Christians, why do you hate Gays?

[Lady B]

So you think Christ spoke literally and specifically of paying taxes to Caesar? What then of his admonishment to gouge out one's eye if it is a source of sin? Or to cut off one's hand and cast it into the fire, rather than be thrown body and soul into the fire? What about selling all you have and giving the proceeds to the poor to be a true follower of him? Where is the line between metaphor and example, and literalness?

Christ did use a metaphor but was speaking to the people reg. their anger at taxes. I was trying to figure out the metaphor the questioner was using for me is all.

 

[Lady B]

I don't ask that you change your beliefs, although I do hope that you will have an open mind to other interpretations of the Bible, all I ask is that you do think about it, and pray about it, and not impose your beliefs on others.

peace then ? You have been a fine debator even if you were angry most the time

 

[Drolefille]

peace then ? You have been a fine debator even if you were angry most the time

Pax.

 

[Jainarayan]

Christ did use a metaphor but was speaking to the people reg. their anger at taxes. I was trying to figure out the metaphor the questioner was using for me is all.

Let's explore this... how do you know that he was not using a specific example to make a broader point!? Could "render to Caesar what is Caesar's... " not also refer to being conscripted into the Roman army or to public service or any other situation? Do we honestly believe that Jesus was going to give a litany of every possible state v. religious conflict? C'mon, let's think outside the box.

 

[Lady B]

Let's explore this... how do you know that he was not using a specific example to make a broader point!? Could "render to Caesar what is Caesar's... " not also refer to being conscripted into the Roman army or to public service or any other situation? Do we honestly believe that Jesus was going to give a litany of every possible state v. religious conflict? C'mon, let's think outside the box.

well if you read my reply, I came to the conclusion of what she was trying to compare in this metephor, but I did not agree with that conclusion that my earthly decisions should be earthly based and not heavenly.It is not about my not comprehending the metaphor intended, it is that I did not agree with the intended conclusion. Of course I agree Jesus was most likely speaking broadly and it meant many things,mostly It was about obeying the laws of the land without breaking God's laws. But what he did not say was " it is fine to break God's laws if it is good for Ceasar and so I disagreed.

 

[Alceste]

Hi Alceste.... Hang on.... I'm learning something here. Does your post mean that many states recognise civil unions (partnerships?) and give these similar status to marriage, and it is only same-sex marriage that they refuse? And do all states recognise civil-unions between homosexuals, regardless of which state performed them?

I'm Canadian. Up here, everybody just gets married, across the entire country, and gay marriages are just as valid everywhere as my straight one. This is the kind of compassionate society most Canadians want to live in. We've got a tradition of believing the government has no business telling us what we should or shouldn't do in our own bedrooms.

I support full, legal equality, but I recognize that in parts of the world with a high percentage of nosy Nellies worrying about what you get up to when the lights are low, civil unions are a compromise that majorities of voters will usually support. That makes them better than outright discrimination, with all of its ruinous impact on gay families.

The US seems to be in a transitional phase, with some states going for civil unions and others going for marriage. Penumbra explained it well. If you get married in New York, your marriage is not valid in Alabama, for example.

Same-sex marriage status in the United States

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

It sounds to me that you're grappling with the fact that you are more moral than your concept of God is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

Yes, we have that here. It's called common-law marriage.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That homosexuality is forbidden by God but you are correct that the civil union ballot will not keep this from happening and may save some kids being ripped out of their mothers or fathers arms in the event of death, which is the vision that breaks my heart.

I don't believe that your concern is sincere. As long as you would actively oppose the measures needed that would actually stop the situations you say break your heart, I can't take your claims that you care about these people or their circumstances as anything more than crocodile tears.

 

[sojourner]

Lady B:

The sin of Sodom was actually the sin of inhospitality?
This is a common error made by supporters of homosexuality.

Not necessarily. It's a conclusion reached by biblical and social anthropologists -- whether they "support homosexuality" or not.

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.

Of course it does! The men of an inhospitable town feel a need to subjugate visiting men -- not women who are already subjugated. That subjugation represents a gross violation of the hospitality laws in force at the time. When a traveler comes by, one is not only obligated to take him in, but to offer him the protection one would offer to family members. that's not happening here. At all. First off, it was the hospitable custom for the elders to greet visitors at the town gates. That doesn't happen here. It is a fellow sojourner who greets the visitors and offers them hospitality. For these ancients, hospitality was a serious moral issue.

Lady B:

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?

Yup. It makes perfect sense, given the social climate of the day and region.

Lady B:

If that were the case, then shouldn't God destroy every household that is rude to guests?

Well... God did destroy every evil household in Sodom, did God not?

Lady B:

Not being hospitable to someone has never been considered an exceedingly grave sin, especially in the Bible.

