Are u going to leave USA now?

[Pegg]

That's what members of your organization have been preaching to me and others.
Tell me then, what happens?

I dont believe that and we certainly dont preach it.
We preach Gods purpose for mankind. Everlasting life in an earthly paradise as he originally designed. Doen't sound very apocalyptic to me.

 

[Pegg]

How do people punish you for not conforming to their views?

i've seen it many times...anyone who does not accept homosexuality is insulted with being old fashioned, unreasonable, homophobic, bigoted and a whole host of other demeaning things.

 

[Jainarayan]

i've seen it many times...anyone who does not accept homosexuality is insulted with being old fashioned, unreasonable, homophobic, bigoted and a whole host of other demeaning things.

We're all insulted by someone at sometime for something. Punishment is being fired, evicted, beaten, killed. I hardly think that applies to people who don't approve of homosexuality, specifically Christians. I hardly think you are a victim, so let's please stop the "we're poor persecuted Christians because we follow God's word".

 

[Pegg]

We're all insulted by someone at sometime for something. Punishment is being fired, evicted, beaten, killed. I hardly think that applies to people who don't approve of homosexuality, specifically Christians. I hardly think you are a victim, so let's please stop the "we're poor persecuted Christians because we follow God's word".

Im just saying that the response to disapproving of homosexuality is not casual. It arouses anger and hatred which is a little unreasonable imo. I have no issue with being insulted for following Gods Word. Im only pointing out that those in support of homosexuality find our stance offensive.

 

[gsa]

Im just saying that the response to disapproving of homosexuality is not casual. It arouses anger and hatred which is a little unreasonable imo. I have no issue with being insulted for following Gods Word. Im only pointing out that those in support of homosexuality find our stance offensive.

It is not really about your disapproval. When it comes to disapproval, we all have more or less informed opinions; for example, I think your religion is an authoritarian cult that abuses its members on a regular basis, but I still think you enjoy a constitutional right to believe what you want to believe and fashion your lifestyle accordingly, within reasonable limits. It is the failure to extend that basic respect to LGBT people that we find so troubling.

 

[Jainarayan]

Im just saying that the response to disapproving of homosexuality is not casual. It arouses anger and hatred which is a little unreasonable imo. I have no issue with being insulted for following Gods Word. Im only pointing out that those in support of homosexuality find our stance offensive.

Well, if it's that extreme those people have deeper issues that they need help with. There's no excuse for hatred because of beliefs. But I'm naïve at times.

 

[Pegg]

It is not really about your disapproval. When it comes to disapproval, we all have more or less informed opinions; for example, I think your religion is an authoritarian cult that abuses its members on a regular basis, but I still think you enjoy a constitutional right to believe what you want to believe and fashion your lifestyle accordingly, within reasonable limits. It is the failure to extend that basic respect to LGBT people that we find so troubling.

Its really the governments job to manage the different sectors of society and its demographics. Christians should not be involved with politics and its decisions, so in my view the chrisitan groups who oppose gay marriage are actually opposing the governments right to rule and make the decisions. Jehovahs Witnesses dont oppose the governments decisons which is why we dont demonstrate against such decisions. I dont care if they want to marry, its between them and God imv.

 

[Revoltingest]

Im just saying that the response to disapproving of homosexuality is not casual. It arouses anger and hatred which is a little unreasonable imo. I have no issue with being insulted for following Gods Word. Im only pointing out that those in support of homosexuality find our stance offensive.

I see this hatred too.
Tis the illiberal liberal syndrome.

 

[gsa]

I see this hatred too.
Tis the illiberal liberal syndrome.

Examples? Specifically, examples in the context of homosexuality and gay rights?

 

[gsa]

Well, if it's that extreme those people have deeper issues that they need help with. There's no excuse for hatred because of beliefs. But I'm naïve at times.

