Finally black people are getting the memo. African American pastors are convincing church members to oppose a bill in North Carolina that will ban gay marriage. African Americas do not generally support gay marriage although there has been a rise from 30% to 33% who support it.

I am very happy that people are embracing equality more and more. I support gay marriage because everyone should have the right to get married. As someone that has been denied marriage because I'm an atheist and my girlfriend is muslim (Koran forbids such unions).

What do you think about this shift in christianity and black people towards gay rights?

http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=11724&MediaType=1&Category=26
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/nc-black-pastor-treads-carefully-on-gay-marriage/2012/05/03/gIQADt5bzT_story.html

Sodomy is madness!!!!!

LeoMax: Sodomy is madness!!!!!

Well that's your opinion. Not surprising that you have no points to back your statement up

@topic,

funny enough I watched some detailed coverage on this story on CNN just this past saturday morning - including an interview with that pastor from NC.

logicboy: What do you think about this shift in christianity and black people towards gay rights?

Let me first guarantee you, in spite of what the media might say, there is no "shift" towards "accepting" "gay rights" by the black church. That is merely wishful propaganda from the media that is not representative of the entire AA populace. See a quote from your own link:

Most black churches consider homosexuality a sin, and have resisted any attempt to reinterpret biblical passages condemning it. But some pastors are finding ways to skirt — for now — the theological issue, and support equal treatment of gays and lesbians as a legislative concern.

While attitudes toward homosexuality have softened among many religious groups, black Protestants remain among the most resistant. A recent analysis by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life shows that just 33 percent of African-American churchgoers support same-sex marriage, a position that has barely moved since 2001 when 30 percent supported it. Support for gay marriage among white evangelical Christians has remained flat as well.

30 to 33 percent in 11 years is barely a "shift" wouldn't you say? and it probably falls within the %error of the polls (most polls have at least a 3-4% error). But, the key question in that quote above is why are a few pastors against the legislation?
#1- They choose to see it as a political rather than religious issue.
#2- and most most importantly - they see it as a republican bill.

Everyone knows rocks will bleed blue before blacks who are I think ~90% democrat will lend their support to a republican legislation - furthermore a republican legislation initiated by Tea Party activists! AA's vote democrat - overwhelmingly and even when there's a bill they might support, they won't simply becos its a republican one. The pastor interviewed on CNN pretty much said as much and I paraphrase "we should be very careful about giving our support to groups who have historically been against us regardless of the bill". That said, from your link, looks like NC AA's will be siding with the repubs on this one:

In North Carolina, where blacks make up 21 percent of the population (nearly double the 12 percent nationwide), the amendment has solid support among many African-Americans.

Modified.

JeSoul: @topic,

funny enough I watched some detailed coverage on this story on CNN just this past saturday morning - including an interview with that pastor from NC.

Let me first guarantee you, in spite of what the media might say, there is no "shift" towards "accepting" "gay rights" by the black church. That is merely wishful propaganda from the media that is not representative of the entire AA populace. See a quote from your own link:



30 to 33 percent in 11 years is barely a "shift" wouldn't you say? and it probably falls within the %error of the polls (most polls have at least a 3-4% error). But, the key question in that quote above is why are some pastors against the legislation?
#1- They choose to see it as a political rather than religious issue.
#2- and most most importantly - they see it as a republican bill.

Everyone knows rocks will bleed blue before blacks who are I think ~90% democrat will lend their support to a republican legislation - furthermore a republican legislation initiated by Tea Party activists! AA's vote democrat - overwhelmingly and even when there's a bill they might support, they won't simply becos its a republican one. The pastor interviewed on CNN pretty much said as much and I paraphrase "we should be very careful about giving our support to groups who have historically been against us regardless of the bill".

You are right on this issue. However, what do you personally think about gay marriage?

logicboy: You are right on this issue. However, what do you personally think about gay marriage?

I support the rights of individual states to decide for themselves. As long as the people vote and decide - not over-reaching Justices in courts making their own personal amendments to the constitution. In my own state of Mass, we were the first to legalize gay marriage in the country.

