Christians, why do you hate Gays?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In order to use this verse in support of gay marriage, you need show the biblical definition of marriage supporting gays. The biblical marriage is male and female, so the prophesy of latter days is obviously speaking of the biblical and traditional view.

There is no one Biblical "definition" of marriage, but the impression one gets of marriage in the Bible is one man effectively owning an undetermined number of women. This is not the modern model of marriage; to the extent that there's a "Biblical definition of marriage", our society rejected it long before the question of same-sex marriage even came up.

 

[Lady B]

There is no one Biblical "definition" of marriage, but the impression one gets of marriage in the Bible is one man effectively owning an undetermined number of women. This is not the modern model of marriage; to the extent that there's a "Biblical definition of marriage", our society rejected it long before the question of same-sex marriage even came up.

I am not debating what society rejected, I am asking the poster who used Jesus as support of the argument to examine seriously If that is indeed what Christ would do in this instance.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you honestly and wholeheartedly believe Jesus would vote for same sex marriage?

I don't think that Jesus would vote at all. He was an apocalyptic preacher who deliberately lived outside the established society of his time.

Voting is a tacit acknowledgement of the legitimacy of a human government. Jesus just wouldn't do this, IMO.

I wish people would stop making Christ a liberal and anything goes as long as peace is ensued. Christ was not for humanism, and railed against ideas contrary to scripture. Seriously ask yourself what Christ would say about us consenting and supporting laws defying God's word?

You tell us; what did he say in the Bible when people used religious rules to justify hurting and mistreating people, and excusing their own lack of compassion?

Personally, judging by the character of Jesus presented in the Gospels, I think what he would say would be something like this: Matthew 23:23-28 NIV -

Prohibiting same-sex marriage means inflicting harm on people. It means denying the children of same-sex couples normal protections and benefits. It means taking away the rights and freedoms of people that they need when they're at their most vulnerable, like when their partner is incapacitated or dies. You're using religious doctrine as an excuse to turn your back on injustice.

Jesus had no problem with working on the Sabbath when it meant that hungry people would be fed; why do you think that he'd be okay with you kicking people when they're down and claiming that what he preached makes it okay?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not debating what society rejected, I am asking the poster who used Jesus as support of the argument to examine seriously If that is indeed what Christ would do in this instance.

In the Gospels, Jesus was consistently against injustice and inflicting harm on vulnerable people.

Prohibiting same-sex marriage perpetuates injustice and inflicts harm on vulnerable people.

For the life of me, I can't understand why you or anyone else would think that the Jesus Christ of the Bible would be on your side of this issue.

 

[ChristineES]

When it comes to laws of the land, a politician has to learn how to separate his person religious beliefs from what the wants of the people he/she represents. I think we need to do the same. Not everyone follows the same beliefs.

Also, on another subject, I don't like the fact that if someone doesn't like something that others do because 1. they believe it to be a sin or 2. it irritates them or 3. it's against something they believe in (religious and non-religious), etc. that it is called "hatred". It is not necessarily hatred (although it can be, I am not saying otherwise). It may be a number of reasons- such as not thinking it through. Marriage, for instance, can be a non-religious union as well as a religious union. My husband isn't thinking it through because he says that marriage is always a religious institution. I no longer debate him on it, since he doesn't like it when anyone disagrees with him, but I can state here what I believe.
I feel as though it would be wrong to force it on those Churches who call it a sin- but the couple could find a place where it isn't considered a sin instead (there are several Christian denominations who say it is not a sin). Or they can use a Justice of the Peace or something. Of course, this argument is moot right now because it is still illegal in most states in the USA.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Also, on another subject, I don't like the fact that if someone doesn't like something that others do because 1. they believe it to be a sin or 2. it irritates them or 3. it's against something they believe in (religious and non-religious), etc. that it is called "hatred". It is not necessarily hatred (although it can be, I am not saying otherwise). It may be a number of reasons- such as not thinking it through. Marriage, for instance, can be a non-religious union as well as a religious union. My husband isn't thinking it through because he says that marriage is always a religious institution. I no longer debate him on it, since he doesn't like it when anyone disagrees with him, but I can state here what I believe.

I think you're right - I think there are some people who haven't thought the issue through.

