Homosexuality is detrimental and ultimately destructive

[Guest Anonymous]

formergothardite, I don't know what questions you are talking about.

You didn't address any of this, for starters.

If you don't even know if you're against civil unions or not, what in the world makes you so against people getting married? Because the word itself is magic and reserved for people who fuck who you think they should fuck?

And I see that you're cherry picking the bits of the Bible that you want to follow and abandoning the rest. That's fine, everyone does it. I do it. But at least admit it - and while you're at it, explain to me why the laws regarding what you eat, wear, plant, and how you deal with rape victims/rapists were fulfilled and should no longer be observed, but the laws dealing with gay people are still in effect? Because it's coming off a whole lot like things that would be a pain in the ass or uncomfortable for you personally are no big deal for some reason, but things that don't affect you or that you find icky are still a very big deal indeed.

Um, because that's what the Bible says you're supposed to do to gay people. And since you're all about following the Bible (not what Jesus said about loving your neighbor as yourself, obviously, but the nasty bits) I don't know why you wouldn't want to kill people since God says you're supposed to. I'm not twisting anything, by the way, I can lift the verses straight from the book. And it's not like we haven't had Christians up in here talking about how they think gay people should be stoned.

Pertinent verses:

Okay, so it's fulfilled, but not abolished. But this is still an all or nothing proposition - it's all in effect, or none of it is.

How am I twisting that, exactly?

You can certainly make an argument in regards to the dietary laws being revoked by citing Peter's vision in Acts 10, but as far as I'm aware there were no rape victims lowered down in the giant sheet, so that's not going to extrapolate.

***ETA:

Why do you think I'm against you as a person? I think you should be able to practice your version of your religion freely. I think you should be able to marry a person if you fall in love with them and want to. I fully support your right to not get gay married if you think it's wrong. I just don't think that you should get to impose your version of your religion on other people. There are lots of Christians (some of us LGBTQ, some of us straight) who do not interpret the Bible the same way that you do. Why do you think your interpretation should be legislated over someone else's? There are lots of people who aren't Christians. Why should they be bound by a religious code that they don't subscribe to? Would you want to live in a place where it was illegal for you to drink alcohol, or eat meat, or where you couldn't get married because of someone else's religious strictures?

Or:

CC3, are you going to answer the questions you've been asked? I'm particularly interested in why it's so important that gay marriage be illegal when it's very easy for anyone against it to NOT HAVE ONE.

I just love how some christians use "god" as an excuse for their own bigoted beliefs. News flash, CC3, there is no evidence that god even exists. :roll: Why the hell should we be making laws (much less laws that keep civil rights from groups of people) based on what some people interpret as a supernatural being's words?

All that aside, why on earth should your religious beliefs (or anyone else's) dictate this country's laws? We decided a long time ago that in an ideal society, the opinions of the majority shouldn't dictate the rights of a minority.

Or:

CC3, can you answer formergothardite's question? Do you think divorce after remarriage should be legal? Why or why not?

Or:

CC3 - do you think gay sex should be illegal? Why or why not?

Or:

Okay, can you answer my previous questions? Not every Christian agrees with your interpretation of the Bible. Why does your interpretation win? Why do you have to legislate your religion so that it affects people who don't subscribe to it? Would you want that done to you?

You say that you're against gay marriage but you don't want to kill gay people even though the Bible says that's what you should do. The passage you quoted even says (according to you) that people who do something that's on the list of bad things deserve to die. Are you campaigning right now to make gossip illegal? Are you running around saying that haughty and boastful people or those who are disobedient to their parents should not be able to get married? Why not? It's all in the same list. Why have you picked out one thing as more evil than all of the others?

I'd really appeciate it if you would hit on the bolded bits of this last one. An apology from you for falsely accusing me would be good too, if you decide to stop dodging and weaving and start acting like an adult.

[emmiedahl]

Of course not.

Then why does your article quote Paul excessively while ignoring Jesus's commandments regarding the treatment of others?

[spragger]

When all is said and done on this thread, I think this is the real problem. In order for you to win, someone needs to lose.

The following link states my beliefs much clearer than I have done last night.

http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/homosex.htm

One other issue bothers me about FJ threads. Here I used the bold key to answer a particular sentence but I left the quote intact for context. But when sentences are piecemealed out, the original context is lost. I have done this myself thinking I was saving space, but it really can be hard to follow chopped up paragraphs.

formergothardite, I don't know what questions you are talking about.

