Assistant Professor of Religion, Boston University
Donna Freitas is Assistant Professor of Religion at Boston University. The "On Faith" panelist's literary and academic focus is the struggle of belonging and alienation with regard to faith, particularly among young adults, and especially young women. Freitas asks the 'Big Questions' (Why are we here anyway?) and delights in discovering the many forums in which to dabble with faith, religion, spirituality, and gender. A Catholic, she also is an ardent feminist. Her books include Becoming a Goddess of Inner Poise: Spirituality for the Bridget Jones in All of Us, (2005) and Save the Date: A Spirituality of Dating, Love, Dinner & the Divine. Freitas' most recent book project is Sex and the Soul, set for publication in 2007. It is based on a national study about the influence of sexuality and romantic relationships on the spiritual identities of America 's college students. Freitas' first novel, The Possibilities of Sainthood, which is about 15-year Antonia Lucia Labella, who aspires to become the first official living saint in Catholic history, is due for publication in 2008. Freitas can be reached through her website at www.donnafreitas.com.
Close.
Donna Freitas
Assistant Professor of Religion, Boston University
Donna Freitas is Assistant Professor of Religion at Boston University. The "On Faith" panelist's literary and academic focus is the struggle of belonging and alienation with regard to faith, particularly among young adults, and especially young women. Freitas asks the 'Big Questions' (Why are we here anyway?) and delights in discovering the many forums in which to dabble with faith, religion, spirituality, and gender.
more »
Oh and by the way your title doesn't mean a thing to me. You have no idea whats in the Bible and your an assistant professor. I sure wouldn't want you having anything to do with teaching my kids. your worldly opinions mean nothing to God. He didn't ask you for advice. Oh and by the way what has slavery got to do with Christianity anyway? Once your saved , your not of this world anymore. If you love the world your an enemy of God. Oh and by the way sorry you can't spout off scriptures too LOL the reason for it there is none to back your theory without twisting them.
Lord have mercy on your soul. I see a bunch of overly educated fools trying to have a form or godlyness but deceiving many and sending them to Hell. I pity you on judgement day young lady.
Thank you for your eloquent defense of the human dignity of homosexuals. I pray that you are right that in a better future people who call themselves Christians will be embarrassed that their parents were so small minded.
Talk about "Cherry Picking" verses! In one breath you quote Jesus commanding us to love one another, in another breath you discount any negative mention of Homosexuality in the Bible as "tired" and "weak". For an Assistant Professor of Religion, I'm astonished at your intellectual dishonesty. The Bible is either right or it's not. Your slavery analogy is also "tired and weak." The Bible doesn't encourage slavery. (I presume you are referring to Ephesians) The apostle Paul wants newly-converted slaves to exemplify Christ to their masters through Love, as opposed to Rebellion. That's not an encouragement for Slavery. That's an encouragement for evangelizing through love in the current condition you are in. You should consider a few Hermeneutics courses during your time at Boston College. It will add some credibility to your title.
Ms. Freitas,
Do you believe that truth is dependent on your feelings? I have met nice homosexuals, but that doesn't change the rational principle that human sexuality -- apart from feelings and from a purely functional perspective -- was designed by God to procreate. Homosexual behavior is fundamentally disordered from a physiological perspective.
Not to mention, homosexuality was removed from the list of mental disorders for political rather than scientific reasons.
Love, passions, etc., are irrelevant. Who the heck are you to judge those who cling to orthodox Christian beliefs about human sexuality as "unChristian."
Why not say its unChristian to condemn consensual incest or gluttony for that matter? Love thy neighbor they say. Liberalism has as much to do with reason as oil does with water.
Liberals are the most judgmental people on the planet.
If you met a brother and sister who were madly "in love," would you say they should be allowed to marry or those involved in other intrafamilial sexual relationships.
Comparing homosexuality with slavery is a non sequitor. Jesus never abrogated the law against homosexual relations, which falls neatly within the topic of fornication. i.e., all sexual behaviors forbidden in Leviticus.
>>If gay people are to be condemned for being gay (and they are) then the celibate gay person is just as sinful as one who is sexually active.