Still, when I think about the absolutely horrible impacts that occur when same-sex marriage is denied, I find it very hard to keep that belief that the people fighting against same-sex marriage don't realize the harm they're causing... and I think that if they do realize it and keep their stance against same-sex marriage anyhow, "hate" is the appropriate term. Deliberately harming a person's children because you disapprove of his or her relationship is an act of hate, IMO.

The effects of prohibiting same-sex marriage are just so bad - and at least to me, obvious - that it's very hard for me to give people the benefit of the doubt that they're doing what they are out of ignorance, especially when they're otherwise intelligent, articulate people. When someone seems to put thought into their positions generally, it doesn't come naturally to me to assume that they might not have put thought into this one position. It would be very easy for me to attribute their position to hate, and I have to try very hard to stop myself from falling into that conclusion.

 

[Lady B]

In the Gospels, Jesus was consistently against injustice and inflicting harm on vulnerable people.

Prohibiting same-sex marriage perpetuates injustice and inflicts harm on vulnerable people.

For the life of me, I can't understand why you or anyone else would think that the Jesus Christ of the Bible would be on your side of this issue.

For the simple reason that the Bible teaches us homosexuality is an abomination.

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.”
—Romans 1:26-27 (NKJV)
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”
—1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV)
“Knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,”
—1 Timothy 1:9-10 (NKJV)


and while not speaking directly about homosexuals jesus himself reiterated that marriage was intended for male and female.
“And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’“
—Matthew 19:4 (NKJV)


So I ask you again, Do you really believe the Jesus in the Bible would support same sex marriage ?

 

[Penumbra]

For the simple reason that the Bible teaches us homosexuality is an abomination.

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.”
—Romans 1:26-27 (NKJV)
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”
—1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV)
“Knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,”
—1 Timothy 1:9-10 (NKJV)

What level of authority do you give Paul on these matters? These are all from Paul.

and while not speaking directly about homosexuals jesus himself reiterated that marriage was intended for male and female.
“And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’“
—Matthew 19:4 (NKJV)

So I ask you again, Do you really believe the Jesus in the Bible would support same sex marriage ?

He already answered that; that Jesus probably wouldn't care about any laws because he preached about an upcoming apocalypse in their generation and lived outside of established society.

Why would Jesus support a law that reduces other people's rights? Isn't it telling that Jesus never bothered to speak about homosexuality once, and the only direct references Christians have towards it are from some guy named Paul and sources like Leviticus?

If Christians were consistent about this, why not make adultery illegal? Why not divorce? Would Jesus be in favor of allowing those things to be legal? Would Jesus be in favor of allowing people to not be Christian?

When Christians cherry-pick through their beliefs to thwart people's freedom, the inconsistencies are going to get called out.

 

[Lady B]

I will say this, The Jesus in the bible would never condone hate crimes, and I would not. It is just to vote for Godly means, It is unjust to asault anyone in opposition. You saying that by my vote I am causing harm to somone is subjective at best and I will not be found guilty by God for this. However If I vote against God's will for man, I will certainly be found guilty.

If If If, I can be shown that same sex marriage is accepted by God, then and only then can I change my vote against it.I do not hate gays, I do not wish for them a life of despair, I really genuinly would honor their unions If it was not against God. Why do you hate that I make God first in my life and vote accordingly?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For the simple reason that the Bible teaches us homosexuality is an abomination.

It also teaches that working on the Sabbath is an abomination, but in the Gospels, we have Jesus effectively saying "nuts to that".

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.”
—Romans 1:26-27 (NKJV)

Yeah... Paul was rather anti-sex, anti-gay, and misogynist. I think it's rather convenient to cherry pick out the anti-gay parts while ignoring his anti-sex and misogynist material.

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”
—1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV)

You know, one thing that I've always wondered about that passage... or at least how it's used: don't people realize how hypocritical it is to use a passage that condemns both revilers and homosexuals to justify reviling homosexuality?

“Knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,”
—1 Timothy 1:9-10 (NKJV)

Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives? 2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. 3 So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.

4 So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For when we were in the realm of the flesh,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

- Romans 7:1-6

and while not speaking directly about homosexuals jesus himself reiterated that marriage was intended for male and female.
“And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’“
—Matthew 19:4 (NKJV)

Read the whole passage:

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?

If we're meant to take it as a model for us to follow, then it condemns bachelorhood as much as it does same-sex relationships.

So I ask you again, Do you really believe the Jesus in the Bible would support same sex marriage ?