:roll: <---- That is me rolling my eyes at your BS interpretation of my sentence, "I do hold out hope that we will win out in the long run."

I am not talking about this discussion, or anything on FJ. I mean that we will win equal rights for all people. So, the only "losers" in this scenario are bigots. Sure, I am trying to prove my point, but not in the sense that this is a game and I am trying to defeat you. I just want equal right under the law. You still have not made any case as to how giving me equal rights would be detrimental to you, so I don't see how you would lose in this scenario.

[spragger]

Then why does your article quote Paul excessively while ignoring Jesus's commandments regarding the treatment of others?

Sadly I can probably state crazy evangelical logic better than CC3 can b/c I used to live it on a daily basis.

The idea is that everything in The Bible is the word of god, even if it was written by men. What Paul wrote in the Bible is ordained by god, and as good as god or Jesus himself saying it. God is supposedly infallible, so the argument is that he would not allow anything to be in there that wasn't supposed to be, even through so many translations, there are no mistakes in it, because god himself guided the men who were writing it. Who are his followers to question it?

It's ridiculous, and there is no arguing (for a logical person) against it. It could be in the Bible to stone all people with blond hair, and the average person has no authority to question why that is in there, it has to be explained by an authority figure, and you are just supposed to accept the explanation and reconcile yourself to it, even if it doesn't sit right with your conscious. (Which I could not do, so I left the church.)

[Witsec1]

Sadly I can probably state crazy evangelical logic better than CC3 can b/c I used to live it on a daily basis.

The idea is that everything in The Bible is the word of god, even if it was written by men. What Paul wrote in the Bible is ordained by god, and as good as god or Jesus himself saying it. God is supposedly infallible, so the argument is that he would not allow anything to be in there that wasn't supposed to be, even through so many translations, there are no mistakes in it, because god himself guided the men who were writing it. Who are his followers to question it?

It's ridiculous, and there is no arguing (for a logical person) against it. It could be in the Bible to stone all people with blond hair, and the average person has no authority to question why that is in there, it has to be explained by an authority figure, and you are just supposed to accept the explanation and reconcile yourself to it, even if it doesn't sit right with your conscious. (Which I could not do, so I left the church.)

Except that CC3 is OK with "common sense" exceptions - which seems to mean traditional social conventions. So because her morality is really based on traditional social conventions, with "Biblical" as a cover, it really is a threat when social conventions start to change. That at least is my take on the evangelical opposition to gay marriage. There was even one blogger who said straight up: we lost the battle on dvorce, and now Christians divorce at the same rate as non-Christians; if we don't fight on homosexuality, soon homosexuality will be rampant among Christians. On the one hand they believe that the most powerful being in the Universe, with the key to eternal life, has said that gay marriage is wrong. On the other hand, they need laws and social attitudes that stigmatize gays, because otherwise they would all be gay-marrying each other!

I suspect really that the leadership knows that if teh gay becomes socially acceptable, they will either lose market share or have to walk back their rhetoric, just like they did on divorce, civil rights, working on Sunday...

[CC3]

You didn't address any of this, for starters.

Or:

Or:

Or:

Or:

I'd really appeciate it if you would hit on the bolded bits of this last one. An apology from you for falsely accusing me would be good too, if you decide to stop dodging and weaving and start acting like an adult.

The original sin was acting out their homosexual desires. Because they did not stop and acknowledge God, He gave them over to a debased mind. A debased mind causes a lifestyle of horrible behavior including gossip, hautiness, lying, etc. Homosexuality is not interchangeable with behavior from a debased mind. It is the root cause.

I'm sorry. I confused you with another poster whom I thought deleted part of a post I was responding to. Please forgive me.

I never said my interpretation of the Bible is the only one. I also am not legislating it either.

[Witsec1]

Those are your religious convictions. You're welcome to them. You have the right to impose whatever rules about membership and marriage within your church and exclude gay couples all you want. I think you're misguided, but you have the right to freedom of religion.

What I don't understand is why you want to limit the religious freedom of other people.

[Witsec1]

You said you would campaign against gay marriage. That is campaigning to legislate your interpretation of the Bible.

[Witsec7]

As with any discussion of gay marriage, the only arguments against it are religious in nature. I'd sure like to hear some that weren't but there really aren't any unless you believe the hyperbole of wingnuts like frothy.

