Christians, why do you hate Gays?

[Dingbat]

You see a lot of anger, pain and mistrust because some are unable to see clearly that they are complicit in systemic violence against a minority. I'm not looking for a scapegoat. I'm merely hoping to call it for what it is. I'm not paranoid or defensive. And I'm not hurting for love. But I do hurt for those who are being systemically discriminated against -- and pretty incensed at the hubris of the Christian "right." We did it to the blacks; we did it to the women; now we're doing it to the gays -- all in the name of religious piety. One has to wonder who the next victim will be?

God willing there is never another. Well I can hope.

 

[sojourner]

My beliefs stem from my scriptures. I cannot vote in support of something God condemns, Please tell me how I can? How can you vote against something you absolutely believe is God's way?

Your beliefs stem from your interpretation of scripture. I have attempted to show you that your interpretation is incongruent with good scholarship. If you don't spend the effort to exegete the texts, how can you be sure what God's will is? Don't you owe it to your minority sisters and brothers to be as responsible as you can be?

 

[Lady B]

So who do you think has singled out the issue of same sex marriage?

These issues don't just randomly magically appear on the ballet. Do you think divorce should be voted on? If so what are you personally doing to get it on the ballet? And if you are doing nothing about other people's divorces why not?

I personaly do not expect a non-Christian to live by My laws , But if I am asked my opinion I must give an answer. This is done by voting on a ballad set before me. I did not seek it out to oppose it, I simply gave my voice when asked. I believe the proposal was initiated by those seeking to have it implemented, not out of a hat.So If a proposal was put forth to legalize something you believe is immoral, are you saying you would not use your right of voice to oppose it?

 

[Dingbat]

I personaly do not expect a non-Christian to live by My laws , But if I am asked my opinion I must give an answer. This is done by voting on a ballad set before me. I did not seek it out to oppose it, I simply gave my voice when asked. I believe the proposal was initiated by those seeking to have it implemented, not out of a hat.So If a proposal was put forth to legalize something you believe is immoral, are you saying you would not use your right of voice to oppose it?

Why are you voting on music? You are supposed to be voting on not violating people's civil rights.

 

[Penumbra]

I personaly do not expect a non-Christian to live by My laws ,

Then don't vote laws into effect that reduce their freedoms.

But if I am asked my opinion I must give an answer.

Your answer can be that you vote not to put non-Christians under Christian law in a non-theocracy country.

This is done by voting on a ballad set before me.

Morality is performed by being moral, not by legalizing what other people can or cannot do.

I did not seek it out to oppose it,

and yet you did

I simply gave my voice when asked.

to discriminate

I believe the proposal was initiated by those seeking to have it implemented, not out of a hat.

To reduce freedoms of people that don't affect you for religious reasons.

So If a proposal was put forth to legalize something you believe is immoral, are you saying you would not use your right of voice to oppose it?

I use my voice, not the law.

I find adultery to be immoral, but that doesn't mean I want to make it illegal.

I find many subsets of Christianity to be immoral, but that doesn't mean I want to make them illegal.

If there isn't a rational basis for instituting laws against it, then there's no reasons to institute laws against it. You haven't put forth a non-religious argument in favor of discriminating against homosexuals despite the fact that any law in the United States has to have secular reasoning to support it, Constitutionally.

 

[Lady B]

Your beliefs stem from your interpretation of scripture. I have attempted to show you that your interpretation is incongruent with good scholarship. If you don't spend the effort to exegete the texts, how can you be sure what God's will is? Don't you owe it to your minority sisters and brothers to be as responsible as you can be?

I have spent time and effort in the texts, I just have not till now found any support without humanizing it. I do owe it to my brothers and sisters to be responsible, I owe it to my loved one. I just cannot see it, and I cannot get past the clear verses opposing your view.

 

[sojourner]

I have spent time and effort in the texts, I just have not till now found any support without humanizing it. I do owe it to my brothers and sisters to be responsible, I owe it to my loved one. I just cannot see it, and I cannot get past the clear verses opposing your view.

What do you mean by "humanizing?" You do realize that human beings wrote the bible, right?

What is so clear about the verses? None of them specifically prohibit homosexual marriage. None of them explicitly even prohibits homosexuality. They prohibit acts of sexual violence, yes. But that has nothing to do with the homosexual orientation.

Perhaps if we knew by what reason you think the texts are so clear, and what methodology and hermeneutic you utilized to arrive at those reasons, we might give your interpretations a little more credence. But as it stands, it's simply, "God said, it, I believe it, that settles it." Can you explain how that hermeneutic is in any way responsible or more valid than any other?

 

[Lady B]

Then don't vote laws into effect that reduce their freedoms.

Your answer can be that you vote not to put non-Christians under Christian law in a non-theocracy country.

Morality is performed by being moral, not by legalizing what other people can or cannot do.

and yet you did

to discriminate

To reduce freedoms of people that don't affect you for religious reasons.