Incorrect, a person is condemned not for their passions, but for their actions. It's what you do that matters.
The celibate gay, simply for being what he or she is, is more sinful than the heterosexual. Some try to get out of this by pointing to the doctrine of original sin, but that doesn't hold up as original sin covers all people EQUALLY. Some people didn't get more than others. Others recognize the dilemma and insist that being gay must therefore be a choice, which of course is patently ridiculous.
>>Original sin left us subject to sin and death, and how can you say that homosexual behavior is from God and not from the demons if a) God is not the author of evil b) the Bible condemns homosexual behavior without explicit caveats.
All human behaviors and desires are learned, and a dogma of Christian faith is free will. Do you choose to act on her passions? If you choose to act on your passions, how can you not be guilty of them?
If you deny that "being gay" is a choice, all you are doing is being in denial. I choose not to sleep with women. Homosexuality is a passion like all other passions discussed in the Bible,.
As a Christian, I believe that God, through His Son, Jesus Christ, is The Creator. It is not my rules, but His. If He created male and female to be joined, so be it. If He were to change His purposes for creation it would be our privilege to comply. Please stop maligning my worship as fear or prejudice or narrow-mindedness. People do not have to align themselves with God's will, but won't you please stop distorting the truth? Once again, these are HIS rules, not mine (or yours).
You are completely missing and ignoring what the bible's position (God's position) is about homosexuality. It does not matter what YOU or anybody beleives, that is the point.
It's very clear according to God that gay sex is a sin! NOW!, does that person repent from that sin or continue to sin? That is free will.
If that person chooses to repent then only God can forgive the sin through Jesus's death on the cross. If that person is one of God's "ELECT", then Christ shed his blood for that elect person and that person would be following God's laws. Jesus said; "you shall know them by their fruits."
I can care less if someone chooses a life of homosexuality and ignores God's word. It is not up to me to judge that person and all I can do is pray that they repent and God touches them by regeneration. That is what Jesus was saying when he replied; "you must be born again."
If you choose to support your thoughts about homosexuality by not using scripture, there is no basis for your arguement.
This is the problem today we run into rules whether made by man for rule of law or for religion, it is called a status quoe the minority in one way of life does deserve to live how they want, but that doesn't mean I have to accept what in all actuality is a small minority when you take in the fact there are Billions of people on this earth, not just a few million anymore. Also all the fights for there same right's are starting to come back and prove they are in the wrong, I know I don't have to post news links, also is it right that a donor for children have to pay for someone else's poor decision. Or when a women leaves a men to be a companion or married to another woman in the hetro world we would not have to pay alimony because our obligation is taken over by another who takes our place, but yet we want our cake and eat it too. I am tired of conforming to things that are wrong to be made right. Without artificial insimnation then how do you reproduce.
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 2Timonthy 3:1-5
Hello, If people say the are christians then they believe the (BIBLE)and nothing else. This should answer any and all questions and put an end to this (excepting) anything in America nonsence.
1st Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked
will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Everyone needs to remember we are here only for a
short time. And do you really want to be doing something that is wrong in Gods eyes when your heart stops beating?
What a bunch of small-minded fools now claim the mantle of Christianity. The God who created a universe with more stars than grains of sand on earth isn't worried about what two people do in bed. Christians, get your heads out of the gutter.
Debbie J - Maybe Jesus wouldn't be hanging out in gay bars, as you say. He probably wouldn't be spending much time in Hooters or "gentlemen's clubs" either. But who knows?
Anti-gay Christians face a theological dilemma. If gay people are to be condemned for being gay (and they are) then the celibate gay person is just as sinful as one who is sexually active. The celibate gay, simply for being what he or she is, is more sinful than the heterosexual. Some try to get out of this by pointing to the doctrine of original sin, but that doesn't hold up as original sin covers all people EQUALLY. Some people didn't get more than others. Others recognize the dilemma and insist that being gay must therefore be a choice, which of course is patently ridiculous.