Some beliefs are worthy of hatred and absolute opposition. White supremacy? Misogyny? Advocacy of genocide? I hate those beliefs, and can only try to separate the beliefs from the person who holds them, and advocates for them. So I understand what Christians mean when they say "love the sinner, hate the sin." Because that is more or less what we are called to do when dealing with these people. Tolerate, at least, if not love.

 

[Jainarayan]

Some beliefs are worthy of hatred and absolute opposition. White supremacy? Misogyny? Advocacy of genocide? I hate those beliefs, and can only try to separate the beliefs from the person who holds them, and advocates for them. So I understand what Christians mean when they say "love the sinner, hate the sin." Because that is more or less what we are called to do when dealing with these people. Tolerate, at least, if not love.

Yes, you are right about those things. If I came upon a neo-nazi harassing or harming someone on his "hit list" I'd be hard pressed to not want to beat the crap out of him. But I would try to do it with love.

Wait, wut? Love, nothing. I'm part Sicilian and part Viking... do the math.

 

[Revoltingest]

Examples? Specifically, examples in the context of homosexuality and gay rights?

Things I've seen on RF & elsewhere about those who oppose gay marriage.....
- Stupid
- Hateful
- Hypocritical
- Evil religions
If you're looking for citations of specific posts, I ain't do'n that.

 

[gsa]

Things I've seen on RF & elsewhere about those who oppose gay marriage.....
- Stupid
- Hateful
- Hypocritical
- Evil religions
If you're looking for citations of specific posts, I ain't do'n that.

Some of those words are certainly less refined and polished than what I would use. A certain level of decorum is called for when engaging with people who hold beliefs that are rooted in a lack of good sense or judgment (stupidity) or intense or passionate and irrational dislike (hatred). I suppose that the issue is less hypocrisy (although a surprisingly large number of anti-gay evangelicals have been caught with their pants down in public restrooms, high school locker rooms and the like) as opposed to mendacity, dishonesty, posturing or false virtue. As for evil religions, well, the central texts of the Abrahamic religions celebrate genocide, slavery and extreme forms of religious intolerance and either celebrate or ignore evils like rape (including child rape). Are those things not profoundly immoral or malevolent?

No need to cite any particular post.

 

[sojourner]

Im just saying that the response to disapproving of homosexuality is not casual. It arouses anger and hatred which is a little unreasonable imo. I have no issue with being insulted for following Gods Word. Im only pointing out that those in support of homosexuality find our stance offensive.

You're right. It's not casual. It's pointed and forceful. but that's because disapproval of homosexuality is, likewise, not casual, but pointed and forceful. It's Newton's Third Law. It arouses anger and hatred, because anger and hatred are reasonable reactions to violence.

The fact is that several misconceptions are in play in this issue. First, neither the bible nor religion are authoritative when it comes to determining what is normal with regard to human behavior or human psychology or physiology. That's the purview of the professional medical community. Yet, the religious community claims that authority and then makes pronouncements of what is "normal" and what is "abominable," based upon a reading of the biblical texts that is, frankly, dishonest and ill-informed, based on irresponsible scholarship, treating its "findings" as absolute. The medical community tells us that homosexuality is a normal part of human identity and interaction. The religious community condemns such identity as "abominable" and "sinful," based on nothing but the very tenuous excuse that "God says so." Which, frankly, is hogwash. God doesn't say so.

Second, "following" "God's word" does not condone systemic violence. This is the same kind of faux-pietistic "reasoning" that the KKK uses in justifying its stance on blacks. First of all, the bible isn't "God's words." It's the religion's word. Second, the biblical record is far more weighted toward loving treatment and acceptance than it is toward ostracism and condemnation. So, I would argue that a stance against homosexuality is both disingenuous and against the bible, if not in particulars, at least in principle.

Third, since homosexuality is normal, to deny equal rights to those who identify as such, based upon biblical tenet, and to impress that tenet upon the federal, state and local governments constitutes the same kind of systemic violence perpetrated upon the blacks in 19th century America and the Jews in 20th century Germany.