I use my voice, not the law.

I find adultery to be immoral, but that doesn't mean I want to make it illegal.

I find many subsets of Christianity to be immoral, but that doesn't mean I want to make them illegal.

If there isn't a rational basis for instituting laws against it, then there's no reasons to institute laws against it. You haven't put forth a non-religious argument in favor of discriminating against homosexuals despite the fact that any law in the United States has to have secular reasoning to support it, Constitutionally.

Your right, I have no non-religious argument. I do not agree with the many secular arguments including health risks, since a monogamous union would eradicate these concerns. But I do not agree that my voting per my religious convictions is unconstitutional , I am not a government official making laws biased, I am a voter who has every right to vote per my own convictions even religious ones. You did not make your argument proving this wrong despite your claim you did over and over again. I do not feel the president or any law making entity has the right to make laws based on his religious beliefs, but he or they certainly can vote according to them.

 

[Penumbra]

Your right, I have no non-religious argument.

That's interesting, because any law in the U.S. needs to have a non-religious basis for it to be lawful itself.

I do not agree with the many secular arguments including health risks, since a monogamous union would eradicate these concerns. But I do not agree that my voting per my religious convictions is unconstitutional, I am not a government official making laws biased, I am a voter who has every right to vote per my own convictions even religious ones. You did not make your argument proving this wrong despite your claim you did over and over again. I do not feel the president or any law making entity has the right to make laws based on his religious beliefs, but he or they certainly can vote according to them.

I have asked you, repeatedly, on what basis any politician should ever put forth or defend any law discriminating against homosexuals if they cannot legally use a religious argument as the basis for the law.

If you vote these politicians into office, or if you vote on issues that come up to voters that can be demonstrated to be unconstitutional, then you're responsible for the outcome as a voter.

There's nothing legally stopping you from voting to discriminate against people even though the constitution is an impediment to any politician that would be willing to enact that discrimination, other than wanting to be consistent with the constitution and loving towards people. But until it goes to the Supreme Court, votes like this continue to hurt homosexual couples. Every day.

Would you vote in favor of a constitutional amendment giving politicians the right to put into place laws based on religion?

 

[idav]

I do not agree with the many secular arguments including health risks, since a monogamous union would eradicate these concerns.

Where in the bible does it say you can't join same-sex or is your concern about "unnatural". Btw I would think that a person couldn't in good conscience vote for an unconstitutional law let alone make one. Personal agendas are abroad by legislature and voters to get religion into the books.

 

[fantome profane]

I personaly do not expect a non-Christian to live by My laws , But if I am asked my opinion I must give an answer. This is done by voting on a ballad set before me. I did not seek it out to oppose it, I simply gave my voice when asked. I believe the proposal was initiated by those seeking to have it implemented, not out of a hat.So If a proposal was put forth to legalize something you believe is immoral, are you saying you would not use your right of voice to oppose it?

That really does depend on the issue. There are some things that I personally think are immoral, but I think should be allowed under law for the sake of individual freedom.

But I also understand that the way I vote could cause harm to people. Even if I don't have hate in my heart, still if I do not carefully and rationally consider the outcome many people could be very seriously hurt. A vote is a very serious thing, it is not a trivial opinion poll.

Which is why I have said many times that I believe that we have a moral responsivity to be rational. And I have to say that the position you have taken in this thread may not be based on hate, but it is irrational, and it is destructive.

 

[Lady B]

What do you mean by "humanizing?" You do realize that human beings wrote the bible, right?

What is so clear about the verses? None of them specifically prohibit homosexual marriage. None of them explicitly even prohibits homosexuality. They prohibit acts of sexual violence, yes. But that has nothing to do with the homosexual orientation.

Perhaps if we knew by what reason you think the texts are so clear, and what methodology and hermeneutic you utilized to arrive at those reasons, we might give your interpretations a little more credence. But as it stands, it's simply, "God said, it, I believe it, that settles it." Can you explain how that hermeneutic is in any way responsible or more valid than any other?

Ok Let us go to applicable text by text, you use the methodology or hermeneutics as you like, but I would prefer you not to discount a verse for your view of the authors legitimacy, fair enough?
Let us start with this one:


“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)

 

[Alceste]

Good question. If divorce laws were put on the table then I would vote per my convictions also. I believe divorce is only allowed for the reason Jesus gave ,That of adultery. As for second marriages, I believe it is only allowed when one is Biblically free from the marriage by means of adultery. If there is a ballad that asks me to oppose or allow, I will vote according to scripture.I don't agree Christians singled out this same sex marriage issue, it just happens to be on the ballad and so we must vote according to our beliefs.

I just want to clarify something. If divorce was on the ballot, are you saying you would vote to ban it?

 

[Katzpur]

I don't agree Christians singled out this same sex marriage issue, it just happens to be on the ballad and so we must vote according to our beliefs.