Why Gay unions should not be allowed:
- If homosexuality was a correct way of life, we would not be here today. It is as simple as saying that the parts do not fit. It is common sense, males and males or females and females can not reproduce, therefore that lifestyle would have led the human race into extinction, if it would have been tolerated.
- So why should we encourage or "tolerate" this behavior? All it will lead to is the destruction of the human race.
- the foundation of humanity has continued through the 5000=years (scientifically) on the basis of heterosexuality. It can not be denied that no matter what God or what way this Earth was created, heterosexuality, has sustained and continued life on earth for ALL SPECIES.
-this leads to my second point,
-I don't care what science or studies that you throw into this, no matter that male or female animals hang out with the same sex, that has no relation to them being homosexual. It is like saying that little johnny has invited his ten best friends over for his birthday party. They are all boys. Does that make him gay? NO.
-and another of my questions is, why on Earth are you comparing humans to animals. The defining factor that makes the human race superior to all races, is the fact that we humans know the difference from wrong and right. Animals do not. You can not compare humans, (that is moral and decent humans) to animals, because animals are stupid. humans are not animals, we are humans which is why we have been the strongest and smartest form of life on the planet.
Homosexuals are acting like animals in the sense that they only listen to their bodies sexual impulses, totally ignoring what is right from wrong. We have already found that if homosexuality was right, we would not be here, but since we are here, that makes homosexuality the wrong lifestyle.
-the institution of the family, the traditional family is the correct way of life, shown and proven through thousands of years of life on Earth.
Now if you bring religion into it, the christian bible clearly defies and denounces homosexuality. Throughout the bible, many references are made to sexual immorality and homosexual prostitutes, as being wrong and that these people will not inherit the kingdom of God, Heaven. Read 1st corinthians:6, and Tell me that what I just said is not true.
Many people refute this fact, saying that aren't Christians supposed to love all people and accept all people?
The answer is yes. As a christian, it is our duty to love all, including homosexuals. But, that does not mean that as christians we should tolerate their lifestyle. As christians, we are supposed to help these people. As we know, from clear and precise scripture, homosexuals will not go to heaven, so it is our job to help them to pursue a healthy lifestyle: heterosexuality. That is where the love and forgivness of Christ comes into play, he loves all people, even if they sin and turn from his way, but he does not forgive those who do not try to be forgiven, those who do not try to change. That is the christian mission in the lifestyle of homosexuality, to help homosexuals to change.
-For example: as a christian, I can have a gay friend, a friend I dearly cherish, but as a christian, it is my duty to extend the love and forgiveness of God, and try to help my gay friend to change. You can love a gay or lesbian as a human, a person, but you cannot accept their lifestyle.
Many try to refute this argument by saying that homosexuals are born the way that they are. No they choose it. If you, as a christian, accept homosexuality, and believe that homosexuals are born that way, then you are being a hypocrite. Why would your loving God, who loves everyone and everything, who, as you believe created the universe and everything in it, say that homosexuality is wrong and denounce it, and then create homosexuals? Are you saying that God, your God, who created everything did not know what he created? So he didn't know that he created homosexuals, yet says that their lifestyle is sinful? how Dare you confuse the living word of God. Homosexuals are not born gay, if you are a christian, you can not believe that they are, because why would God make homosexuals and say that their way of life is wrong? He wouldn't because he loves all of his creation. He just gives his creation free will, and that is why homosexuals choose to be gay.
-And if you want to bring science into it, there is no clear scientific evidence that declares the cause of homosexuality in humans or animals.
These are all reasons why gay unions or homosexuality in general is not okay. This is not a political issue, it is a moral issue, and issue of right or wrong. They question you need to ask yourseleves is what is right? And very clearly, for a christian: the bible declares homosexuality wrong, as a member of another faith: I'm sure their is some peice of data in your books denying homosexuality, and for atheists or people who don't follow a common or specific religion: common sense shows the truth and living proof of life.
I admire your fervor but I don't think Jesus would fraternize regularly in gay clubs or in South Beach. That is a stretch.
He asked his fellow man to show tolerance and compassion for the outcast. That is what this issue requires from all of us.