Therefore, you're not really "following God's word," you're usurping authority, making moral statements without due diligence in identifying the markers for either normalcy or morality, and propagating systemic violence by denying rights through employing baseless entitlement. And you wonder why these actions are found to be offensive? Might as well put on a white sheet and a Gestapo uniform. There's nothing -- absolutely nothing -- any more immoral, abnormal, or inferior about homosexuality than there is about being black or Jewish. No matter what your religious leaders are telling you. They are misinformed and willfully ignorant as to the nature of both homosexuality and their complicity in systemic violence.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

1. I read the article, which, I must say, was very interesting. But, when it comes to identifying the cities as the ones mentioned in the Bible, even the archaeologists themselves aren't 100% confident. They made an inference that, if the cities ever did exist, they were most likely the ones that they found. That being said, I never disagreed that the cities were found, I merely pointed out that there is absolutely no evidence that God destroyed them, apart from a claim made through a story in a book written thousands of years ago at a time when myth was HUGE. You are using your confirmation bias, that the Bible is accurate and can be used as historical evidence for certain events, in conjunction with these archaeological finds to assume that God destroyed these cities. I do not think that is a reasonable "jump" in logic.
2. Also, I read the actual transcript from the Obama interview, and he never asked that people change their views on their own. He said that it was the responsibility of the LGBT community to help change peoples minds/beliefs on the issue. I don't see anything wrong with that, and I wholeheartedly agree that people should attempt to open their minds on this issue, from both sides. Don't believe everything you hear about Obama, as the conservatives often put words in his mouth, assume that they know what is going on inside his head, and say things that just are flat out lies. Remember when Trump made the "birther" argument? Or when people actually believed that Obama was not Christian, but, instead, Muslim, and was lying to everyone about it? Now, I am not the biggest Obama fan in the world, but I have seen a lot of people become dishonest when it comes to discussing his views.

Here is an excerpt that should put your mind at least a bit more at rest (Obama Transcript: Statement on Same-Sex Marriage Supreme Court Ruling - POTUS Operandi
"I know that Americans of good will continue to hold a wide range of views on this issue. Opposition, in some cases, has been based on sincere and deeply held beliefs. All of us who welcome today’s news should be mindful of that fact and recognize different viewpoints, revere our deep commitment to religious freedom.

But today should also give us hope that on the many issues with which we grapple, often painfully, real change is possible. Shift in hearts and minds is possible. And those who have come so far on their journey to equality have a responsibility to reach back and help others join them, because for all of our differences, we are one people, stronger together than we could ever be alone. That’s always been our story."

Thank you, I enjoyed reading you response.

We won't be agreeing on the validity of Genesis, but I guess we all know that the media is not known for objectivity, especially when there are different versions of what Obama said from different sources. I'll have to back off and withhold judgment on it.

 

[Pegg]

You're right. It's not casual. It's pointed and forceful. but that's because disapproval of homosexuality is, likewise, not casual, but pointed and forceful. It's Newton's Third Law. It arouses anger and hatred, because anger and hatred are reasonable reactions to violence.

The fact is that several misconceptions are in play in this issue. First, neither the bible nor religion are authoritative when it comes to determining what is normal with regard to human behavior or human psychology or physiology. That's the purview of the professional medical community. Yet, the religious community claims that authority and then makes pronouncements of what is "normal" and what is "abominable," based upon a reading of the biblical texts that is, frankly, dishonest and ill-informed, based on irresponsible scholarship, treating its "findings" as absolute. The medical community tells us that homosexuality is a normal part of human identity and interaction. The religious community condemns such identity as "abominable" and "sinful," based on nothing but the very tenuous excuse that "God says so." Which, frankly, is hogwash. God doesn't say so.