[fakepigtails73]

CC3: Same-sex marriage became legal in my province in 2005 (or so), and I admit that before I used to be against it, and I'm not a religious person so I cannot blame my former prejudice on the bible like you do. My reasonning was "let them have civil unions and save marriages for heteros", ie: "separate but equal".

However, here we are in 2012, and now my opinion has changed 100%.

I saw that nothing "bad" happened to society after s.sex marriages became law, and besides, who am I to be so arrogant as to tell 2 people that love each other that they cannot marry because they happen to be 2 men?? There's nothing wrong in admiting that your opinion changed...

What sealed the deal for me was watching the movie "If These Walls Could Talk 2", the part where one elderly woman dies and her partner of many years cannot inherit anything, even though the deceased wanted her too. She ended up being treated like dogshyte by the woman's estranged nephew. In some states some cannot even visit their partners in the hospital because of the illegality of same sex marriages. How cruel is that?

I think that Kim Kardashian's 72 days-long marriage makes a mockery of the institution more than 2 women who get married to each other after being together for 20-odd years.

[emmiedahl]

You said you would campaign against gay marriage. That is campaigning to legislate your interpretation of the Bible.

I have heard many, many Christians claim that legislating the Bible is legislating morality. "Thou shalt not murder" for example. But even atheists agree that murder and theft are bad, so please, CC3, don't go there.

[formergothardite]

Here is my question that you have avoided answering several times. Try and attempt to give a straight answer this time. I'll even break up the paragraph to make it easier for you to address. Since the first line is a fact, you don't have to reply to that, but the second two lines are questions that you have danced around answering.

What you and your church encourage abused people to do (divorce/remarry) is no more supported by the Bible than gay marriage.

So why the fuck do you get to use the Bible when it comes to gay marriage but not the other?

Your stand against gay marriage can't be completely based on the Bible because you drop (and actually said that your holy book lacked common sense) following the Bible when it suited you. So it has to be something else.

[formergothardite]

I don't think it's insulting. I really don't have time to write a paper for this discussion. If you want to read the link, fine. I personally agree with what is written there and don't feel the need to reinvent the wheel for you.

I think you take the cake when it comes to avoiding giving real answers.

[Renting with Raggles]

CC3 has a very good reason for wanting to impose her religion on others: she's a craven little worm who gets off on imposing her views on others. And no, CC3, I'm not accusing you of a particularly sexual fetish (put down the smelling salts and back away from the fainting couch!): just that it's obvious that this is how you get your kicks, by petty interference in other people's lives where you think you can get away with it. Everyone else has pointed out her hypocrisy - and her refusal to engage honestly in an intellectual debate.

That said, I thought it extremely amusing that she deleted all the stuff about her mother because we happened on the truth - that by CC's religious doctrine, her own mother should change her name to Whorey* McSpreadsHerLegsStonetheAdulterer. Deleting in futile hope that we would forget - oh, Cowardly, you really do live up to your name.

You were the one who demanded that the trans child in the GS be thrown out on her ear (or her mother forced to release every one of her medical records to you because OMGSLEEPOVERS! or some such nonsense) but admitted if you had an intersexed child their information would be completely confidential. Your philosophy isn't anywhere near the golden rule, Coward, it's "one rule for thee, another for me." You're out to take what you can get and piss on anyone else who might share your prize. And you want people to take your shit and call it holy Jesus icecream. People like you do disgust me, I admit that - and I'll continue to expose your lies. There's no point in debating with someone who lacks a moral compass to plainly state her position and defend it honestly.

* Not knocking sex workers. And as far as I know, the worst thing McSpreads ever did was spawn an intellectually dishonest hairless mole-rat.

[Terrie]

When all is said and done on this thread, I think this is the real problem. In order for you to win, someone needs to lose.

Only if you assume a zero-sum game. And I don't believe that equality is zero-sum.

[Witsec7]

Only if you assume a zero-sum game. And I don't believe that equality is zero-sum.

She has yet to say what she would lose, should gays be allowed to marry. C3 sits on her pity pot bemoaning her life after gay marriage and time after time when queried, she cannot give one example of what would be 'lost' when all love becomes equal.

[CC3]

Then why does your article quote Paul excessively while ignoring Jesus's commandments regarding the treatment of others?

