Christians, why do you hate Gays?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

If you're voting on a ballot measure to make same-sex marriage illegal, then you absolutely do expect non-Christians to live by your laws, at least on this issue.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Voting is not an opinion poll.

 

[Dingbat]

These threads are always depressing but at least they highlight bigotry.

 

[NIX]

These threads are always depressing but at least they highlight bigotry.

They give people a forum to discuss and examine beyond the rhetoric of their own group's think tanks/leadership. Very often people hold positions that they have not thought all the way through simply because those are the only positions offered by their own political and religious leadership. It's good to have a place to have one's considerations expanded and conclusions fine tuned.

It would be nice if, with all of our personal differences, we could all afford each other our personal freedoms. We do not all share the same religion, but we do all share the laws of our land.

 

[Me Myself]

As noted, this has gotten off track.

I don't expect anyone else to live by my rules, and thus I wouldn't use my power - whether at a voting booth or physically or otherwise - to try and force them to.

This thread has gotten hung up on having the "right" to vote one's convictions. But the problem is that in this case ,voting these convictions is actually voting to force others to live by a set of morals that isn't their own.

I needed to respond to this, so to not derail this thread:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-debates/141054-i-dont-expect-anyone-else-live.html

 

[Drolefille]

I needed to respond to this, so to not derail this thread:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-debates/141054-i-dont-expect-anyone-else-live.html

Responding out of context is misleading and posting it here is equally derailing.

 

[oldbadger]

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

Hi Lady B..... sorry for delay.....

Yes. I wholehearty and honestly believe, without any shadow of doubt, as clear as clear could be, that Jesus would absolutely support two lovers of same sex being married (or in civil partnership) for all their lives. Jesus often said of the lawmakers , 'They told you that....... now I tell you this....' You know this is true!

Jesus's message was LOVE. PEACE. UNDERSTANDING before all else. What Jesus railed against most was the hypocrites. I believe in your integrity (I mean no insult to you) but most christians that I know just pick out the bits of christianity that they like or feel 'cosy' with. Where they can't find the bits they want, they just make them up.

Such as:- Jesus was a family person! Remember when Jesus's mother and brother's came to fetch him home, and one of his disciples told him that hey waited outside? He said , 'You are my mother and brothers ...etc.' This is just one..... just one...... of Jesus's viewpoints that christians suppress, because they don't like the idea.

When christians latch on to a point that they want to use (abuse) they snatch at it. When others remind them to keep all the christian rules they say:- Oh....not that old chestnut again!

 

[oldbadger]

There is a seaside city in England called Brighton. Gay Festivals are regularly held there, called 'Brighton Prides', and these are almost like Giant Carnivals. Everybody gets involved in these, and mostly everybody is so proud that Brighton holds these huge events.

I reckon that Jesus would walk in the crowds, indeed, he probably does. You've all heard of white and black magic, well, I reckon that there might be enlightened and endarkened christianity, and christians have just got to decide which type that they belong to.

 

[sojourner]

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?

First of all, the sin of Sodom wasn't homosexuality. It was inhospitality. Imminent bible scholars agree on this point. The "homosexuality" depicted in the story isn't committed, loving relationship, but rape. And yes, it has a lot to do with shaming the victim.

Second, the ancients didn't know how diseases were spread. Even sterile technique didn't develop until after the turn of the 20th century. Why would you assume that the biblical writers "knew" about the spread of disease? Theythought disease was caused by the sin of the father.

You're foisting modern concepts onto very, very ancient texts. It just doesn't work that way. Just as you're trying to foist ancient, Middle-Eastern social mores onto modern America. It just doesn't work that way.

The interpretation is debunked. Sorry.

 

[Storm]

I do not wish gays to be discriminated against, My God my own flesh and blood is involved here.

If this is true, you can make a world of difference to your flesh and blood by not supporting that discrimination.

 

[Storm]

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.

OK, I waited until I'd caught up on 15 pages to point out that you're still ignoring this.

 

[SageTree]

In my experience, "a majority" doesn't. Just an extremely loud and hysterical minority.

This^

Obvious Fundamentalist, is Obvious.
Zealots gonna Zealot....

Doesn't matter what religion.... a rose is a rose...
Or netter said 'a thorn in the side of is gonna be a thorn in the side of'

 

[Lady B]

OK, I waited until I'd caught up on 15 pages to point out that you're still ignoring this.

I did answer this post a while back, perhaps I did not use the quote box, but I did answer it.

 

[Storm]

I did answer this post a while back, perhaps I did not use the quote box, but I did answer it.

Not in any of the posts in the last 15 pages, you didn't. I know, I read them all. The closest you came to addressing those points was promising not to ignore them (and proceding to do exactly that).