What do I personally think? I support Civil Unions - so they can enjoy the same societal 'rights' and 'priviledges' married heterosexual couples enjoy - insurance, healthcare etc etc. I am not for re-defining the term marriage, it should remain "a man and a woman". This gives them the rights they clamour for, while maintaining the integrity of a institution that has been in place since the stone-age.

JeSoul: I support the rights of individual states to decide for themselves. As long as the people vote and decide - not over-reaching Justices in courts [size=14pt]making their own personal amendments to the constitution[/size]. In my own state of Mass, we were the first to legalize gay marriage in the country.

What do I personally think? I support Civil Unions - so they can enjoy the same societal 'rights' and 'priviledges' married heterosexual couples enjoy - insurance, healthcare etc etc. I am not for re-defining the term marriage, it should remain "a man and a woman". This gives them the rights they clamour for, while maintaining the integrity of a institution that has been in place since the stone-age.

kettle calling pot black.

Jesoul, just curious...do you believe marriage is the sole property of the church or any other religious institution?

emöfine2: Jesoul, just curious...do you believe marriage is the sole property of the church or any other religious institution?

Of just the church? Why would I believe that? Non-religious people have been getting married for centuries and centuries long before an organized 'church' ever existed. I do not think they should be subject to the 'leanings' or 'beliefs' of any church. As a society, historically, it has always been between a man and a woman - that is what I primarily mean. Even areligious people have always found gay unions to be 'unnatural' (excuse my use of the term). It is with the changing of times (and mostly in 'western' societies) that it has become more & more acceptable mainstream. Cheers.

JeSoul: I support the rights of individual states to decide for themselves. As long as the people vote and decide - not over-reaching Justices in courts making their own personal amendments to the constitution. In my own state of Mass, we were the first to legalize gay marriage in the country.

What do I personally think? I support Civil Unions - so they can enjoy the same societal 'rights' and 'priviledges' married heterosexual couples enjoy - insurance, healthcare etc etc. I am not for re-defining the term marriage, it should remain "a man and a woman". This gives them the rights they clamour for, while maintaining the integrity of a institution that has been in place since the stone-age.

Well, you are more civil than some christains on this issue.


However, a civil union is not the same as marriage as civil unions have less rights in America. Civil unions do not have access to federal benefits since states that offer civil unions can only give state rights.

Furthermore, let's breakdown yourstatement;


I am not for re-defining the term marriage, it should remain "a man and a woman". This gives them the rights they clamour for, while maintaining the integrity of a institution that has been in place since the stone-age.


a) Marriage has not always been between a man and a woman, even in the bible. Solomon and other people had more than one wives. They were polygamous
b) Who has the right to define the term? Is it you? Your God? Your government? The people? Everyone? Your definition might not be the proper definition
c)Marriage has had no integrity since the stoneage;
-there were religions before the bible or judaism which would have their own marriage rites
-there was polygamy in the bible by the wisest man in the bible (no integrity there)
-there was incest marriage in the bible (Abraham and Sarah were step brother and sister)
-there have always been gay couples since the stoneage
-christians have higher divorce rates in America




However, I am happy with your stance since you recognise the rights of gay people. Kudos

logicboy:
Well, you are more civil than some christains on this issue.

Lol. I'll take that

However, a civil union is not the same as marriage as civil unions have less rights in America. Civil unions do not have access to federal benefits since states that offer civil unions can only give state rights.

And with good reason. If Massachusetts wants to recognize gay couples - great for us. But we cannot force Northcarolinans to accept what we have deemed "marriage". Let every society decide for themselves, not a minority imposing their choices on others. Revert back to what I said about supporting individual states making their own laws.