None of the Bible was recorded by Jesus obviously. In church, we focus much more on the four gospels and Jesus' life and commandments. But we aren't discussing Jesus because there are no specific commands about homosexuality. Paul's writings have to do with the administration of the everyday affairs of Christ's followers. Paul was Jewish, a former Pharisee, knowledgeable of all Levitical laws and former murderer of Christians, converted to Christianity by a vision and command from Jesus and chosen to be the 12th disciple after Judas' death. I do believe his writings are inspired by the Holy Spirit. That's a major sticking point with new believers and/or agnostics, but once you understand how the Holy Spirit works it becomes clearer. I don't know how else to explain it.

I think this thread has taken an extremely negative turn. The Christian life is about service to others. I apologize to gay people and their friends and family who have read this thread for not making it clear from the start that I have no axe to grind with you. I get defensive when I feel I am being hammered by numerous people all trying to convince me to change my mind on beliefs I hold dear. I apologize for writing knowing I would not change anyone's mind here and thus wasting everyone's time and energy. I also have been taking vicodin for a tooth that needs to be pulled, but that is no excuse but does explain my some lack of concern for others feelings.

[FundiesInMyFamily]

She has yet to say what she would lose, should gays be allowed to marry.

That's just it... they never do. The yell and holler about how destructive the gays are to the sanctity of marriage blah blah blah but they never do get around to saying how or why. Gay marriage has been legal in several states for a little while now, where's the destruction? How is it affecting them? Where's the corruption?

[emmiedahl]

None of the Bible was recorded by Jesus obviously. In church, we focus much more on the four gospels and Jesus' life and commandments. But we aren't discussing Jesus because there are no specific commands about homosexuality. Paul's writings have to do with the administration of the everyday affairs of Christ's followers. Paul was Jewish, a former Pharisee, knowledgeable of all Levitical laws and former murderer of Christians, converted to Christianity by a vision and command from Jesus and chosen to be the 12th disciple after Judas' death. I do believe his writings are inspired by the Holy Spirit.

So you think the Holy Spirit also disagrees with Jesus?

If I say that God inspired me, can I oppress you?

[CC3]

CC3 has a very good reason for wanting to impose her religion on others: she's a craven little worm who gets off on imposing her views on others. And no, CC3, I'm not accusing you of a particularly sexual fetish (put down the smelling salts and back away from the fainting couch!): just that it's obvious that this is how you get your kicks, by petty interference in other people's lives where you think you can get away with it. Everyone else has pointed out her hypocrisy - and her refusal to engage honestly in an intellectual debate.

That said, I thought it extremely amusing that she deleted all the stuff about her mother because we happened on the truth - that by CC's religious doctrine, her own mother should change her name to Whorey* McSpreadsHerLegsStonetheAdulterer. Deleting in futile hope that we would forget - oh, Cowardly, you really do live up to your name.

You were the one who demanded that the trans child in the GS be thrown out on her ear (or her mother forced to release every one of her medical records to you because OMGSLEEPOVERS! or some such nonsense) but admitted if you had an intersexed child their information would be completely confidential. Your philosophy isn't anywhere near the golden rule, Coward, it's "one rule for thee, another for me." You're out to take what you can get and piss on anyone else who might share your prize. And you want people to take your shit and call it holy Jesus icecream. People like you do disgust me, I admit that - and I'll continue to expose your lies. There's no point in debating with someone who lacks a moral compass to plainly state her position and defend it honestly.

* Not knocking sex workers. And as far as I know, the worst thing McSpreads ever did was spawn an intellectually dishonest hairless mole-rat.

I want to make two things clear to you: my mother is not your business and did nothing wrong. I have never commented on a transgendered child.

[Witsec1]

None of the Bible was recorded by Jesus obviously. In church, we focus much more on the four gospels and Jesus' life and commandments. But we aren't discussing Jesus because there are no specific commands about homosexuality. Paul's writings have to do with the administration of the everyday affairs of Christ's followers. Paul was Jewish, a former Pharisee, knowledgeable of all Levitical laws and former murderer of Christians, converted to Christianity by a vision and command from Jesus and chosen to be the 12th disciple after Judas' death. I do believe his writings are inspired by the Holy Spirit. That's a major sticking point with new believers and/or agnostics, but once you understand how the Holy Spirit works it becomes clearer. I don't know how else to explain it.

I think this thread has taken an extremely negative turn. The Christian life is about service to others. I apologize to gay people and their friends and family who have read this thread for not making it clear from the start that I have no axe to grind with you. I get defensive when I feel I am being hammered by numerous people all trying to convince me to change my mind on beliefs I hold dear. I apologize for writing knowing I would not change anyone's mind here and thus wasting everyone's time and energy. I also have been taking vicodin for a tooth that needs to be pulled, but that is no excuse but does explain my some lack of concern for others feelings.