As for gay marriage in a church, Martin Luther would probably recommend-- if he were alive today-- to create your own denomination rather than force an entire, entrenched theological system to bend to the winds of change.
It will not.
Henry the VIII couldn't get them to do it and he was king of one of the most powerful monarchies of his time, if my high school history serves me well.
Wow, a "Christian" that doesn't want to see bible verses. How spiritual.
How about this - A couple of strictly secular arguments.
Gays don't produce offspring and as a result, there's no future generation. So it's for survival of the species.
It's unnatural. Our bodies weren't designed to accomodate same sex unions. If this is OK, why not sex with animals, say monkee's. What is the limit? Are there none?
I pray that all those claiming to be christian will at some point finally look into the bible and look for accurate understanding. Matthew 7 talks about those who claim to be Christians but are not. Christianity is not a religion of acceptance but one of discipline. What do you think disciple means? What do you think Matthew 7 is about?
Regarding who Jesus would "hang out with" today, it would be those who accepted his teachings. If we learn nothing else from John 6, we learn Jesus didn't bend his message to make it popular. At that chapter, a "great number" went out from believing in him.
The Jews didn't accept homosexuals, why would you think Jesus would change for today?
And finally, thanks for being a fine example of 2 Tim 4:3.
HISTORY _is_ WARNING US ALL! --- When anything goes, chaos follows!
Let us be reminded of the cause of decays and downfalls of every known great civilizations --- MORALS' DEGRADATION! Avoid thinking that we are far greater than they are and will be in control with our future because ONLY technology changed in our time --- still our human hearts are deceptive and is able to blind the destructive truth of our own harmful desires! DO NOT BE DECEIVED!
Globalization may have opened doors to uplift people’s lives but it caused economic and social adversities like morals’ degradation. Advancing the worship of technology, sex, and luxury. . . Globalization wiped out the nobler purpose of education. . . it has only brought about the need to merely meet the demands in the global jobs market AND successfully produced many men and women with NO CONSCIENCE, WITH CORRUPTED VALUES, AND WITH NO FEAR OF GOD.
Hi Jennifer,
It is an imperative that people open their hearts and stop the dialogue of hate.
I think you are being a bit harsh, majority of the contributions to this discussion seem pretty hate free.
The problem I have, is that if the bible is taken as read ,in its totality,and christianity is based on the bible, then it seems incompatible with a same sex relationship.
In much the same way ,my mixed genetic background, make any desire to be an orthodox jew[conversion not allowed?] , not possible.
This a fault inherent in christianity and the bible, rather than the people they condemn.
Hence my comment.
Hi Anonymous,
Have you had a chance to give some thought to my "certificate authorised by the government".
Keeping in mind that lots of hetero people who are married,haven't gone thru a religous ceremony.
Donna writes:"Anyone who believes in the dignity of the human person, and Jesus’s commandment to love one another and preach the Gospel to anyone who will listen, wouldn’t dare deny the right of one human being to enter into a sanctioned and lifelong commitment with someone he or she loves,"
Ok, I'm married for 20 years with three kids and a stay at home wife. I cant stand my current wife but have found a lovely lady 10 years younger, Time to leave my current old bag. I hope you wont deny me or critisize my right of one human being to enter into a sanctioned and lifelong .... pretty ridiculous eh ?, there are limits on everything even if they sound really really nice.
I just read your last post in which you said:
'I have no problem with religous authorities not recognizing same sex unions in their organizations.
For them to do so ,is in fact, illogical.
Just as illogical, as practicing gays who feel they can be Christians, I might add.'
From my own experience, I am and was a member of a gay affirming and loving Christian church in San Francisco. My relationship with my partner was respected and blessed. The church members prayed for her during her battle with cancer, and we received the personal support and love of many who attend this church. After my partner (who was German) and I returned to Germany because of limitations with her health insurance in America, we received letters of support and visits from friends in the church . And after my partner's death two members of the church came from San Francisco to her memorial service here.
What, in the light of such love, is illogical about feeling we can be Christians?
We are Christians - simply so, thank God.