He rated justice and mercy as more important than the law. There is no justice or mercy in prohibiting same-sex marriage, so yes, I do.

Do you really believe that the Jesus in the Bible would support Christians interfering in the affairs of non-Christians?

What makes you think that God appointed you to be the one to stop other people from sinning? This is in the Bible, too:

Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

- Romans 14:4

I also recall something Jesus said about specks and beams in eyes. Why are you so bound and determined to attend to someone else's righteousness? Do you think that yours has no flaws?

 

[Penumbra]

I will say this, The Jesus in the bible would never condone hate crimes, and I would not. It is just to vote for Godly means, It is unjust to asault anyone in opposition. You saying that by my vote I am causing harm to somone is subjective at best and I will not be found guilty by God for this. However If I vote against God's will for man, I will certainly be found guilty.

If If If, I can be shown that same sex marriage is accepted by God, then and only then can I change my vote against it.I do not hate gays, I do not wish for them a life of despair, I really genuinly would honor their unions If it was not against God. Why do you hate that I make God first in my life and vote accordingly?

Let me ask you a question. What basis do you have to believe that a god is against homosexuality?

Out of all religious scripture or teachings, such as the Hebrew Bible, the Qu'ran, the New Testament, the Talmud, the Pali Canon, the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, the Tao Te Ching, Native American beliefs, African beliefs, Shinto, Sikhism, Jainism, etc, which ones have you studied?

Have you delved deeply into the world's broad assortment of things claimed to be divinely inspired or highest Truth, or have you taken only a shallow sampling out of all of these, like perhaps only reading the Bible, and use that small sample as a definitive basis that a god is against homosexuality?

And I don't know how many times to point it out: A vote to make something legal is not the same thing as voting that you find it to be acceptable in your religion.

 

[Dingbat]

I do have a question why does anyone follow what Paul said? The man was an obvious neurotic with bizarre obsessions in regards to sex in all its forms. Yet as Penguin pointed out only the homosexual part sticks with anyone not the rest of it. Then for some reason certain Christians who claim Jesus removed the law as binding then go on to quote Leviticus again only to condemn homosexuals. They can't be arsed to keep a kosher home but they will tell you what to do with your own body. Amazing.

 

[Penumbra]

I do have a question why does anyone follow what Paul said? The man was an obvious neurotic with bizarre obsessions in regards to sex in all its forms. Yet as Penguin pointed out only the homosexual part sticks with anyone not the rest of it. Then for some reason certain Christians who claim Jesus removed the law as binding then go on to quote Leviticus again only to condemn homosexuals. They can't be arsed to keep a kosher home but they will tell you what to do with your own body. Amazing.

People routinely seem to worship Paul in place of their own gods.

Whenever he says something, they say 'God wills it'.

 

[Jainarayan]

In order to use this verse in support of gay marriage, you need show the biblical definition of marriage supporting gays. The biblical marriage is male and female...

The overriding questions in all this are: by what right or reasoning is the bible the authority on anything in a secular nation? What makes the bible binding on a secular nation, many of whose citizens are not of that faith? Why should the laws I live by be subject to a religious text I do not believe in? We know you are voting your convictions, but why should I be subject to your convictions which are based on a religious book and God I do not believe in?

 

[Lady B]

What level of authority do you give Paul on these matters? These are all from Paul.

He already answered that; that Jesus probably wouldn't care about any laws because he preached about an upcoming apocalypse in their generation and lived outside of established society.

Why would Jesus support a law that reduces other people's rights? Isn't it telling that Jesus never bothered to speak about homosexuality once, and the only direct references Christians have towards it are from some guy named Paul and sources like Leviticus?

If Christians were consistent about this, why not make adultery illegal? Why not divorce? Would Jesus be in favor of allowing those things to be legal? Would Jesus be in favor of allowing people to not be Christian?

When Christians cherry-pick through their beliefs to thwart people's freedom, the inconsistencies are going to get called out.

Paul is an apostle, his letters are scripture and I don't care that some Christians and non-Christians refute his legitimacy,I have no reason to concur with their conclusions. I believe every word in The bible Is the word of God, so arguing with me in this is futile as it is my beliefs and my vote your questioning now.As for divorce, till now adultery is a legitimate release from marriage as was when Jesus spoke it so I am not sure how your using this argument.It is a Christian concept upheld by our legal system, I am in favor.

