Christians, why do you hate Gays?

[Jainarayan]

As far as I'm aware, the Mosaic Law is only for the Jewish people, not for us Gentiles.

I don't think it applies to me at all.

Now, if it is only applicable to the Jews, then Christians have no grounds to appeal to Lev. 18:22. Paul appeals to it in his writings to the gentiles, which is then irrelevent. So nothing from the old law is applicable to gentiles, not even Paul's writings about homosexuality.

Do you think there is a difference between not one iota being removed from the Law, and the Law becoming obsolete?

Actually yes. Many a contract has been found to be null and void because of a word.

 

[Jainarayan]

This is actually hard, because while he said that he did not come to undo the laws, he did go against eating prohibitions when he said "do not call impure what God has made pure!" and pretty much forced his apostle to eat something that was impure according to "the law".

So Jesus´s words contradict, as they often do in a lot of things. We are left trying to find out the meaning, but it is not straightforward, and people wont agree.

Yes there are indeed contradictions. Which is why it's so difficult for Christians to explain these things, especially because they refuse to accept scholarly interpretations. Ironically, Jews have been studying and debating and interpreting the law for centuries, and don't have the definitive answers Christians claim to.

 

[Lady B]

You're choosing, by your vote, to force others to behave in a manner you approve of. "You can't get married because I don't think God approves." When asked how you would feel if this right was removed from you, you dodged the question and claimed the First amendment protected you but showed no empathy for those lacking that protection.

perhaps your right.....

My rights are taken away by votes like yours. MY vote does not touch your rights. It does not force you to get "gay married" or start having sex with women. Your vote specifically affects ME and until you understand that your vote actually has consequences and affects people - not "the gays" or "sinners" but PEOPLE - human beings who love and laugh and have families and children and even who have found acceptance in the same god you claim to serve. You cause them pain and you cannot wash your hands of that blood by saying "God said so."

Perhaps your right.....

I scream injustice at the injustice in the world. At the blindness you have to the pain and suffering of others and at the lives that will be lost to it.

I am not blind to the sufferings sincerally, I feel them and Live them now with my loved one, I do not seek to hurt her or you, I just sincerally do not know how I can give my support when God would not. really is that so wrong of a motive? I do not want you to be denied basic rights, nor do I want your kids to suffer from an illigitamate marriage, but tell me how I can help you without going against God? tell me how I can help my loved one without condoning that which I see is destruction to her in the end? Don't be so hostile towards my sincere desires to work through this with you all before Tuesday comes and I may be forced to take action one way or another (not even sure If it is on my Ballot).

I can't even get you to answer a hypothetical question about living in a world where you face similar problems so telling me to leave is childish and unworthy of discussing further.

I didn't mean for you to leave, more like imagine living under a dictatorship, I am sorry If It came across as that.

You have the right to be bigoted, no one but you has claimed otherwise. You can continue to vote to directly harm others, and I will just wait until a few more bigots die off, because people who cannot empathize with others are already too far gone to care about trying to change.

 

[Lady B]

*edit*

Are you always like this?:thud:

 

[Me Myself]

perhaps your right.....
Perhaps your right.....
I am not blind to the sufferings sincerally, I feel them and Live them now with my loved one, I do not seek to hurt her or you, I just sincerally do not know how I can give my support when God would not. really is that so wrong of a motive? I do not want you to be denied basic rights, nor do I want your kids to suffer from an illigitamate marriage, but tell me how I can help you without going against God?

Simple: realize that if your scriptures are making OBSTACLES for you to show your compassion, then they are probably not from God.

(I know I know off topic... but you asked )

 

[Maya3]

perhaps your right.....
Perhaps your right.....
I am not blind to the sufferings sincerally, I feel them and Live them now with my loved one, I do not seek to hurt her or you, I just sincerally do not know how I can give my support when God would not. really is that so wrong of a motive? I do not want you to be denied basic rights, nor do I want your kids to suffer from an illigitamate marriage, but tell me how I can help you without going against God? tell me how I can help my loved one without condoning that which I see is destruction to her in the end? Don't be so hostile towards my sincere desires to work through this with you all before Tuesday comes and I may be forced to take action one way or another (not even sure If it is on my Ballot). I didn't mean for you to leave, more like imagine living under a dictatorship, I am sorry If It came across as that.

What you have to do, is simply understand that humans do not know for sure what God wants, or if there is one at all. Many of us have beliefs, very strong ones. Myself included.
But still we cannot base our laws on this, because we simply cannot prove that there is a being somewhere with opinions.

The least violent thing to do is to be kind, compassionate and let people live how they want as long as they do not hurt someone else.
And please remember that love is NEVER wrong if it is between two consenting adults. Never. You simply have NO right to judge others no matter your spiritual beliefs.

Keep this in mind, it is important for everyone, but especially for you who have a family member who is gay.

Maya

 

[Dingbat]

Are you always like this?:thud:

I am towards all theocrats. If you want to not allow gays rights move to some place like Uganda where they hunt them down. Or maybe you can find a nice tinpot Middle Eastern Dictatorship that would suit you. It is very simple if you want a theocratic state look elsewhere or just stop voting.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Lady B, where in real life and/or at the voting booth have you in the past rendered unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and rendered unto God what is God's?

