:40). He also verified the events of the flood in Noah’s day along with the ark (Matt. 24:38-39; Luke 17:26-27). He verified God’s destruction of Sodom and the historicity of Lot and his wife (Matt. 10:15; Luke 17:28-29). These are only a few illustrations; many others exist.

(3) Its reliability; because it is God’s word, the Scripture must be fulfilled (Matt. 26:54).

(4) Its sufficiency; it is sufficient to witness to the truth of God and His salvation (Luke 16:31).

(5) Its indestructibility; heaven and earth will not pass away until it is all fulfilled. Nothing can stop its fulfillment (Matt. 5:17-18).

(6) Its unity; the whole of the Bible speaks and witnesses to the person and work of Christ (Luke 24:27, 44).

(7) Its inerrancy; men are often in error, but the Bible is not; it is truth (Matt. 22:29; John 17:17).

(8) Its infallibility; the Bible cannot be broken, it always stands the test (John 10:35).

[Tyson]

The problem with citing sources that show christian belief changed over time ultimately is not compelling, I have found, when engaging with believers.  At the end of the day they will simply state "This is what I believe in, and that is my faith".  And that is pretty much that.

So for homosexuality, you can show that literal interpretations of the bible have waxed and waned over time, that there's logical inconsistencies in that position, etc... But after all that, they'll still fall back on "But I still feel it's wrong, and that's my belief".