 

[Dingbat]

Paul is an apostle, his letters are scripture and I don't care that some Christians and non-Christians refute his legitimacy,I have no reason to concur with their conclusions. I believe every word in The bible Is the word of God, so arguing with me in this is futile as it is my beliefs and my vote your questioning now.As for divorce, till now adultery is a legitimate release from marriage as was when Jesus spoke it so I am not sure how your using this argument.It is a Christian concept upheld by our legal system, I am in favor.

Correction Paul is a self-proclaimed Disciple who claims Jesus just appeared to him on the road to Damascus.

 

[NIX]

Religious people should not try to en'force their religious beliefs on others. If it's YOUR religion- YOU follow it. Don't try to make everyone one else follow it too.

 

[Jainarayan]

For the simple reason that the Bible teaches us homosexuality is an abomination.

Sure, if you accept the mistranslations and misinterpretations from the original NT Greek. Paul used phrases that were obscure even in his day. Moreover, the word 'homosexual' was coined in the 1800s from Greek (homo=same) and Latin (sexualis=sex) words. There was no concept of 'homosexuality' as we bandy it about.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hombiblnt.htm

... and while not speaking directly about homosexuals jesus himself reiterated that marriage was intended for male and female.
“And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’“
—Matthew 19:4 (NKJV)

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

That passage from Matthew is indeed defining marriage between a man and a woman. We know this. But it does not address or preclude same-sex marriage. You yourself say it "and while not speaking directly about homosexuals... " He is not speaking about homosexuals directly or indirectly. Omission does not equal exclusion.

So I ask you again, Do you really believe the Jesus in the Bible would support same sex marriage ?

Yep, I believe he would.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I will say this, The Jesus in the bible would never condone hate crimes, and I would not. It is just to vote for Godly means, It is unjust to asault anyone in opposition. You saying that by my vote I am causing harm to somone is subjective at best and I will not be found guilty by God for this. However If I vote against God's will for man, I will certainly be found guilty.

When you vote against same-sex marriage, you're voting for things like this:

- when a person is in the hospital, if a hateful hospital staff member wants to kick his or her partner out and deny the patient comfort and companionship in a stressful time, the staff member should have this power.

- if that person becomes incapacitated, his or her care should be decided by a disapproving relative rather than the partner he or she has built a life with.

- a homophobic landlord should have the power to use "no roommates" clauses in the lease to evict same-sex couple tenants.

- when a couple's child is critically ill, only one parent should be able to take time off work to care for them.

- if a child's parent dies, they should go to a distant relative rather than the only other parent they've ever known, and they should have no right to be allowed to see their surviving parent.

... and on and on.

You are causing harm to people. You're causing real harm to same-sex couples and their children.

If If If, I can be shown that same sex marriage is accepted by God, then and only then can I change my vote against it.I do not hate gays, I do not wish for them a life of despair, I really genuinly would honor their unions If it was not against God. Why do you hate that I make God first in my life and vote accordingly?

Frankly, I think this is a red herring - I don't think you do "make God first in my life and vote accordingly". I'm fairly certain that you vote to allow freedom of religion - IOW, freedom to be a heretic - and all sorts of other laws that don't fit within the tenets of your religion.

What does your God say about, say, Islam or Hinduism? Are you trying to "make God first in your life and vote accordingly" on that issue? Do you vote to ban halal food? Do you vote against allowing building permits for Buddhist meditation centres?

I would bet dollars to donuts that you do absolutely nothing - and probably actively support - many laws that enshrine the right for people to be hellbound sinners (in your view, anyhow) in all sorts of ways. Because of this, I can't take you seriously when - on only this one issue, apparently - you demand that everyone in your country or state abides by the tenets of your religion whether they agree with it or not.

You don't vote to force everyone to follow your version of religious morality. No reasonable person does. Don't pretend that you do.

 

[Lady B]

I do have a question why does anyone follow what Paul said? The man was an obvious neurotic with bizarre obsessions in regards to sex in all its forms. Yet as Penguin pointed out only the homosexual part sticks with anyone not the rest of it. Then for some reason certain Christians who claim Jesus removed the law as binding then go on to quote Leviticus again only to condemn homosexuals. They can't be arsed to keep a kosher home but they will tell you what to do with your own body. Amazing.

I did not even quote Leviticus Please try to debate with some respect, I am not asking you to accept Paul's teachings, But you can respect that I do and withhold your debasements of him and Christ for this arguments sake can't you?