It is becoming a historical imperative that people, Christians included, open their hearts and stop the dialogue of hate taking place in their minds against gays and lesbians.
Hi Anonymous,
I note your point on the fact that the legal, social, etc benefits of marriage are MOSTLY available by other means. ie NOT All.
I have no problem with religous authorities not recognizing same sex unions in their organizations.
For them to do so ,is in fact, illogical.
Just as illogical, as practicing gays who feel they can be Christians, I might add.
The key words in your post are "certificate authorised by the government".
I would be happy if every adult had equal access to such a certificate.
As far as your reply on discrimination and law, I think you need to look again at that. Inherent in your statement is the premise, homosexual behavior is harmful and evil and dangerous to society. If so , perfectly logical to attack and contain it, any way you can.
If not, then the state should not dicriminate.
All this sad fighting aside, can anyone tell me if there is a gay-friendly church denomination in Germany where I can go, as a lesbian, and learn to be a better loving Christian - towards everyone?
Here's hoping someone has an answer for me,
Jennifer
An email from TDAY on March 6th would have been laughable, were it not so sad. This is a person - probably a male - who has truly swallowed the religious Kool-Aid.
Spouting selective beliefs is not the same as thinking. Running one's life based on a bumper sticker mentality is not the path to either knowledge or salvation.
That was the biggest bunch of nonsense I have ever read Steve. How about this: liberals want to create an atheocracy in the image of the Soviet Union. They want want make us slaves in the name of equality, and if we do not agree, they will send us to re-education camps, or even to the Gulags. The Left loves a good genocide now and then. Demonizing the other side is not an argument. So far, nobody has really even attempted to give in argument supporting same-sex marriage. Are the arguments really that poor?
The whole argument against gay people having equal rights is religious. Churches have the right to (not)perform various ceremonies as they believe. Gay people can get religiously married, e.g. United Churches of Christ, Unitarian-Universalist, Jewish reform, even Jewish Conservative. Also some Episcopal and Presbyterian churches do gay marriage, but the term used is commitment ceremony. There are other independent churches as well.
The whole problem is that Religious ceremonies do not give the legal benefits of marriage. That requires a state marriage license, and a signing of state legal contracts, usually done on the day of the religious marriage ceremony.
Religious conservatives want to control government as well as their religion. This is the real slippery slope. History is full of horrifying genocides and other crimes when religion gets control of government. The crusades - tens of millions murdered in the name of God, witch trials - perhaps a million women burned at the stake by Christians, their guilt 'proven'by being denounced by a neighbor, and of course the church and the neighbor shared the deceased's property. The Inquisition - tens of thousands tortured and murdered for daring to challenge the word - the infallibility of the church. Slavery, supported by biblical passages, women's suffrage - the conservatives wanted to keep women as their property, ending Jim Crow laws that institutionalized virtual slavery for a hundred years after the civil war, and of course inter-racial marriage, finally legalized in 1968. Of course, throughout history, there is the persecution of the Jews, culminating when a man born Catholic led his nation to WWII. His people were fearful due to the terrible economic collapse of the depression, he used the fear to fill his people with hate and 50 million died. This included 6 million of Jesus's own people, the Jews, whose ashes mixed in hitler's smokestack with the ashes of Gernany's Gays and others this madman deemed less then human. Nows there is the long standing abuse of children by the Catholic church - the worst part of the church's - is genocide against children almost the proper term - is the churches sweeping it under the rug, for to solve the problem they'd have to admit their infallibility is a lie, and the whole house of cards would come tumbling down.
So now, we have a new group for the conservative churches to vent their anger upon. It's the gays asking for equality under the law. I've been conventionally married for 39 years, I'm from Massachusetts and am proud that our gay/lesbian citizens there have full marriage rights, and several other states give them the same (state only, not federal) benefits through the partial marriage device called civil unions. I'm proud of these states standing up for another group who fit Jesus ministry of helping the despised, persecuted and dispossessed.
