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!
Why are gay people a Christian target?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Colorado127
- Newbie
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 4:39 pm
Post #371
One doesn't even need to go back to Leviticus. If one consults the few passages in the New Testament that mention homosexuals, the reference to homosexual acts or offenders always occurs within the context of other sins (greed, murdering, slandering, etc.) most of which do not draw near the ire or the desire for legal proscription that homosexuality does.
In fact, if one reads all the passages, the implication is that God is concerned about 'wicked hearts,' and that the acts described are only sinful because of the attitude of the person doing them, not because of the acts themselves. The acts, in fact, are a result of the attitude of the heart.
It is hard not to conclude that there are other reasons, besides the religious beliefs and passages in the Bible, that lead to the intensity of feeling about homosexuality.
In fact, if one reads all the passages, the implication is that God is concerned about 'wicked hearts,' and that the acts described are only sinful because of the attitude of the person doing them, not because of the acts themselves. The acts, in fact, are a result of the attitude of the heart.
It is hard not to conclude that there are other reasons, besides the religious beliefs and passages in the Bible, that lead to the intensity of feeling about homosexuality.
Post #372
here's some info on pedophilia and homosexuality...Clearly explains the
legal/clinical definitions so as not to confuse.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/h ... ation.html
http://www.1-electric.com/articles/Sexual_abuse
legal/clinical definitions so as not to confuse.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/h ... ation.html
http://www.1-electric.com/articles/Sexual_abuse
Post #373
The substance of the punishement was not the point, the point was to mandate against it. You could also see it as the stronger the punishment the stronger the mandate. Further, most of the language of the Old Testament is meant to be understood beyond its surface value.That doesn't make sense. Why would so many of the rules in Leviticus have death as their penalty if they were intended to grow the population?
Post #374
Why is this OK for Leviticus, but not Genesis? People get so upset and jump up and down, insisting that the bible must be interpreted strictly literally...with respect to Genesis, but then they come back and say that we now know that Leviticus is metaphorical, and we aren't bound by those laws any more. It sounds to me as if a lot of people have strayed pretty far from the bible's message, and are reinterpreting it to suit their particular views--under the name of biblical inerrancy, of course.palmera wrote:Further, most of the language of the Old Testament is meant to be understood beyond its surface value.
Panza llena, corazon contento
-
youngborean
- Sage
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:28 pm
Post #375
An interesting point about hermenutics. But there are teachings in the NT that christians use to reconcile the apparent contradiction you are claiming in reference to the law. It is namely that physical Israel entered into a legal contract at mount sinai.Why is this OK for Leviticus, but not Genesis? People get so upset and jump up and down, insisting that the bible must be interpreted strictly literally...with respect to Genesis, but then they come back and say that we now know that Leviticus is metaphorical, and we aren't bound by those laws any more. It sounds to me as if a lot of people have strayed pretty far from the bible's message, and are reinterpreting it to suit their particular views--under the name of biblical inerrancy, of course.
Exd 19:7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.
Exd 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.
And the Christians enter a spiritual contract through Christ, according to the Spirit of the law and not the letter.
Hbr 12:18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,
Hbr 12:19 And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which [voice] they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more:
Hbr 12:20 (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:
Hbr 12:21 And so terrible was the sight, [that] Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake:)
Hbr 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
Hbr 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
Hbr 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than [that of] Abel.
Hbr 12:25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more [shall not] we [escape], if we turn away from him that [speaketh] from heaven:
This would not change the proposed factoids of the OT, only their legal application in the minds of a gentile christian. I know this is a bit off topic, but it may resolve your questions.
Post #376
Yes, youngborean makes a good point. Hermeneutics can be a subtle study, and it is easy to oversimplify and overgeneralize in making comments about what the Bible does and does not say. I am certainly no expert, and do the best I can based on the sources I have.
As with so many subjects (eg. evolution) it is important not to create 'false Biblical teachings', either intentionally or unintentionally if one wishes to have a discussion about the real issues.
Many Christian, if not most, would consider the Bible to be, in some sense, a unified whole and so have created interpretations which do try to reconcile the various books and approaches taken by the various authors. Obviously, given the different eras and, on the surface, very different viewpoints between the OT and the NT, many find this unity tenuous at best, fictional at worst, and I can certainly understand how they might think so.
My own view is that while all of the Bible is "useful for teaching, correcting, etc." (my bad paraphrase) and deserves our attention, study, and respect, we should understand its imperfections and not allow it to trump our own reason, which is after all, also from God.
As with so many subjects (eg. evolution) it is important not to create 'false Biblical teachings', either intentionally or unintentionally if one wishes to have a discussion about the real issues.
