Christians, why do you hate Gays?

[sojourner]

Lady B:

Basically I do not agree in discrimination at all.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

But when you vote to deny full participation, based upon your beliefs, you are complicit in discrimination.

Lady B:

The church is seperate from goverment and should not be seen as discriminating.

...unless it is being discriminatory.

Lady B:

The people who vote according to God's will are not being hatefull, they are being true to their God and cannot support what they feel to be contrary to His word.

You can't defend that voting to deny full participation is "God's word." In fact, I believe it is contrary to what God wants for us.

 

[Jainarayan]

and that statement can be turned around right? isnt your vote for same sex marriage imposing your convictions on others?

Absolutely! They are my convictions that the Fourteenth Amendment is being violated by states and the federal government by not permitting same-sex marriage. It's a legal issue, not religious. I know that no pujari (Hindu priest) will perform a same-sex marriage, not because it's proscribed by scripture (it's not), or because Hinduism is anti-gay (it's not) but because Hinduism is pro-procreation and pro-raising a family. Raising a family is one of the four stages of life every Hindu is urged to follow and fulfill. Yet I would still vote for same-sex marriage because it's what's fair for a group of people.

 

[sojourner]

Agreed. I could probably find the chapter and verse, but suffice to say I think many of us know of the verse when he sends the apostles out, telling them that if no town would have them, shake even the dust of the town off their feet. I discount the "better for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town" tidbit as being hyperbole and metaphor. Something he was proficient at, given the time and place, and audience he was teaching. I believe he meant if the town wants nothing to do with their beliefs, so be it; leave them be. Moreover, he told the apostles to go out and make disciples of all nations, but he did not say anything about forced or imposed conversion or beliefs, or generally ******* people off!

Jesus never crammed belief down the throats of others. The most he ever did was throw the money changers out of the Temple, and that wasn't over an issue of belief. It was over an unethical act.

 

[Drolefille]

I want to ask a hypothetical. Lets say Christians are in the minority. And everyone else really dislikes them. If they voted that Christians were no longer allowed to be considered married by the state, or to meet on Sundays, would you say that "this is not the voter's fault that they are in a majority?" Or would you be seriously ticked off?

I hope you see that putting people's rights up to vote is a bad idea. How long would people have voted against the right of black Americans if the court system didn't get involved?

Please respond to this.



B

To be fair, I get your points, I do. I know I am not making many friends here but I hope I am not making enemy's by sharing my views. Basically I do not agree in discrimination at all. I just think we all have the right to vote based on our convictions and God's word. Homosexuals do also, and If they become the majority and win their rights by a fair vote, I will have nothing to say against them. I will uphold the churches stand and continue to vote according to my beliefs as This is my right as a u.s. citizen. As far as U.S. laws are concerned we all have the power to make or break any issue in the ballads, so If this law will be passed it will be from the voters and it is your right to campaign and encourage your fellow man to turn out at the polls and win what you seek to win.

With that being said, The church is seperate from goverment and should not be seen as discriminating. The people who vote according to God's will are not being hatefull, they are being true to their God and cannot support what they feel to be contrary to His word.

Convictions can be discriminatory. One can vote in a manner that they believe is in accordance with God's will and also be hateful.

People who voted against equal rights for black Americans because God had made them a lesser people thought they were voting God's will too. It was still hateful.

 

[Lady B]

Jesus never crammed belief down the throats of others. The most he ever did was throw the money changers out of the Temple, and that wasn't over an issue of belief. It was over an unethical act.

unethical to who? .

 

[sojourner]

Please respond to this.



B

Convictions can be discriminatory. One can vote in a manner that they believe is in accordance with God's will and also be hateful.

People who voted against equal rights for black Americans because God had made them a lesser people thought they were voting God's will too. It was still hateful.

See post #145.

 

[Jainarayan]

unethical to who? .

Unethical to the temple-goers, who were being gouged by the money changers.

 

[Drolefille]

See post #145.

I meant Lady B

 

[sojourner]

unethical to who? .

It's not a question of "to whom?"

It's a matter of suiting action to stated belief. Let's put this back on the gay marriage issue. If one professes to be a Christian and to follow Jesus, and Jesus taught hospitality and inclusion, in what way are acts of inhospitality and exclusion not unethical?

 

[Lady B]

Please respond to this.



B

Convictions can be discriminatory. One can vote in a manner that they believe is in accordance with God's will and also be hateful.

People who voted against equal rights for black Americans because God had made them a lesser people thought they were voting God's will too. It was still hateful.

I do not know where anyone could get that God made blacks a lesser people, and yes that vote would be hateful and not according to the word of God.

 

[sojourner]

I meant Lady B

I know. I was hoping she'd take the hint and read it.

 

[Drolefille]

I do not know where anyone could get that God made blacks a lesser people, and yes that vote would be hateful and not according to the word of God.

Are you familiar with the history of America? This was incredibly common as far as belief.

And you have not addressed my question. Allow me to repost it:
Lets say Christians are in the minority. And everyone else really dislikes them. If they voted that Christians were no longer allowed to be considered married by the state, or to meet on Sundays, would you say that "this is not the voter's fault that they are in a majority?" Or would you be seriously ticked off?

 

[sojourner]

I do not know where anyone could get that God made blacks a lesser people, and yes that vote would be hateful and not according to the word of God.

It comes from a sincerely-held, biblical belief that the blacks were the descendants of Cain, and that they, therefore, carried the mark of Cain. They were, therefore, inherently lesser people than whites.