The fundamental problem with conservative Christianity is that they are religions of fear. Do as we say, you go to heaven. Don't do so, you burn in hell. The leaders care only for their own power, even though they don't, and probably can't even fathom what they are doing. They really are the true anti-Christ, for they forget everything Jesus said, twisting it to their dogmas, for they themselves fear that if the truth comes out, yes, the house of cards will fall, as people learn to not check the brains God gave them at the church door, and begin to make the churches houses of social progress, not houses of terror by another name. These houses of worship promote what is really hatred, driven by the fear- hatred's companion - they create of another misunderstood group of our citizens. Via prayer (repetition)it builds a filter into the minds of the faithful so they actually cannot comprehend what they are doing, and they always have blind dogmatic responses when their fears and hatreds are challenged, for they dare not confront the demons planted in their minds.
I'll also note that all these references to the Bible - well the Bible can be endlessly interpreted and selectively used to justify many terrible deed. Marriage has evolved over the centuries, women aren't the property of their husbands and marriages aren't arranged for tribal or business relationships in America. women can work outside the home, Blacks can marry, inter-racial marriage is legal. All this change takes time, for in conservative religions there is little sense of what can be, or what is right, only dogmatic following, rather then thinking and questioning history, of which much of mankind's is so terrible that even God must question what He created.
Most of Western Europe (except Italy, Greece, and No. Ireland), Israel, Canada, the Republic of South Africa (freed of their Christian based nightmare of Apartheid), some parts of Mexico, and New Zealand have either gay marriage, civil unions that grant full nationwide marriage rights except the word, or for France, Switzerland, and Germany partial civil union recognition. America stands almost alone in advanced western nations in letting conservative churches terrorize the minds and blind the eye and heart to the idea of liberty and justice for all, upon which this nation was founded, but has struggled for the whole of its existence. It's about time more of the churches came around to recognize how they condemn and hurt gay people, or even terrorize them, and cause thousands and thousands of suicides, mostly of teen-early twenties youth who are gay. This is just another of the crimes of conservative religion, and we can pray and work that these churches people will see God's light, read the Ten Commandments, and begin to understand. I did.
Many of the legal, social, and financial benefits that marriage provides can all be obtained independent of a marriage certificate authorized by the government. Many of the legal benefits that marriage provides can be obtained through other legal means, such as a will. Second, the criterion for marriage – one man and one woman – does not discriminate against anyone, as the same criterion applies to all people. A heterosexual man cannot marry another man nor can a homosexual man marry another man. Our legal system must apply equally to all citizens, regardless of subjective thoughts and feelings. For example, drug laws are applied equally to all citizens – nobody can legally use drugs, yet nobody argues that drug laws discriminate against drug users because non-users have no desire to use drugs and drug users do. All laws discriminate, but the relative question is whether or not the discrimination is warranted. To simply argue that this is “discrimination” is basically to say nothing at all. If the innovator wants to change established rules, then a good reason must be provided. It discriminates, is not an argument.
Ross
" We have to draw the line somewhere", again a perfectly valid statement. Society is built on such lines.
However, the line has to be drawn in the same place for everyone.
Gay marriage no more condones or promotes, incest, paedophilia, gay incest etc than traditional marriage.
These lines aren't crossed by allowing consensual adult relationships.
We have to draw the line somewhere otherwise we'll start paving the way towards the recognition of unnatural relationships like incest, paedophilia, gay incest etc.
Hi Anonymous,
Quite right, there is nothing contrary between traditional marriage and the golden rule.
However marriage in our society provides legal, social and financial benefits.
I think I would have every right to be aggrieved if my wife and I were ,for instance, denied those benefits, if same sex relationships were the more common variety.
That is discrimination, and I feel does violate the rule.
I notice from other threads that unless procreation is involved, marriage is not appropriate[or for that matter sex]. Such attitudes would seem to outlaw marriage in a whole lot of circumstances.
No marriage for the impotent, the sterile, those women past child bearing age. No sex past the arrival of the required number of children, and in all the above circumstances.
I suppose I could get my wife of 32 years to find me someone among her servant girls to allow me to continue having sex righteously[ie for procreation], but I'd miss her, and that would all be a bit old testament for my liking.