Furthermore, let's breakdown yourstatement;

I am not for re-defining the term marriage, it should remain "a man and a woman". This gives them the rights they clamour for, while maintaining the integrity of a institution that has been in place since the stone-age.


a) Marriage has not always been between a man and a woman, even in the bible. Solomon and other people had more than one wives. They were polygamous

Oh common now Logic, you're being nitpicky. lol. Those kinds of looseness was reserved for powerful kings - one out of 1 million. The average dude (not necessarily jews) had just a dudette. Plus don't get me started on some aspects of culture of the ancient jews, I'm not their biggest fan.

b) Who has the right to define the term? Is it you? Your God? Your government? The people? Everyone? Your definition might not be the proper definition

The people living within the society have right to define for themselves - and so we see different states & even countries making up their own different rules. I'm fine with that. My personal opinion was what I gave in the second paragraph.

c)Marriage has had no integrity since the stoneage;
-there were religions before the bible or judaism which would have their own marriage rites
-there was polygamy in the bible by the wisest man in the bible (no integrity there)
-there was incest marriage in the bible (Abraham and Sarah were step brother and sister)
-there have always been gay couples since the stoneage
-christians have higher divorce rates in America

You're touching on several different issues here that will lead us elsewhere. Divorce rates have nothing in particular to do with the issue. If we were to go there I'd simply tell you a good majority of people who label themselves 'christian' are really not when looked at from the biblical definition. Hence we can easily adjust those rates to truly represent the actual figures...but I digress.

Yes gay couples have always been around - my point was two-fold. One about the occurence of it being much much greater and two, (and I guess this has been fueled by) societal 'acceptance' of it. Again on jewish culture - not the best standard for the rest of us to emulate.

However, I am happy with your stance since you recognise the rights of gay people. Kudos

One of the people who had an incredible influence on me and was just an all around wonderful human being was a white gay dude, a co-worker of mine years ago. It helped me go beyond defining people by mere labels.

JeSoul: It helped me go beyond defining people by mere labels.

really?
hypocrisy will never end.

You guys have been asking all the questions, my turn.

Emofine & Logicboy,
1- Do you agree that gays are a relative minority in most soceities? (pls discount their capital of San Franscisco ).
2- What percentage of non-gays fully support the gay agenda? (lets use the western world for this part)
2- What do you think about minority views being imposed on a majority that may not agree?
3- What would your "ideal" soceity look like in regards to a)gay rights and b)religion

Cheers.

JeSoul: Of just the church? Why would I believe that? Non-religious people have been getting married for centuries and centuries long before an organized 'church' ever existed. I do not think they should be subject to the 'leanings' or 'beliefs' of any church. As a society, historically, it has always been between a man and a woman - that is what I primarily mean. Even areligious people have always found gay unions to be 'unnatural' (excuse my use of the term). It is with the changing of times (and mostly in 'western' societies) that it has become more & more acceptable mainstream. Cheers.

Kinda reminds me of a debate I once heard about heterosexual “unbelievers” being given grace to marry in church but none dispensed for a particular homosexual couple who were “believers” attending that actual church for years.

But in the same manner just as the secular populace resent the church and other religious institution interfering with the laws and politics of the state I can understand the religious populace not wanting the secular populace interfering with the laws of their beliefs.
But seeing that none is independent of each other (the happenings that occur in both the state and the church directly affects each other) the body that carries the most clout will eventually impact on the laws governing the other.
I appreciate your honest response, thanks.

JeSoul: Lol. I'll take that

And with good reason. If Massachusetts wants to recognize gay couples - great for us. But we cannot force Northcarolinans to accept what we have deemed "marriage". Let every society decide for themselves, not a minority imposing their choices on others. Revert back to what I said about supporting individual states making their own laws.


Oh common now Logic, you're being nitpicky. lol. Those kinds of looseness was reserved for powerful kings - one out of 1 million. The average dude (not necessarily jews) had just a dudette. Plus don't get me started on some aspects of culture of the ancient jews, I'm not their biggest fan.

The people living within the society have right to define for themselves - and so we see different states & even countries making up their own different rules. I'm fine with that. My personal opinion was what I gave in the second paragraph.

You're touching on several different issues here that will lead us elsewhere. Divorce rates have nothing in particular to do with the issue. If we were to go there I'd simply tell you a good majority of people who label themselves 'christian' are really not when looked at from the biblical definition. Hence we can easily adjust those rates to truly represent the actual figures...but I digress.