To me, this is the crux of the issue. Nobody is asking you to change your religious beliefs. But the question of where those beliefs fit in public policy is where the debate lies.

So, in spite of all these questions asked of you, I request you consider my question and answer what you have allowed the government to decide what goes against your personal beliefs.

 

[Alceste]

Ridiculous that you feel a vote is force.....a Vote is a vote is a vote, I don't feel your vote is forcing me to accept your side, so why should my vote have this effect towards you?

You scream injustice, well I do not agree the system in the united states is faulty, you do There are many laws on the books that I voted against, I do not scream injustice or say liberals forced their beliefs on me.So go live in a society of dictatorship and see how your voice is heard. At least here you have the same voice as I do, your entitled to vote according to your passions as I am.

Your vote DOES impact same sex couples. Thanks to you and others like you, they don't get automatic custody of their own kids when their partner dies. They can't make decisions about the health care of their ailing life partners, and in many cases can't even stay with them in the hospital while they die. They don't automatically inherit the property they have built with their partners. In many cases, they can't adopt children. They may be denied rental housing because the law defines them as "room-mates" as opposed to spouses. Up thread, someone indicated that there are over a thousand rights heterosexual couples enjoy through legal marriage that same sex couples are being denied by your vote.

Up thread, you also indicated that you don't believe anyone should be denied equal rights, and quoted a Bible verse which said we should stick to what we know is right regardless of what authorities say. You have written that you know it is wrong to deny equal rights to anyone. So why not stop voting to deny equal rights to homosexuals, in accordance with your own conscience, instead of voting to perpetrate emotional violence and legal discrimination against them, just to go along with the popular opinion in your church?

 

[Alceste]

perhaps your right.....
Perhaps your right.....
I am not blind to the sufferings sincerally, I feel them and Live them now with my loved one, I do not seek to hurt her or you, I just sincerally do not know how I can give my support when God would not. really is that so wrong of a motive? I do not want you to be denied basic rights, nor do I want your kids to suffer from an illigitamate marriage, but tell me how I can help you without going against God? tell me how I can help my loved one without condoning that which I see is destruction to her in the end? Don't be so hostile towards my sincere desires to work through this with you all before Tuesday comes and I may be forced to take action one way or another (not even sure If it is on my Ballot). I didn't mean for you to leave, more like imagine living under a dictatorship, I am sorry If It came across as that.

You don't have to support them, you just have to stop perpetrating violence against them by lobbying in favour of discriminatory legal policies. It is perfectly acceptable to vote that it's none of the government's business which gender we choose to spend our lives with and raise families with, and still disapprove of people who want to build a life with a person of the same sex. You can talk to them about it, and tell them you think they're going to hell, and do everything in your power to win them over to your way of thinking.

But by using the government instead of your voice as your tool of persuasion, you are in effect barging into their houses with a baseball bat and smashing up the place, slapping them and their children around. The government imposes its rules by force. Your religion is supposed to inspire people to live rightly by persuasion, kind of like Jesus did.

Does your church believe in the doctrine of free will?

 

[Lady B]

Lady B, where in real life and/or at the voting booth have you in the past rendered unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and rendered unto God what is God's?

To me, this is the crux of the issue. Nobody is asking you to change your religious beliefs. But the question of where those beliefs fit in public policy is where the debate lies.

So, in spite of all these questions asked of you, I request you consider my question and answer what you have allowed the government to decide what goes against your personal beliefs.

Well That passage of scripture is pertaining to taxes. Some of the people around Christ didn't think it fair they were made to pay taxes. And so Christ admonished them. I do not see the correlation between this and my vote unless you are saying I should vote without any obligations to God's word. If that is the case, I do not agree. Life for a Christian is not the happiness in worldly matters, but matters of the world should point us in a Godly direction.We must pursue heavenly things. God must be a part of all my decisions, ideas, goals, pursuits.

I understand the side asking me to just be passive and vote neutral and not push my beliefs on others. I get it. But I am not sure redefining marriage is a good thing to do. I am willing however to support civil rights for any person regardless of his sexual orientation. That seems to be the main complaint and it is valid.But is it necessary to redefine marriage in order to attain these civil rights? That is my question now.That and If marriage is redefined to admit gays can it also be redefined by anything. And I guess my question is this, If Marriage is ordained by God and a Godly concept, why do you need to belong to it apart from the civil rights gained in such unions? Are you desiring to legitimize your unions with God's blessing? or is it really for worldly pursuits such as the civil rights you can't get otherwise.

So what if there is a new proposal that proposes gay couples be given all rights that hetro marriages are given? Like social security, health insurance,inheritance, power of attorney, medical and finacial and custody of any children. would that be satisfactory?