"Hi,I have to admit upfront that having been an atheist from childhood, I struggle to understand the need that requires "GOD" in peoples lives.
But even more puzzling for me, is the lack of understanding of so many "christians", of what seems to be the basic tenet of Jesus's message.
"Do unto others......". I remind you all of the sins of Onan, got a feeling quite a lot of you qualify."
There is nothing contrary between traditional marriage and the Golden Rule. You are making the assumption that if I were homosexual, I would be opposed to traditional marriage. I can only speculate, but considering there are other homosexuals that find nothing wrong with traditional marriage, I would say that I would feel the same way, and thus I would be doing “unto others as you wish them to do unto you”. I would not expect society to endorse my homosexual relationship as “marriage”, anymore than I would expect society to grant me a driver’s license at age twelve.
There is nothing hateful about traditional marriage, and to subscribe these motives to proponents of traditional marriage avoids the actual argument over what the purpose and reason for marriage is. There are many types of relationships, but not all deserve to be called marriage. A homosexual relationship may be wonderful for those experiencing it, but these are private experiences that the public has no interest in endorsing. Marriage is fundamentally of public interest, and unless there is a profound reason for publicly endorsing homosexual relationships, I find no reason in doing so. Homosexuals can continue to enjoy their private relationships without government endorsement.
So, you call yourself Christian? God forbids same gender sex. No ifs, buts or maybes. He destroyed Gomorra because of it. Finding an explanation or loophole or excuse for LGBTs is like finding one for murder. Is murder wrong?
Hi,
I have to admit upfront that having been an atheist from childhood, I struggle to understand the need that requires "GOD" in peoples lives.
But even more puzzling for me, is the lack of understanding of so many "christians", of what seems to be the basic tenet of Jesus's message.
"Do unto others......".
I remind you all of the sins of Onan, got a feeling quite a lot of you qualify.
wow this is a blog
im reading this on my lunchbreak
and if what im getting is that you want to live your life as you see fit.
thats cool and is your right
what fires up most people not just christians
is the fact that we try to live our life as the bible tells us. right or wrong.
and for doing so we are called bigots haters
for letting our belifes be known.
we hear the arguments about not wanting the bible in school.
but we can have a book called my 2 dads
and as far as a hater i am
i hate that i cant watch tv with out somebody
going on and on about how gay they are or who came out of the closet. cussing and all in prime time. i hate that my kids get this forced on them at school from the tv cartoons they should be able to hear both sides.
i hate the billions of dollars that are wasted on unnessery lawsuits by groups that just look for things to sue for.
and as far as the bible is concerned if you dont want to read it dont. But dont go complaining
if we voice our oppenions you do it. fair is fair
dont force your way of life on us
i preach that each man or women has choosen thier path in life.
i will not baptise a child for the simple reason
they have to decide for themselves if they
understand and want to be baptised.
i wont marry gays not because its aginst the law
or im a hater or bigot.
but because in the eyes of my god it is wrong.
i have 2 cusins 1 male 1 female and gay
who i love very much they both have partners and they are pretty cool
i guess what im trying to get at is stick to your belifes but dont force them on others
You are incorrect on numerous accounts. What you have described as a “false dichotomy” is simply a fact. There is a huge difference between a state of being, and a state of behavior. It is impossible to act black in any true sense of the word, but homosexuality is entirely defined by behavior. This is not a “convenient way to separate groups”, but a fact. There may be certain behaviors that are associated with blacks, but being black is not the cause of that behavior – we do not discriminate based on the blackness of an individual, but on that individual’s behavior. Both heterosexuality and homosexuality are fundamentally behavioral issues. In my initial post I never advocated for or against same-sex marriage, I only pointed out the fundamental flaw in comparing homosexuality to race. I also never claimed that homosexuals are solely defined by their homosexual behavior. You are the one that wants to turn one behavioral act into something akin to racial identity. Many things make up an individual’s character, including homosexual behavior.
