Why are gay people a Christian target?

Colorado127 · Post by **Colorado127** » Fri May 28, 2004 4:41 pm

I am perplexed by fundamentalist christians that are always targeting gay people. They want to pass all sorts of laws restricting rights and privileges that everyone else has. What frustrates me the most is that they seem to be tunnel-visioned on gays. There are many things in the christian bible that they could talk about. I bet you there are more adulterers in the US than gay people and adultery is a ten commandments topic. What about honoring your parents? Can we focus on that for a while? This gay marriage thing being a religious idea only? I know of several religions that encourage gay people to find partners to marry including Unity, Unitarian Universalists and the Quakers.

I believe that gay people are the target because the christian religion, or its higher ups, have nothing else to target? They have lost the battle with alcohol and porn, they used to say black people couldn't marry white people but can't do that anymore. They try to stop drugs but you can't pass any more laws about that. Ok I'm being a bit out there, but really, Christianity has been losing its control over its flock for decades, if not centuries. Every sociologist and psychology person can easily see that when someone or some group sees its former control waning they will do anything to regain it. It's a desparate act. These fundamentalist christians have to find something to rally the troops.....wha-laa!.....gay people. A marginalized group in our over masculinized, sports culture that many people feel uncomfortable with. From history, the Nazi's for example, we know that hate is an excellent way to mobilize a group.

Isn't it blatantly unconstitutional to forbid the marriage of two people? In Virginia they want to outlaw any 'marraige like' contracts between two people of the same sex, doesn't that seem unconstitutional? The sodomy laws that Chief Justice Souter condemned was obviously directed at gay men. The 14th amendments says no state shall pass a law abridging the rights of its citizens. The only people saying I cannot marry another guy is christians? Right there we have a church-state conflict.

Ok, let me have it!

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 4:00 pm

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Again I ask, which of these should be made illegal?

Which people should we discriminate against in our laws? People who do any one of these? Only certain ones? Which ones?

The only one I can see which we currently hold as illegal is murder. There are some restrictions on some of the others (eg. drunken driving). The laws pertaining to these exist, not because (or at least not solely because) they appear in the Bible, but because these behaviors are not conducive to a civil society.

I notice hatred is in the list. IMHO, this would apply to those who hate homosexuals, although I would certainly not say that all those who oppose legal rights for homosexuals are hateful. Some may be, but as long as they do not act on that hatred in inappropriate ways, that is between them and God.

perfessor · Post by **perfessor** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 4:26 pm

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

"Variance" - ??
"Emulations" - ??
"Seditions" - ??

What are these? This country was founded thanks to "seditions" - for which I am very grateful.

Jose · Post by **Jose** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 5:45 pm

micatala wrote:
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Again I ask, which of these should be made illegal?

Which people should we discriminate against in our laws? People who do any one of these? Only certain ones? Which ones?

Good questions, micatala. I guess we have to recognize that, while all of these "works of the flesh" are sinful, and therefore immoral, it is appropriate to consider some to be more immoral than others. That is, to function effectively in any society, Christians must--and do--adhere strictly to Moral Relativism, and not Absolute Morality.

micatala wrote:The only one I can see which we currently hold as illegal is murder. There are some restrictions on some of the others (eg. drunken driving). The laws pertaining to these exist, not because (or at least not solely because) they appear in the Bible, but because these behaviors are not conducive to a civil society.

There were laws against some of the others (e.g. adultery, for which strict laws still exist in fundamentalist Islamic nations; witchcraft, which we now know does not exist), but they proved to be an impediment to societal functioning. Indeed, witchcraft laws led to the killing of women whose stored grain had grown a fungus. "Witchcraft" is another example of the ancient interpretations of things we now know to be the result of mundane chemistry and biology.

micatala wrote:I notice hatred is in the list. IMHO, this would apply to those who hate homosexuals, although I would certainly not say that all those who oppose legal rights for homosexuals are hateful. Some may be, but as long as they do not act on that hatred in inappropriate ways, that is between them and God.

Another good point, and another place where we apply Moral Relativism. I would say that the hatred of homosexuals comes from the simple fact that they are "different," and human evolution has selected for hatred of "differentness." It is an instinct that we can overcome by reason, provided we are willing to do so. Regrettably, this hatred has been built into many interpretations of biblical teaching (which, again, was not based on knowledge of chemistry and biology). Having become one of the tenets of Faith, it seems to be exceptionally hard to dislodge with scientific evidence. So often, when science and Faith clash, the faithful conclude that science must be wrong.

Shamgar · Post by **Shamgar** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:37 am

micatala wrote:
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Again I ask, which of these should be made illegal?

Which people should we discriminate against in our laws? People who do any one of these? Only certain ones? Which ones?