Yes gay couples have always been around - my point was two-fold. One about the occurence of it being much much greater and two, (and I guess this has been fueled by) societal 'acceptance' of it. Again on jewish culture - not the best standard for the rest of us to emulate.

One of the people who had an incredible influence on me and was just an all around wonderful human being was a white gay dude, a co-worker of mine years ago. It helped me go beyond defining people by mere labels.

Thank you for your input. However, I wold like you to take your belief on gay marriage just one little step further; move from civil unions to full marriage please.


Also, please try to educate some of our christian brothers on this issue. Please.

emöfine2: Kinda reminds me of a debate I once heard about heterosexual “unbelievers” being given grace to marry in church but none dispensed for a particular homosexual couple who were “believers” attending that actual church for years.

Very good point and is part of the 'hypocrisy' of some churches. Homosexuality is unfortunately viewed as a 'pedestal' sin. It is raised far and high above other infractions. A man can divorce and re-marry 5 times without reprimand, but a gay dude will be kept at pole's length. The double standard certainly doesn't help.

But in the same manner just as the secular populace resent the church and other religious institution interfering with the laws and politics of the state I can understand the religious populace not wanting the secular populace interfering with the laws of their beliefs.
But seeing that none is independent of each other (the happenings that occur in both the state and the church directly affects each other) the body that carries the most clout will eventually impact on the laws governing the other.
I appreciate your honest response, thanks.

This is an exquisite paragraph and I agree completely. The Roman Catholic Church in particular is a very very very powerful entity in politics all around the world. And like you said, each side is vying for power - that is natural. There's no true line that seperates church & state.

JeSoul: You guys have been asking all the questions, my turn.

Emofine & Logicboy,
1- Do you agree that gays are a relative minority in most soceities? (pls discount their capital of San Franscisco ).
2- What percentage of non-gays fully support the gay agenda? (lets use the western world for this part)
2- What do you think about minority views being imposed on a majority that may not agree?
3- What would your "ideal" soceity look like in regards to a)gay rights and b)religion

Cheers.

1) Yes, a minority

2) I'm guessing a very high percentage if not all gays that would support gay marriage. Who wants to be alone?

3) Blacks are also minorities. They "imposed" their views to get equal rights too. MLK (Luther King) had a black agenda which majority of whites did not agree with for years

4) Ideal society;

a) Gay marriage allowed and given same status with marriage. Gay couples having the same right to adopt.

b)Religion should not interfere with politics. Separation of church and state. People can worship how they like without oppressing other people. Evolution in schools while creationism thrown out.

logicboy: Thank you for your input. However, I wold like you to take your belief on gay marriage just one little step further; move from civil unions to full marriage please.

but why? why don't you instead ask the other side to come closer to my belief? I'm for live & let live - and don't force me to believe what you believe - which is exactly what gay marriage proponents are demanding of the general populace.

Also, please try to educate some of our christian brothers on this issue. Please.

Ah! wetin concern agbero with overload? Haven't you seen how many issues christians disagree amongst themselves? tithes, speaking in tongues, sabbath, women, etc etc. abeg oh, me I prefer to mind my business and stay out of the firing range for sanity sake.

JeSoul: but why? why don't you instead ask the other side to come closer to my belief? I'm for live & let live - and don't force me to believe what you believe - which is exactly what gay marriage proponents are demanding of the general populace.

Ah! wetin concern agbero with overload? Haven't you seen how many issues christians disagree amongst themselves? tithes, speaking in tongues, sabbath, women, etc etc. abeg oh, me I prefer to mind my business and stay out of the firing range for sanity sake.

You know what I mean. I am not forcing you. You just seem like someone that is enlightened about this issue.


Anyway, this is what gave Hitler rise to power. There were people in government who didnt like him but left him to rise in power as long as they lost nothing. There is no harm in having a simple discussion withsome of your close friends on this issue when they break out in homophobic tirades.

Please, I am not forcing you. I accept your position on this issue but only as a compromise

jesoul will probably ban you if she doesn't agree with you.
or has she been tamed?