 

[Lady B]

First of all, the sin of Sodom wasn't homosexuality. It was inhospitality. Imminent bible scholars agree on this point. The "homosexuality" depicted in the story isn't committed, loving relationship, but rape. And yes, it has a lot to do with shaming the victim.

The sin of Sodom was actually the sin of inhospitality?
This is a common error made by supporters of homosexuality. The problem with this explanation is that it does not account for the offering of Lot's daughter to the men outside the home, a sinful act indeed, but one that was rejected by the men outside who desired to have relations with the two angels in Lot's home. Gen. 19:5 says, "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.'" Those men wanted to have sexual relations with the angels who appeared also as males. Does it make sense to claim that God destroyed two cities because the inhabitants weren't nice to visitors? If that were the case, then shouldn't God destroy every household that is rude to guests? Gen. 18:20 says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was "exceedingly grave." Not being hospitable to someone has never been considered an exceedingly grave sin, especially in the Bible. But, going against God's created order in violation of his command to fill and multiply the earth in the act of homosexuality is an exceedingly grave sin. In fact, we know that it is exceedingly grave because in Romans we read about the judgment of God upon the homosexuals, in that he gives them over to the depravity of their hearts and minds. This is a serious judgment of God upon the sinner because it means that the sinner will not become convicted of his or her sins and will not repent. Without repentance there is no salvation, and without salvation there is damnation. Therefore, the argument that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were not hospitable carries no validity.

SOURCE

Second, the ancients didn't know how diseases were spread. Even sterile technique didn't develop until after the turn of the 20th century. Why would you assume that the biblical writers "knew" about the spread of disease? Theythought disease was caused by the sin of the father.

You're foisting modern concepts onto very, very ancient texts. It just doesn't work that way. Just as you're trying to foist ancient, Middle-Eastern social mores onto modern America. It just doesn't work that way.

The interpretation is debunked. Sorry.

I Believe God inspired every word in The bible and It was not necessary for men to be aware of disease, God certainly was, and Prophesied using men of ignorance.

The Bible does not condemn homosexuality but in instances of rape and violence? really?

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper

How do you possibly see acts of rape in these verses? In Lev. 20:13 It says both of them have commited a detestable act, surely rape is not the victims fault right?

 

[Drolefille]

How do you possibly see acts of rape in these verses? In Lev. 20:13 It says both of them have commited a detestable act, surely rape is not the victims fault right?

Rape in the bible has punished the victim before if you're going by the letter of things. I mean, marrying your rapist is totally cool though right?

 

[Lady B]

Not in any of the posts in the last 15 pages, you didn't. I know, I read them all. The closest you came to addressing those points was promising not to ignore them (and proceding to do exactly that).

Your wrong, I acknowledged that these examples spoken of are indeed a discrimination and should be given every man or woman regardless of his or her sexual orientation. I stated that every person has the right to delegate authority to anyone, involving possessions, children, property and bequeathing as long as his or her declarations are verbal or documented. These basic rights should not require a civil union. And I would not be opposed to said laws regarding this issue.

 

[Lady B]

Rape in the bible has punished the victim before if you're going by the letter of things. I mean, marrying your rapist is totally cool though right?

In these verses it is a consensual act, and deemed detestable for both parties, period.

 

[Lady B]

As noted, this has gotten off track.

I don't expect anyone else to live by my rules, and thus I wouldn't use my power - whether at a voting booth or physically or otherwise - to try and force them to.

This thread has gotten hung up on having the "right" to vote one's convictions. But the problem is that in this case ,voting these convictions is actually voting to force others to live by a set of morals that isn't their own.

But frankly this is why I'm glad we have checks and balances and a judicial system that works, at least slightly, faster than the ballot box. As long as rights are left up to the majority, they can also be taken away by the majority. For all the dodging that Lady B did, I note she did not answer the question about what would be done if rights were taken away from HER by majority vote. Claiming that apparently eye color is protected by the constitution, which it is clearly not.

The inability to empathize and place oneself in the position of the minority is so incredibly saddening. It suggests that people see the "other" as so completely different from themselves that they cannot relate.

Same-sex marriage isn't in the Bible. We can debate the verses about homosexuality all day long, but the legality of same-sex marriage will not change the incidence of same-sex sexual encounters. The legality of same-sex marriage does not change whether a particular church condones or opposes same-sex marriage. All the legality of same-sex marriage does is confer the legal rights of marriage on the couple.

As a polyamorous person, I wonder, would Lady B condone a polygamous marriage as these are clearly condoned in the Bible. Can I marry my married boyfriend?

No I would not condone your marrying your Boyfriend, That is adultery.

 

[Lady B]

He wasn't saying it as a defactoid "this is the only exception". His whole point was not to take the law so literally that you relinquish love and reason. He was also making a point that we are weak and really divorce isn't permissive. This is beside the whole point of whether Jesus thought marriage is permissible by same sex.

I did not try to partner the two either.