I am asking with a sincere heart. I genuinly would like to reduce the bigotry you see in the church. We have debated for many hours now and neither of our sides can really comprimise our positions,or can we? My comprimise would be to help fight for your civil rights without condoning your sexual unions. I think I can do that and with God's blessing.But as fr as giving my vote to redefine marriage, I just don't see how I can.As far as remaining nuetral, well this is an option, but I think that would be passivly supporting redefining marriage, right?

 

[Alceste]

I understand the side asking me to just be passive and vote neutral and not push my beliefs on others. I get it. But I am not sure redefining marriage is a good thing to do. I am willing however to support civil rights for any person regardless of his sexual orientation. That seems to be the main complaint and it is valid.But is it necessary to redefine marriage in order to attain these civil rights? That is my question now.That and If marriage is redefined to admit gays can it also be redefined by anything. And I guess my question is this, If Marriage is ordained by God and a Godly concept, why do you need to belong to it apart from the civil rights gained in such unions? Are you desiring to legitimize your unions with God's blessing? or is it really for worldly pursuits such as the civil rights you can't get otherwise.

So what if there is a new proposal that proposes gay couples be given all rights that hetro marriages are given? Like social security, health insurance,inheritance, power of attorney, medical and finacial and custody of any children. would that be satisfactory?

I am asking with a sincere heart. I genuinly would like to reduce the bigotry you see in the church. We have debated for many hours now and neither of our sides can really comprimise our positions,or can we? My comprimise would be to help fight for your civil rights without condoning your sexual unions. I think I can do that and with God's blessing.But as fr as giving my vote to redefine marriage, I just don't see how I can.As far as remaining nuetral, well this is an option, but I think that would be passivly supporting redefining marriage, right?

Yes, that would be a good middle ground. Many states accord homosexual couples most or all of the rights accorded to heterosexual couples through legal "civil unions". If you are in the camp where you don't believe in legal discrimination, but still have reservations about changing the concept of "marriage", that is the position for you!

 

[Lady B]

You don't have to support them, you just have to stop perpetrating violence against them by lobbying in favour of discriminatory legal policies. It is perfectly acceptable to vote that it's none of the government's business which gender we choose to spend our lives with and raise families with, and still disapprove of people who want to build a life with a person of the same sex. You can talk to them about it, and tell them you think they're going to hell, and do everything in your power to win them over to your way of thinking.

But by using the government instead of your voice as your tool of persuasion, you are in effect barging into their houses with a baseball bat and smashing up the place, slapping them and their children around. The government imposes its rules by force. Your religion is supposed to inspire people to live rightly by persuasion, kind of like Jesus did.

Does your church believe in the doctrine of free will?

Good point, However I do not want the same government redefining marriage that was instituted by God.

 

[Lady B]

Yes, that would be a good middle ground. Many states accord homosexual couples most or all of the rights accorded to heterosexual couples through legal "civil unions". If you are in the camp where you don't believe in legal discrimination, but still have reservations about changing the concept of "marriage", that is the position for you!

Ok now here is a start...help Me to understand how civil unions differ from the traditional marriage, and do we need to redefine marriage to legalize these civil unions? To clarify.. In many states there are laws that protect couples after they have lived together as man and wife for a period of time, I believe Canada has this law and you are even required to go through the courts to annul these unions and divide properties. I believe, don't quote me, but these unions are given the same rights as traditional marriage. So maybe something like this could be proposed nationally, without redefining marriage or requiring religious involvement at all. Maybe?

 

[Me Myself]

Ok now here is a start...help me to understand how civil unions differ from the traditional marriage, and do we need to redefine marriage to legalize these civil unions?

there is no church involved?

 

[Lady B]

there is no church involved?

I edited my last post, and added this part of the possible proposal

 

[Alceste]

Ok now here is a start...help me to understand how civil unions differ from the traditional marriage, and do we need to redefine marriage to legalize these civil unions?

No. You don't need to redefine marriage in the legal sense, regardless of whether you support "civil unions" or "marriage". In fact, the current legal "redefinition" of marriage that is actually happening is a rash of constitutional amendments, new regulations and public policies put forward by the religious right "redefining" marriage (legally) to be "one man and one woman" in an effort to ensure homosexual families can not achieve equal legal rights to heterosexual families.

Civil unions differ from traditional marriage in that they are a secular contract. Different "civil unions" states approach the issue differently, although the rights and privileges accorded to a "civil union" are usually slightly different from those accorded to a "marriage". If you separate the legal definitions of these words, legislators can maintain a separate category for each, potentially with different rules.

It's a good way to eliminate the worst discriminatory policies on humanitarian grounds (such as automatic custody and inheritance, and the right to make medical decisions on behalf your life partner) without jumping in head first into full, legal marriage.

Personally, I don't believe in the philosophy of "separate but equal", but I respect the reservations people have about a big, sudden social change, and I think civil unions are a reasonable way to progress incrementally toward a more compassionate society.

 

[Penumbra]

there is no church involved?

There's no church involved in a legal marriage either.

People can get married here without any involvement with any church at all.

 

[Lady B]

There's no church involved in a legal marriage either.

People can get married here without any involvement with any church at all.

right.:yes:

 

[Penumbra]

right.:yes:

Except gay people.

They can't.