I believe you mean "ballot."

 

[Lady B]

That's interesting, because any law in the U.S. needs to have a non-religious basis for it to be lawful itself.

I have asked you, repeatedly, on what basis any politician should ever put forth or defend any law discriminating against homosexuals if they cannot legally use a religious argument as the basis for the law.

If you vote these politicians into office, or if you vote on issues that come up to voters that can be demonstrated to be unconstitutional, then you're responsible for the outcome as a voter.

There's nothing legally stopping you from voting to discriminate against people even though the constitution is an impediment to any politician that would be willing to enact that discrimination, other than wanting to be consistent with the constitution and loving towards people. But until it goes to the Supreme Court, votes like this continue to hurt homosexual couples. Every day.

Would you vote in favor of a constitutional amendment giving politicians the right to put into place laws based on religion?

I have stated many times I would not be in favor of any politition enacting laws based on his personal religious beliefs. However as you have finally agreed it is not unlawful for him to vote as a American citizen according to his religious beliefs and It is not unlawful for me also.In a vote, we all have the power, to give our voice, this is the way it should be,don't you agree?

 

[sojourner]

Ok Let us go to applicable text by text, you use the methodology or hermeneutics as you like, but I would prefer you not to discount a verse for your view of the authors legitimacy, fair enough?
Let us start with this one:


“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)

First of all, we have to understand that the ancients had no concept for homosexual orientation. To them, men were simply incapable of being sexually attracted to other men. Therefore the "lust" referred to here cannot be a sexual lust, but a lust for power.

Secondly, in the ancient Middle East, shame and honor were imbedded in the sexes; men embodied honor and women embodied shame. For a man to dishonor another man sexually was to bring shame upon himself. Additionally, for a man to bend over and "take it like a woman" was to bring himself shame. Thus, "receiving in themselves the penalty" was to bring shame upon themselves.

"Vile passions" were passions of usurped social power. This is not an injunction against consensual, committed relationships, but one against rape.

First one debunked. Next:

**Note: This is not opinion; it is the peer-reviewed, scholarly consensus of biblical and social anthropology.

 

[Lady B]

I just want to clarify something. If divorce was on the ballot, are you saying you would vote to ban it?

No I would not vote to bann divorce if it were on the ballot ( sorry my mind wants to spell it as it sounds)

My reasoning is this, In a ballot It is yes or no, and Jesus gave us an out for divorce which is adultery. This cannot be written into a yes or no answer, so I would not be able to vote yes to bann divorce.

 

[Penumbra]

I have stated many times I would not be in favor of any politition enacting laws based on his personal religious beliefs.

So you're in favor of the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which specifically discriminates against homosexuals on a national level?

You've specifically said that you don't have non-religious arguments against gay marriage.

However as you have finally agreed it is not unlawful for him to vote as a American citizen according to his religious beliefs and It is not unlawful for me also.

It's not lawful to put those laws into effect, though. Your vote is to discriminate against homosexuals by not allowing them to marry, correct? And you don't have a secular argument to base this law on, correct?

In what way would you like a politician to enact your vote?

In a vote, we all have the power, to give our voice, this is the way it should be,don't you agree?

Of course not. Not if you're voting into place a law that violates the Constitution. Any law in the U.S. has to have a secular reason for existing.

 

[Penumbra]

No I would not vote to bann divorce if it were on the ballot ( sorry my mind wants to spell it as it sounds)

My reasoning is this, In a ballot It is yes or no, and Jesus gave us an out for divorce which is adultery. This cannot be written into a yes or no answer, so I would not be able to vote yes to bann divorce.

Would you vote to ban divorce for any reason other than adultery?

Like, if a ballot asked if there should be a law that prohibits any divorce that is not due to adultery, would you vote in favor of that law?

 

[Lady B]

=sojourner;3137667]First of all, we have to understand that the ancients had no concept for homosexual orientation. To them, men were simply incapable of being sexually attracted to other men. Therefore the "lust" referred to here cannot be a sexual lust, but a lust for power.

Secondly, in the ancient Middle East, shame and honor were imbedded in the sexes; men embodied honor and women embodied shame. For a man to dishonor another man sexually was to bring shame upon himself. Additionally, for a man to bend over and "take it like a woman" was to bring himself shame. Thus, "receiving in themselves the penalty" was to bring shame upon themselves.

"Vile passions" were passions of usurped social power. This is not an injunction against consensual, committed relationships, but one against rape.

Hmmmm, I do not think you have debunked this based on a assumption that there was no concept of homosexuality. As this issue was brought up in the old testament therefore it is naive to assume no one understood The law in Leviticus or God's judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah or saw that consensual not forced sex was the cause of God's anger. Then for your interpretation of the penalty spoken of was shame, most scholars interpret this penalty as prophesying diseases spread by anal sex, which is a real risk and proven by science is it not?