The only one I can see which we currently hold as illegal is murder. There are some restrictions on some of the others (eg. drunken driving). The laws pertaining to these exist, not because (or at least not solely because) they appear in the Bible, but because these behaviors are not conducive to a civil society.

I notice hatred is in the list. IMHO, this would apply to those who hate homosexuals, although I would certainly not say that all those who oppose legal rights for homosexuals are hateful. Some may be, but as long as they do not act on that hatred in inappropriate ways, that is between them and God.

Boy for a so-called Christain you sure like to take the enemies of God's side, don't you. Of course those are the same people who want the unrighteous to remain in the flocks. The ones who don't want to to discriminate against the unrighteous in society. They are called the agent provocateur or the wolves in Scriptures.

1 Cor 5:9-11 - 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 4:09 pm

You're changing the subject. The issue I am addressing is whether we should legally discriminate against homosexuals. What does this have to do with whether you or I associate with them or not?

Boy for a so-called Christain you sure like to take the enemies of God's side, don't you. Of course those are the same people who want the unrighteous to remain in the flocks. The ones who don't want to to discriminate against the unrighteous in society. They are called the agent provocateur or the wolves in Scriptures.

Again, this seems to me to be irrelevant. If you want to attack my credibility, I guess that is up to you, but it does nothing to address the issue.

It is worth noting that Jesus frequently associated with the 'sinners' of his time, including adulterers. What should we do, follow Jesus example or Paul's direction?

It is interesting that the chapter you quote begins with mention of a man who 'has his father's wife.' In addition, the translation I have says 'sexually immoral' instead of 'fornicator.' I also note that the covetous, exortioners, railers, drunkards, and idolators are mentioned. If you are using this verse to say we should legally discriminate against homosexuals, I think you are misapplying the verse on several counts.
1. It does not necessarily apply to homosexuals, certainly not in any explicit way.
2. As I have said all along, there is nothing here that justifies discriminating against homosexuals as a matter of civil law. Yes, it encourages the audience of the letter not to associate with people displaying these behaviors, but that is a far cry from saying their should be civil law against all of these behaviors.
3. As I have said before, if you do want to use this verse or other Biblical passages to justify laws against homosexuality, then why not the other 'sins' mentioned?

On what basis would we have a law against homosexuality and not covetousness or idolatry?

I know you disagree, but I am not making these arguments on behalf of 'God's enemies,' whoever they may be. I am making these arguments because I do not think your position furthers the kingdom of God. In my view, those who use the Bible to try to justify discrimination against homosexuals are:
1) Taking unto themselves a judgment that is God's to make
2) Being at least somewhat hypocritical if they are not willing to consistently apply the verses to cover all the behaviors mentioned, but only to homosexuality.

I should note that we have not even addressed whether their should be a distinction between those who commit homosexual acts and those who identify themselves as homosexual but do not act on their sexuality. In my view.

So, I ask yet again, which of the behaviors described in the verses you quote should we make illegal, and which not, and on what basis? Why would Christians think it is OK to have a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, and not include adultery or divorce?

Shamgar · Post by **Shamgar** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 4:32 pm

micatala wrote:You're changing the subject. The issue I am addressing is whether we should legally discriminate against homosexuals. What does this have to do with whether you or I associate with them or not?

No. Making an observation. Also, you want to associate with the homsexuals and fund the homosexuals.

1 Cor 15:33 Do not be deceived, evil companionships corrupt good habits.

Again, this seems to me to be irrelevant. If you want to attack my credibility, I guess that is up to you, but it does nothing to address the issue.

First you have no credibility with me. Understood? Second, since you preach the false prophet's stand on this issue it has everything to do with the issue.

It is worth noting that Jesus frequently associated with the 'sinners' of his time, including adulterers. What should we do, follow Jesus example or Paul's direction?

Well like the false prohpet you only give half the story. Christ told sinners to stop sinning as did the imitators of Christ.

John 8:11 And she said, No one, Lord. And Jesus said to her, Neither do I give judgment. Go, and sin no more. (here is your opportunity to rant about not judging again without the context of John 7:24 - did you notice that this happens right before the John 8:11?)

Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin so that grace may abound? 2 Let it not be! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father; even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been joined together in the likeness of His death, we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection; 6 knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him in order that the body of sin might be destroyed, that from now on we should not serve sin.

It is interesting that the chapter you quote begins with mention of a man who 'has his father's wife.' In addition, the translation I have says 'sexually immoral' instead of 'fornicator.' I also note that the covetous, exortioners, railers, drunkards, and idolators are mentioned. If you are using this verse to say we should legally discriminate against homosexuals, I think you are misapplying the verse on several counts.

See you have that problem of not being able to realize the topic is about homosexuals. Start another one on adultery, etc.
So, I ask yet again, which of the behaviors described in the verses you quote should we make illegal, and which not, and on what basis? Why would Christians think it is OK to have a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, and not include adultery or divorce?