Sort of in the same way that homosexuals are treated as lesser people because they engage in homosexual acts (because of who they inherently are).

Look, Lady B, it's no secret that you and I disagree here. But I think you're free to believe what you want to believe and practice as you see fit -- even if I disagree with your basis for argument. Where I have to draw the line, though, is when you seek to use the system to foist your morality upon other people. That's what "voting your conscience" does. Voting in favor of equal rights doesn't mean that you'll have to engage in homosexual marriage. But it does mean that you're upholding the right of other people to form valid relationships as they see fit.

 

[Jainarayan]

It's not a question of "to whom?"

I sea wut you did there... correctly used the objective case.

 

[dawny0826]

I know not all of them do and there are many other religions that are the same. I am just wondering why a minority of Christians hate gays?

I heard this song by macklemore last week and I thought it was beautifully written and a great example as to what I am asking;

[youtube]hlVBg7_08n0[/youtube]
YouTube

The Christians in my life who do not condone homosexuality and wouldn't legally support marriage equality, do not truly hate gay people. They genuinely believe that they need to place God first in their lives. They believe that homosexuality is sinful and will not support it, as they believe that doing so, is against God.

God doesn't exist where there's hate. That's my opinion. I wouldn't label one who genuinely hates...a Christian.

There's a difference between disagreeing with marriage equality (for whatever reason) and hating people. It's challenging for anyone, when they're opposing something that is meaningful to another group - to be deemed as anything other than hateful.

 

[Jainarayan]

Are you familiar with the history of America? This was incredibly common as far as belief.

It comes from a sincerely-held, biblical belief that the blacks were the descendants of Cain, and that they, therefore, carried the mark of Cain. They were, therefore, inherently lesser people than whites.

Giving rise to the one-drop rule, Jim Crow laws, anti-miscegenation laws, and other reprehensible traditions and laws.

 

[Drolefille]

The Christians in my life who do not condone homosexuality and wouldn't legally support marriage equality, do not truly hate gay people. They genuinely believe that they need to place God first in their lives. They believe that homosexuality is sinful and will not support it, as they believe that doing so, is against God.

God doesn't exist where there's hate. That's my opinion. I wouldn't label one who genuinely hates...a Christian.

There's a difference between disagreeing with marriage equality (for whatever reason) and hating people. It's challenging for anyone, when they're opposing something that is meaningful to another group - to be deemed as anything other than hateful.

How is someone to take denial of their rights and freedoms as anything but hateful? The Christians in your life may not be feeling hate, but their actions are still hateful and cruel.

See the discussion about black Amercians - some people truly and sincerely believed that black people needed "taken care of" and couldn't be independent people. It was perhaps pity that drove them, but their actions, slavery and all its trappings were still hateful.

 

[Lady B]

I did take the hint I read it again.

Originally Posted by Drolefille
I want to ask a hypothetical. Lets say Christians are in the minority. And everyone else really dislikes them. If they voted that Christians were no longer allowed to be considered married by the state, or to meet on Sundays, would you say that "this is not the voter's fault that they are in a majority?" Or would you be seriously ticked off?

I hope you see that putting people's rights up to vote is a bad idea. How long would people have voted against the right of black Americans if the court system didn't get involved?

So you believe the laws should be made by Government and not the people? Sure I would be sad if the majority voted against my rights as a Christian to worship or marry. Why? Our country was formed with freedom of religion as a right and a motive for establishing our country. Same sex marriage isn't exactly in this category, as far as I know it has yet to be established as a religion and subject to religious freedoms.

Same sex marriage is a proposal adding to the laws not taking from and so should be voted in by the people. Do you not agree? If the proposal passes, I will not be saying hey that is not fair, that is unjust, that is discriminating. I will accept that this is the majoral vote of the people of the United states of America and it is law. Period. I will not deem the winning voters as hateful or imposing simply because I do not agree in the outcome.

 

[dawny0826]

How is someone to take denial of their rights and freedoms as anything but hateful? The Christians in your life may not be feeling hate, but their actions are still hateful and cruel.

See the discussion about black Amercians - some people truly and sincerely believed that black people needed "taken care of" and couldn't be independent people. It was perhaps pity that drove them, but their actions, slavery and all its trappings were still hateful.

You're restating what I said. I don't disagree with you.

 

[Drolefille]

I did take the hint I read it again.



So you believe the laws should be made by Government and not the people? Sure I would be sad if the majority voted against my rights as a Christian to worship or marry. Why? Our country was formed with freedom of religion as a right and a motive for establishing our country. Same sex marriage isn't exactly in this category, as far as I know it has yet to be established as a religion and subject to religious freedoms.

Same sex marriage is a proposal adding to the laws not taking from and so should be voted in by the people. Do you not agree? If the proposal passes, I will not be saying hey that is not fair, that is unjust, that is discriminating. I will accept that this is the majoral vote of the people of the United states of America and it is law. Period. I will not deem the winning voters as hateful or imposing simply because I do not agree in the outcome.

So you would be OK with it if we voted that Christians did not have equal rights. Unhappy, but you'd be fine with it because it's the majority?

I'm absolutely baffled by your response, but at least it's internally consistent I suppose.

And I do disagree that the rights of the minority should be voted on by the majority. Again, see the Civil Rights Era. It required court action. Do you think we should have kept black people from having equal rights until the majority voted on it?