Logic Mind: jesoul will probably ban you if she doesn't agree with you.
or has she been tamed?

Calm down. Jesoul might have messed with you. Just let it go.


If you want revenge, there is a way to do it peacefully and not through trolling with spite. Look at what I did to Tbaba and Big4050. I destroyed them intellectually through debate on creationism.

Debating is fair.

Nonsense!
Absolute Balderdash!!!

seems like someone's being harshly ignored...

logicboy:
1) Yes, a minority

Good.

2) I'm guessing a very high percentage if not all gays that would support gay marriage. Who wants to be alone?

You may have mis-read my question. I meant percentage of non-gays that support gay marriage. Or else America would be a gay paradise which is obviously isn't.

3) Blacks are also minorities. They "imposed" their views to get equal rights too. MLK (Luther King) had a black agenda which majority of whites did not agree with for years

Honestly, I almost put "pls don't refer to the civil rights as an example" when I posted that question. lol. Its not the same issue - especially as long as I've agreed I have no desire to deny them equal rights as married couples.

4) Ideal society;

a) Gay marriage allowed and given same status with marriage. Gay couples having the same right to adopt.

Ai! the second part of your answer...to be discussed later.

b)Religion should not interfere with politics. Separation of church and state. People can worship how they like without oppressing other people. Evolution in schools while creationism thrown out.

See Emofine's last post on the issue of church & state seperation. I take some issue with your stance to teach evolution (as a fact despite its many flaws). It should be presented as a scientific theory not fact. I do think creationism should be taught - but not as a scientific course. Stripping schools of religious-flavored ideas is not the way forward.

---

logicboy:
You know what I mean. I am not forcing you. You just seem like someone that is enlightened about this issue.

Anyway, this is what gave Hitler rise to power. There were people in government who didnt like him but left him to rise in power as long as they lost nothing. There is no harm in having a simple discussion withsome of your close friends on this issue when they break out in homophobic tirades.

Please, I am not forcing you. I accept your position on this issue but only as a compromise

I know you are not 'forcing' me...I was just kidding around. I pay attention to politics & interact with all kinds of people so it helps inform (not necessarily shape) my 'religious beliefs'. Someone who's lived in a village in Ogun state, it'd be hard to expect them to take all these other aspects into consideration. Make sense? And trust me, there are way more ppl who read on NL than comment so threads like this one you made helps, so you too, keep it up .
And dude, you're not comparing fighting for gay marriage even close to the league of Hitlers murderous reign? stop it oh lol.

JeSoul: Good.

You may have mis-read my question. I meant percentage of non-gays that support gay marriage. Or else America would be a gay paradise which is obviously isn't.

Honestly, I almost put "pls don't refer to the civil rights as an example" when I posted that question. lol. Its not the same issue - especially as long as I've agreed I have no desire to deny them equal rights as married couples.


Ai! the second part of your answer...to be discussed later.

See Emofine's last post on the issue of church & state seperation. I take some issue with your stance to teach evolution (as a fact despite its many flaws). It should be presented as a scientific theory not fact. I do think creationism should be taught - but not as a scientific course. Stripping schools of religious-flavored ideas is not the way forward.

---

I know you are not 'forcing' me...I was just kidding around. I pay attention to politics & interact with all kinds of people so it helps inform (not necessarily shape) my 'religious beliefs'. Someone who's lived in a village in Ogun state, it'd be hard to expect them to take all these other aspects into consideration. Make sense? And trust me, there are way more ppl who read on NL than comment so threads like this one you made helps, so you too, keep it up .
And dude, you're not comparing fighting for gay marriage even close to the league of Hitlers murderous reign? stop it oh lol.

There is no debate between me and you. We already agree on most parts on this issue. My only issue is the small difference between civil unions and full marriage.

As for gay people being a minority, it is irrelevant. Gay marriage will be accepted fully in Europe before we both have grandchildren that can vote.

As for evolution being a theory, a scientific theory has a more precise defintion compared to the general defintion of theory.