Second, "following" "God's word" does not condone systemic violence. This is the same kind of faux-pietistic "reasoning" that the KKK uses in justifying its stance on blacks. First of all, the bible isn't "God's words." It's the religion's word. Second, the biblical record is far more weighted toward loving treatment and acceptance than it is toward ostracism and condemnation. So, I would argue that a stance against homosexuality is both disingenuous and against the bible, if not in particulars, at least in principle.

Third, since homosexuality is normal, to deny equal rights to those who identify as such, based upon biblical tenet, and to impress that tenet upon the federal, state and local governments constitutes the same kind of systemic violence perpetrated upon the blacks in 19th century America and the Jews in 20th century Germany.

Therefore, you're not really "following God's word," you're usurping authority, making moral statements without due diligence in identifying the markers for either normalcy or morality, and propagating systemic violence by denying rights through employing baseless entitlement. And you wonder why these actions are found to be offensive? Might as well put on a white sheet and a Gestapo uniform. There's nothing -- absolutely nothing -- any more immoral, abnormal, or inferior about homosexuality than there is about being black or Jewish. No matter what your religious leaders are telling you. They are misinformed and willfully ignorant as to the nature of both homosexuality and their complicity in systemic violence.

I dont think you should be tarring everyone with the same brush.

Not all Christians against homosexual practices are violently opposed. If i say i dont approve of it, that is not violent opposition.

If I say it is against Gods law, that is also not violent opposition.

 

[Pegg]

Some of those words are certainly less refined and polished than what I would use. A certain level of decorum is called for when engaging with people who hold beliefs that are rooted in a lack of good sense or judgment (stupidity) or intense or passionate and irrational dislike (hatred). I suppose that the issue is less hypocrisy (although a surprisingly large number of anti-gay evangelicals have been caught with their pants down in public restrooms, high school locker rooms and the like) as opposed to mendacity, dishonesty, posturing or false virtue. As for evil religions, well, the central texts of the Abrahamic religions celebrate genocide, slavery and extreme forms of religious intolerance and either celebrate or ignore evils like rape (including child rape). Are those things not profoundly immoral or malevolent?

No need to cite any particular post.

Just citing your post for evidence of hate speech

 

[gsa]

Just citing your post for evidence of hate speech

I am sure that you think it is hate speech. See what I said above about lack of good sense or judgment.

 

[Revoltingest]

Some of those words are certainly less refined and polished than what I would use. A certain level of decorum is called for when engaging with people who hold beliefs that are rooted in a lack of good sense or judgment (stupidity) or intense or passionate and irrational dislike (hatred). I suppose that the issue is less hypocrisy (although a surprisingly large number of anti-gay evangelicals have been caught with their pants down in public restrooms, high school locker rooms and the like) as opposed to mendacity, dishonesty, posturing or false virtue.

There's an advantage in disagreeing in a civil fashion while making cogent arguments.
It's more peaceful, enjoyable, & persuasive to the other side.
Imagine how I would come across if I used words like "stupid" & "evil" when describing
things I consider as bad as opposing gay marriage, eg, electing & re-electing Obama.
Would people take me less seriously than they do now? Nah....t'would be a shouting match.
So posters should consider their goals here....
Is it to express derision towards those beneath you, & create enmity...or have a positive influence thru civil discourse?

As for evil religions, well, the central texts of the Abrahamic religions celebrate genocide, slavery and extreme forms of religious intolerance and either celebrate or ignore evils like rape (including child rape). Are those things not profoundly immoral or malevolent?

I'd call those things unequivocally evil.
But to oppose gay marriage is not in the same weight class.

 

[gsa]

I'd call those things unequivocally evil.
But to oppose gay marriage is not in the same weight class.

No, but then neither is racial segregation in the same weight class as genocide. As long as you recognize that the central scriptures, celebrated as infallible, are celebrating unequivocally evil things, that's sufficient.

But I would say that murdering male homosexuals (i.e., Leviticus 20:13) is as bad as it gets, because murder is as bad as it gets. And let's be clear: They have positions well beyond opposition to marriage licenses.