You can make up any unrighteous law you want with the unscriptural constitution.

Click here:
http://img183.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img183& ... od006e.jpg
if image is removed.

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 10:07 pm

Quote:
See you have that problem of not being able to realize the topic is about homosexuals. Start another one on adultery, etc.
So, I ask yet again, which of the behaviors described in the verses you quote should we make illegal, and which not, and on what basis? Why would Christians think it is OK to have a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, and not include adultery or divorce?

Yes, the topic is about homosexuals, specifically 'why are homosexuals a target of Christians.' If Christians use the Bible to justify discrimination against gays, but are not willing to be consistent in their application of scripture, then this indicates to me that they are making gays a target, probably for reasons other than 'homosexuality is unscriptural.' No, it doesn't speak to why they are doing this, so I guess you could say it is somehow 'off topic,' but it is certainly not very far off, and I think is relevant to the issue.

Frankly, it seems to me you are just trying to dodge answering my questions, which of course you are not obligated to answer anyway. I am just curious why you do not wish to offer an answer, and what your answer would be. Your answer would certainly go towards further addressing the question 'why target gays.' I know you feel scripture justifies targeting gays, but again, if you are willing to use scripture to target gays and not target the others, it seems to me there is really some other reason for your targeting of gays.

I agree, Jesus would not want us to sin. However, I again say, the judgment of sin is ultimately God's to make. In the passage in John chapter 8, Jesus is going against the established law of God, or is at least allowing that it need not be followed. Why would Jesus not simply go along with the stoning of the woman? The 'Teachers of the Law' are only suggesting exactly what scripture proscribes, just as you feel discriminating against gays is doing exactly what scripture proscribes. If Jesus is suggesting there is another way, how can you be so confident that He would not suggest another way to you?

The greatest commandment is to love one another. Whenever there is a conflict, my personal view is to default to this law. Are we loving homosexual people by discriminating against them? I don't believe so. If by our behavior, we cause a person to reject God, then are we not acting against God's purposes? Jesus upbraids the Pharisees for laying burdens on men that they are not able to carry, and then not lifting a finger to help them. If we ask a gay person, who in his or her heart has searched and in all good conscience cannot come to any other conclusion other then their sexuality is intrinsically part of who they are, to deny who they are, are we not laying a burden on them that we who are heterosexual do not have to carry? Are we doing anything to help them carry this burden? Yes we should encourage people not to sin, but ultimately whether their sexuality or their behavior is sinful is an issue between them and God.

The only reason for others to become involved is if the sinful behavior also has significant negative consequences for others. I believe this is why Paul writes as he does in some of the passages you have quoted. He was writing for the early church, a church of new believers just getting started, and as such, a movement that had some reason to try to 'defend itself.' Today, Christianity is well-established, and I do not believe we have anything to fear from gay people who practice their sexuality in a responsible and discrete manner.

Shamgar · Post by **Shamgar** » Sun Mar 13, 2005 6:43 am

Yes, the topic is about homosexuals, specifically 'why are homosexuals a target of Christians.' If Christians use the Bible to justify discrimination against gays, but are not willing to be consistent in their application of scripture, then this indicates to me that they are making gays a target, probably for reasons other than 'homosexuality is unscriptural.' No, it doesn't speak to why they are doing this, so I guess you could say it is somehow 'off topic,' but it is certainly not very far off, and I think is relevant to the issue.

I haven't seen you prove your position specifically by Scriptures (not your vague generalization), yet. Are you done shadow boxing??

1 Cor 5: 9 I wrote unto you in my epistle to have no company with fornicators; 10 (1) not at all meaning with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world: (1) Or not altogether with the fornicators etc ) 11 but (1) as it is, I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat. (1) Or now I write ) 12 For what have I to do with judging them that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Put away the wicked man from among yourselves.

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:01 pm

I will point out that verses 12 and 13 support my contention that the state has no business passing discriminatory laws against homosexuals.

As noted in the other thread, I have given ample scriptural support for my position.

Would you say that Jesus violated your understanding of what Paul is saying here by associating with 'sinners', as he is frequently documented as doing in the Gospels?

Shamgar · Post by **Shamgar** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:55 pm

micatala wrote:I will point out that verses 12 and 13 support my contention that the state has no business passing discriminatory laws against homosexuals.

As noted in the other thread, I have given ample scriptural support for my position.

Would you say that Jesus violated your understanding of what Paul is saying here by associating with 'sinners', as he is frequently documented as doing in the Gospels?

You haven't given evidence of anything when take Scriptures out of CONTEXT as you have done. Here let me help you with the word.

con·text Audio pronunciation of "context" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kntkst)
n.

1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.
2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.