Sorry for the Hitler comparision

It pains me that I can't exactly bash you since we both agree to a certain degree. I'm off to troll strong-headed christians, they always like a good bashing before they grudgingly accept they're wrong!

musKeeto: seems like someone's being harshly ignored...

Guy, be easy on him

solomon111: Nonsense!
Absolute Balderdash!!!

Homophobes that get angry over gay issues are very likely to be repressed gays

Muskeeto whut up? no comment on gay rights?

logicboy:
There is no debate between me and you. We already agree on most parts on this issue. My only issue is the small difference between civil unions and full marriage.

As for gay people being a minority, it is irrelevant. Gay marriage will be accepted fully in Europe before we both have grandchildren that can vote.

As for evolution being a theory, a scientific theory has a more precise defintion compared to the general defintion of theory.

Sorry for the Hitler comparision

It pains me that I can't exactly bash you since we both agree to a certain degree. I'm off to troll strong-headed christians, they always like a good bashing before they grudgingly accept they're wrong!

Ehen I know now, you're looking for fight . David is around today. He never fails to give a good one lol.

As for this part:

As for gay people being a minority, it is irrelevant. Gay marriage will be accepted fully in Europe before we both have grandchildren that can vote.

Lol. I rebuke you.

JeSoul: You guys have been asking all the questions, my turn.

Lol I never saw your post earlier on, ok.

1- Do you agree that gays are a relative minority in most soceities? (pls discount their capital of San Franscisco ).

Yes I agree that gays are a relative minority in most societies.

2- What percentage of non-gays fully support the gay agenda? (lets use the western world for this part)

To be honest I’m not sure of the percentages but I am aware that reserved and/or hostile attitudes towards gays outside religious institutions even in secular societies still persist but at least there are laws in those secular societies that protect gays as a minority and don’t criminalize them.

3- What do you think about minority views being imposed on a majority that may not agree?

Well I believe the views of minorities (depending on their views i.e extremists excluded) should not be marginalized and their rights too should be upheld; the majority doesn't even have to “like” the views of the minority, just don’t disrespect and discriminate against them. But that’s not to say that the views of a minority should be “imposed” on the majority unless there is no credible means of marginalization and yes if the minority is being threatened. Minorities need to be heard and not silenced and sometimes even protected. I maintain that our differences should be equally respected. Besides the majority is not always right or should remain unchallenged.

4- What would your "ideal" soceity look like in regards to a)gay rights and b)religion

It’s interesting because I don’t regard any sexuality or religion as innate attributes so this is definitely one thing I believe society should consider before discriminating on the grounds of “unnatural” behaviour. Such religious people should also remember that they were not born as an adherent to a particular faith (maybe under a religious household but religion is not hereditary) so by that same token religion is just as “unnatural” yet such individuals claim their religion is integral to their being.
Gays won’t be marginalized just because they are a minority (just like left handed people) or concealed for fear of treading on the sensibilities of particular groups, religious or not.
Although recognizing the rights of the religious populace (such populace will be free to practice their religion) the influence of religion in the politics of the state will pale - so I suppose you can say it will be a secular society.

JeSoul: Muskeeto whut up? no comment on gay rights?

Ehen I know now, you're looking for fight . David is around today. He never fails to give a good one lol.

As for this part: Lol. I rebuke you.

Huh? I wasnt saying that we should have granchildren together! Jesus Christ! Sorry, I am not like those perverts that toast you here on NL.

Reread my comment- I was saying by the time our generation have granchildren, gay rights would be accpeted

logicboy:


Guy, be easy on him

I think I should be telling y'all that.. see as una ignore am like clothe wey dirty..

JeSoul: Muskeeto whut up? no comment on gay rights?

I grew up in Nigeria, currently living in India. In Nigeria, gay rights is not really an issue, gays don't even have 'lefts' yet
In India, homosexuality was made legal some years back, there have gay pride parades in Delhi, but in Chennai (where I stay), most gays remain closeted..
So I'm really not bothered about it. But I believe everyone should mind their businesses.. One's sexual preferences has no effect on me whatsoever, when compared to the actions of a rapist or those currently looting the national coffers

@LogicMind: let it go..