Actually, it has been -- especially in the bible. It's clear that you have no idea what you're arguing here.

Lady B:

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.

Hold on, Cochise! I thought we were doing this text-by-text. Romans has nothing, exegetically, to do with Genesis. Let's focus and stick to Genesis for the time being.

Lady B:

the argument that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were not hospitable carries no validity.

It carries a great deal of validity, if you actually do your homework.

Lady B:

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.

Doesn't make any difference. Genesis is not prophecy -- it's mythology. I don't give a flying flip how much God inspired the writers, they were wholly incapable of writing what they were not aware of. And to "believe" otherwise is to stick one's head in the sand and not give the texts the respect they're due.

Lady B:

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

The bible doesn't condemn homosexuality at all. It does condemn acts of shame and violence.

Lady B:

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?

we're not discussing Leviticus or Romans right now. We're discussing Genesis.

 

[sojourner]

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

I don't see anything remotely resembling consensual, homosexual orientation mentioned here.

 

[sojourner]

Polygamy yes but she is still an adulteress, She is breaching the covenant of His marriage by her marriage. God did not advocate polygamy or give laws to organize it. It indeed was a practice in early Bible times, but saying it was God ordained is a clear misinterpretation.

Oh? Really!:areyoucra

 

[sojourner]

Lady B:

I am not asking gays to conform to my religious views any more then they are asking me to support them.

You are asking gays to conform to your view of religious morality.

 

[Alceste]

Lady B:

You are asking gays to conform to your view of religious morality.

Not to mention their families and friends. I don't want to be called upon to make health care decisions for my relatives because their life partners have been squeezed out of the picture by anti-gay laws. I'd find that kind of situation offensive and immoral in the extreme.

 

[sojourner]

Lady B:

I am so sure that God stands behind me and my fellow Christians who speak up and aren't lukewarm though it may be the easiest way to be in this society.

I'm a Christian, and I'm anything but lukewarm on this issue. I have spoken up, both here and elsewhere, and I patently disagree with you.

So who's God "standing behind" here? The one advocating for a strict "keeping of the 'law'" or the one advocating for fair treatment of the oppressed? You'll find a biblical precedent when Jesus teaches about saving a donkey's life on the Sabbath.

 

[sojourner]

Lady B:

condoning a behavior or lifestyle contrary to God's word in which I believe is for all men, not only those who believe it, is hate in my opinion.

Neither the Jews nor Jesus thought that the Law was applicable to any but Jews. Why do you insist on making things other than what they are?

 

[sojourner]

Lady B:

why did God institute law at all then? obviously laws are important for any society, and a society that has a fair system of lawmaking where the people's voice matters, is a society I am greatful to live in, who would feel safe in a lawless society?

There's a time and place, though, for every law. In the town I grew up in, there's a law on the books that states that it's illegal to use buggy whips when driving around the town square. That law is unnecessary and not applicable in the 21st century.

Even assuming that injunctions against homosexuality are real (and that's a HUUUUGE stretch of reality), they are unnecessary and not applicable in 21st century America.

 

[sojourner]

lady B:

I just sincerally do not know how I can give my support when God would not.

how do you know God would not support them?

Lady B:

tell me how I can help you without going against God?

I've given you a perfectly reasonable, researched, and legitimate "out" and you flat refused it. Is it so impossible to believe that the ancients didn't know about homosexual orientation? Even when the experts agree that they didn't? I don't think you'd be "going against God," any more than the one who would save the donkey on the Sabbath would be "going against God." How can compassion ever be considered "going against God?" Your position here is hardly different than that of the picayune Pharisees who always placed the Law above compassion. This is the sort of position that Jesus continually called "hypocritical."

 

[sojourner]

I would not be opposed to a new institute or contract of civil unions allowing you all your basic civil rights.That is comprimise enough?

Not when there are religious gays who want a church marriage. It doesn't go far enough, because it still dehumanizes a minority as not being fully human -- that is, capable of being married, like other human beings. It's still showing complicity in the systemic violence.

But it's a start.

 

[McBell]

In many states there are laws that protect couples after they have lived together as man and wife for a period of time,

THE MYTH: There is a common misperception that if you live together for a certain length of time (seven years is what many people believe), you are common-law married. This is not true anywhere in the United States.

STATES THAT RECOGNIZE COMMON LAW MARRIAGE:
Only a few states recognize common law marriages:
Alabama
Colorado
Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)
Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)
Oklahoma (possibly only if created before 11/1/98. Oklahoma's laws and court decisions may be in conflict about whether common law marriages formed in that state after 11/1/98 will be recognized.)
Pennsylvania (if created before 1/1/05)
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah
Washington, D.C.
​

Source
​

There are currently seven states that recognize common law marriage.