Many Christian, if not most, would consider the Bible to be, in some sense, a unified whole and so have created interpretations which do try to reconcile the various books and approaches taken by the various authors. Obviously, given the different eras and, on the surface, very different viewpoints between the OT and the NT, many find this unity tenuous at best, fictional at worst, and I can certainly understand how they might think so.
My own view is that while all of the Bible is "useful for teaching, correcting, etc." (my bad paraphrase) and deserves our attention, study, and respect, we should understand its imperfections and not allow it to trump our own reason, which is after all, also from God.
Post #377
I dunno...you two are way smarter than I am. I would agree that hermeneutics is subtle at best, since I've never been able to make sense of any biblical passages. Perhaps, this is because I didn't grow up with them, and didn't grow up with someone explaining to me what they mean. I don't mean to offer offense, here, but rather to illustrate my shortcomings in this field.
The consequence of this, youngborean, is that your textual support of your important point is lost on me. I can't parse the text. ...to which, undoubtedly, you say "huh?" I imagine that it is as surprising to you that anyone cannot figure out what the book says, as it is to me that anyone can.
The flip side, of course, applies to some of our other conversations: it seems exceedingly weird to me that someone would be unable to see, immediately, how clear evolutionary theory is, and how strong and incontrovertible the evidence. But, there it is. We have different levels of expertise in different fields. It's really quite impressive.
In any event, it's clear that many people have an understanding that some part of the NT tells us to interpret the OT variously in various places. Since it seems all to be stated in metaphors, I wonder to what extent these interpretations are valid. In most cases, I'd say that "validity" is personal. If it's valid for Sam, then it's valid and I have no business criticizing his belief.
There's a line, however, beyond which I cannot go. If it's valid for Sam, but not for Arthur, we have no problem unless Sam tries to force his interpretation on Arthur. When Sam tries to force Arthur to accept his dominion, by force of law, then Sam is out of line.
There are many examples of this kind of Samism. (?) The Taliban come to mind...forcing their narrow view of the Quran onto everyone else. The Franciscan priests of the 1500's come to mind, forcing the Puebloans to say they accept Christianity, or else suffer the removal of their feet. So, too, do more recent events come to mind: the calls for laws against gay marriage, or against the teaching of evolution. All of these are, to me, equivalent--in the sense that they are the personal interpretation of scripture by some, followed by their attempt to force their beliefs onto others who hold a different interpretation of the same scripture. What is one man's Absolute Truth is another's False Biblical Teaching.
Why can't we look at God's Creation, and accept it for what it is? Why must we deny it, in the name of Absolute Truth/False Teaching? This applies to evolution, certainly, but for this thread, to the biological basis (ie established by god) of homosexuality.
Excuse me...my dog is barking at my fossil cabinet. I need to rescue my trilobite tracks.
The consequence of this, youngborean, is that your textual support of your important point is lost on me. I can't parse the text. ...to which, undoubtedly, you say "huh?" I imagine that it is as surprising to you that anyone cannot figure out what the book says, as it is to me that anyone can.
The flip side, of course, applies to some of our other conversations: it seems exceedingly weird to me that someone would be unable to see, immediately, how clear evolutionary theory is, and how strong and incontrovertible the evidence. But, there it is. We have different levels of expertise in different fields. It's really quite impressive.
In any event, it's clear that many people have an understanding that some part of the NT tells us to interpret the OT variously in various places. Since it seems all to be stated in metaphors, I wonder to what extent these interpretations are valid. In most cases, I'd say that "validity" is personal. If it's valid for Sam, then it's valid and I have no business criticizing his belief.
There's a line, however, beyond which I cannot go. If it's valid for Sam, but not for Arthur, we have no problem unless Sam tries to force his interpretation on Arthur. When Sam tries to force Arthur to accept his dominion, by force of law, then Sam is out of line.
There are many examples of this kind of Samism. (?) The Taliban come to mind...forcing their narrow view of the Quran onto everyone else. The Franciscan priests of the 1500's come to mind, forcing the Puebloans to say they accept Christianity, or else suffer the removal of their feet. So, too, do more recent events come to mind: the calls for laws against gay marriage, or against the teaching of evolution. All of these are, to me, equivalent--in the sense that they are the personal interpretation of scripture by some, followed by their attempt to force their beliefs onto others who hold a different interpretation of the same scripture. What is one man's Absolute Truth is another's False Biblical Teaching.
Why can't we look at God's Creation, and accept it for what it is? Why must we deny it, in the name of Absolute Truth/False Teaching? This applies to evolution, certainly, but for this thread, to the biological basis (ie established by god) of homosexuality.
Excuse me...my dog is barking at my fossil cabinet. I need to rescue my trilobite tracks.
Panza llena, corazon contento
Post #378
Jose,
No one is trying to outlaw same-sex marriage. It is already not legal.