You said you would campaign to keep my gay friends from marrying. You want to force your beliefs on people from other faiths so that they cannot conduct the type of marriage services they want. That's a pretty big axe.

[formergothardite]

None of the Bible was recorded by Jesus obviously. In church, we focus much more on the four gospels and Jesus' life and commandments. But we aren't discussing Jesus because there are no specific commands about homosexuality. Paul's writings have to do with the administration of the everyday affairs of Christ's followers. Paul was Jewish, a former Pharisee, knowledgeable of all Levitical laws and former murderer of Christians, converted to Christianity by a vision and command from Jesus and chosen to be the 12th disciple after Judas' death. I do believe his writings are inspired by the Holy Spirit. That's a major sticking point with new believers and/or agnostics, but once you understand how the Holy Spirit works it becomes clearer. I don't know how else to explain it.

I think this thread has taken an extremely negative turn. The Christian life is about service to others. I apologize to gay people and their friends and family who have read this thread for not making it clear from the start that I have no axe to grind with you. I get defensive when I feel I am being hammered by numerous people all trying to convince me to change my mind on beliefs I hold dear. I apologize for writing knowing I would not change anyone's mind here and thus wasting everyone's time and energy. I also have been taking vicodin for a tooth that needs to be pulled, but that is no excuse but does explain my some lack of concern for others feelings.

So is this saying you are not going to even attempt to answer any questions, not even the simple, easy to answer ones lik what entilement programs you would have to support?

[Witsec7]

That's just it... they never do. The yell and holler about how destructive the gays are to the sanctity of marriage blah blah blah but they never do get around to saying how or why. Gay marriage has been legal in several states for a little while now, where's the destruction? How is it affecting them? Where's the corruption?

Its easier for her to divert than answer a question that has been asked eleventy times in this thread.

C3 is just another of the dishonest fundys that come here and expect us to roll belly up to her insignificant and unsupported blather.

[Witsec1]

CC3, the discussion about the Bible's position on homosexuality is separate from the discussion of whether or not gay marriage should be legal. You can believe whatever you want about what the Bible teaches. Obviously, Christians are not going to agree about that - that's why there are so many different denominations. The question is whether or not you can use "God says" to justify imposing a law on people who have different ideas about what God says, or may not even believe in God. You haven't offered any justification, other than that gays might get some unnamed "benefits" you would have to pay for.

[browngrl]

CC3: Same-sex marriage became legal in my province in 2005 (or so), and I admit that before I used to be against it, and I'm not a religious person so I cannot blame my former prejudice on the bible like you do. My reasonning was "let them have civil unions and save marriages for heteros", ie: "separate but equal".

However, here we are in 2012, and now my opinion has changed 100%.

I saw that nothing "bad" happened to society after s.sex marriages became law, and besides, who am I to be so arrogant as to tell 2 people that love each other that they cannot marry because they happen to be 2 men?? There's nothing wrong in admiting that your opinion changed...

What sealed the deal for me was watching the movie "If These Walls Could Talk 2", the part where one elderly woman dies and her partner of many years cannot inherit anything, even though the deceased wanted her too. She ended up being treated like dogshyte by the woman's estranged nephew. In some states some cannot even visit their partners in the hospital because of the illegality of same sex marriages. How cruel is that?

I think that Kim Kardashian's 72 days-long marriage makes a mockery of the institution more than 2 women who get married to each other after being together for 20-odd years.

My mother could say the same thing. Right after same sex marriage was legalized in my province a dear friend of our family got married to a same sex partner. My mother was initially opposed to same sex marriage. When she first received the wedding invitation she told me that she was not going to go. When she sent her regrets, the bride called her up and asked her to please come (the bride's mother died several years ago and my mom has been sort of a surrogate to the bride since). My mother called me to ask my advice. I told her that based only on the love she felt for the bride she should go. I told her that if she felt uncomfortable in any way I would immediately pull up the car and take her home. So with that proviso in mind my mom agreed to go to the wedding.

At the wedding my mother was so moved by the obvious love the two women had for each other that she went forward to give the two women her blessing (a big deal in my family). Afterwards my mother told me that she realized that she had been wrong about same sex marriage. As for me, I am just proud of my mom.