The homosexual agenda is to force NEW laws on society. Thus, outlawing any attempt to keep the laws sane. No, the intolerance is on the side forcing unacceptable NEW laws on the populace whether they want them or not. This is a far cry from slavery as this is a private sexual act being elevated to a culture status. Bizaare as that is, some people with educations are trying to justify that absurdity.
Biology and anatomy and physiology, also do not lend credence to homosexuailty being normalized. Only politics. The humann family is man-woman-children. Pure empirical truth. But, not "politically" anymore, on one side of the aisle.
BTW, You wouldn't have any fossil bones to worry about being knocked over by your pooch if Dinos were born homosexual. Well, you would have some surrounding the hot springs, but only a few.
It is time to be fair and let the facts speak for themselves and not emotionalism on the side of the agenda. There are laws being forced to change against all decency. The homosexual agenda does not want diversity, they want a minority status that is just not decent. There is a slippery slope that cannot be denied, by letting individual sexual preference be a classified as a distinct people.
If that is the case, then chaos will reign supreme. Even more than it does currently.
No one is trying to outlaw same-sex marriage. It is already not legal.
The homosexual agenda is to force NEW laws on society. Thus, outlawing any attempt to keep the laws sane. No, the intolerance is on the side forcing unacceptable NEW laws on the populace whether they want them or not. This is a far cry from slavery as this is a private sexual act being elevated to a culture status. Bizaare as that is, some people with educations are trying to justify that absurdity.
Biology and anatomy and physiology, also do not lend credence to homosexuailty being normalized. Only politics. The humann family is man-woman-children. Pure empirical truth. But, not "politically" anymore, on one side of the aisle.
BTW, You wouldn't have any fossil bones to worry about being knocked over by your pooch if Dinos were born homosexual. Well, you would have some surrounding the hot springs, but only a few.
It is time to be fair and let the facts speak for themselves and not emotionalism on the side of the agenda. There are laws being forced to change against all decency. The homosexual agenda does not want diversity, they want a minority status that is just not decent. There is a slippery slope that cannot be denied, by letting individual sexual preference be a classified as a distinct people.
If that is the case, then chaos will reign supreme. Even more than it does currently.
-
McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #379
So, if it were legal, then you would not try to outlaw it?AlAyeti wrote:No one is trying to outlaw same-sex marriage. It is already not legal.
We are constantly updating our laws, that is why we elect legislators. Now, if we had the perfect law (such as the bible and the qu'ran both claim to be) then we would not need legislatures, would we?AlAyeti wrote:The homosexual agenda is to force NEW laws on society. Thus, outlawing any attempt to keep the laws sane. No, the intolerance is on the side forcing unacceptable NEW laws on the populace whether they want them or not. This is a far cry from slavery as this is a private sexual act being elevated to a culture status. Bizaare as that is, some people with educations are trying to justify that absurdity.
Please post in Does this thread to show that science is on your side.AlAyeti wrote:Biology and anatomy and physiology, also do not lend credence to homosexuailty being normalized. Only politics. The human family is man-woman-children. Pure empirical truth. But, not "politically" anymore, on one side of the aisle.
Only the fundamentalist heterosexuals are advocating that all humans should have the same sexual orientation. Homosexuals have been far more tolerant of heterosexual values.AlAyeti wrote:BTW, You wouldn't have any fossil bones to worry about being knocked over by your pooch if Dinos were born homosexual. Well, you would have some surrounding the hot springs, but only a few.
The "homosexual agenda", as you call it, does want diversity. They have no problems with coconsentingdults who are comfortable with their heterosexual preference.AlAyeti wrote:It is time to be fair and let the facts speak for themselves and not emotionalism on the side of the agenda. There are laws being forced to change against all decency. The homosexual agenda does not want diversity, they want a minority status that is just not decent. There is a slippery slope that cannot be denied, by letting individual sexual preference be a classified as a distinct people.
I am missing the connection here. Specifically, how will chaos come about. Please, since I am not all that good at following your logic, prove, step by step, how the laws currently on the books or being proposed by the "homosexual agenda" will bring about chaos. We have had same sex marriage in Canada for some time now, and I have not detected a rise in chaos. My marriage has not been devalued. My children have not been swayed off of the heterosexual path, even though a significant number of the professionals in their lives have been openly homosexual. Spell it out for me. Objectively.AlAyeti wrote:If that is the case, then chaos will reign supreme. Even more than it does currently.
Post #380
The punishment opposes your initial point that it was to protect the population. You are selectively reading Leviticus.palmera wrote:The substance of the punishement was not the point, the point was to mandate against it. You could also see it as the stronger the punishment the stronger the mandate. Further, most of the language of the Old Testament is meant to be understood beyond its surface value.That doesn't make sense. Why would so many of the rules in Leviticus have death as their penalty if they were intended to grow the population?