The fact is that marriage does not take into account behavior. Marriage is simply defined as a unique relationship between one man and one woman. There are many different kinds of relationships, but not all of them warrant the status of marriage. Unless there is a substantial public interest, the public ought not change the meaning of marriage. I fail to see how same-sex marriage is in the public interest. The burden of proof is on the one advocating change - a burden I feel that is far from being surpassed.
You ultimately could not grasp the point behind mentioning the fact that men act more violently. The point is that it is the behavior itself that is wrong, regardless of the underlying causes of that behavior. I thus did not advocate that supporting the discrimination of homosexual behavior is as equally justified as discriminating against violent behavior. You simply jumped to that conclusion. In fact, I never advocated that it is warranted to discriminate against homosexual behavior at all – it may or may not be. There are certainly some forms of behavior that are completely irrelevant. After we agree that the underlying causes of behavior are irrelevant to the morality of that behavior, we can then discuss the morality of homosexuality.
All morality is based on discrimination. The entire basis of morality is discriminating against right and wrong behavior. Your attacks are nothing but platitudes and slogans without any substance. Simply shouting “discrimination” is not an argument. In fact, it shows a lack of argument. The argument is akin to this:
Your argument depends on a false dichotomy--being gay is "only a behavior" while being black or female "doesn't involve behavior." This is a convenient way to separate groups and thereby rationalize discrimination against some but not others. Unfortunately, there is more to being gay, and more to gay people, than what "behaviors" you imagine they exhibit in their bedrooms. (And your imagination must be active and restless, to such energy to these images as a way of rationalizing discrimination against the people who practice them.) Likewise, one could easily argue there are behaviors associated with being black, or female, or obese, but these behaviors do not constitute the characters or identities of these people either. The fact of the matter, as you like to say, is that being gay is not a behavior, any more than being straight is simply a behavior.
You say that men have a tendency to act more violently than women, but we don't discriminate against men as a result, we only curtail their violent behavior. And then you invoke a false analogy, based on a false assumption (so many falsehoods!). Categorizing violent behavior as "inexcusible" is easily justified--it causes undeniable harm, there are undeniable victims, and so on. So, you analogize that discriminating against gay behavior is equally justified--without supporting the assumption that gay behavior is inexcusible. Discrimination is always condoned in the mind of the discriminator because he believes the differences he has chosen to focus on make the target group bad or inferior. To me, it's just a false assumption.
Although you may set your moral compass using discrimination as a guide, racism, sexism, and homophobia are not platitudes--they are offensive behaviors that are enabled by attitudes and arguments like yours, and they should be curtailed instead of excused. It is ironic for you to accuse me of ad hominem attacks, when all I am attacking is your discriminatory "behavior."
My assumption has nothing to do with the causes of behavior. The fact of the matter is that whether or not behavior is determined does not excuse the behavior. It is a fact that men are more conditioned towards violence than women are, but this does not mean that men are excused from committing violent acts, nor does it mean that our criminal justice system is sexist because most prisoners are men. Acts of violent behavior are wrong, regardless of the cause of that behavior. Likewise, the argument for same-sex marriage must be independent of the cause of behaving homosexually.
I most certainly act straight. Whenever I engage in a heterosexual act, I am behaving in a particular manner. Whatever the cause of this behavior is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it has to do with behavior. Nothing about race or color has anything to do with behavior, thus the comparison between homosexuality and race is logically invalid. I discriminate against peoples behavior, like we all do everyday. There is nothing ontologically immoral about discrimination – in fact; it is morally irresponsible not to discriminate. You may not believe it is warranted in the case of same-sex marriage, but your accusations of “discrimination” are meaningless and ad-hominem. I may in fact agree with you if the arguments are convincing, but platitudes of “racism, sexism or homophobia” are weak and pathetic.
Your argument about false analogies is built on a logical problem known as a false assumption. You assume that sexual orientation is a behavioral choice--as you say, like what food someone chooses for breakfast. If you would spend a moment listening to those who know better, you might come to understand that the majority of gay people feel they were born that way, just as you were born straight.
Would you characterize yourself as someone who "acts" straight, or someone who *is* straight? If you're not merely acting, what's the basis of your logic that gay people are acting? When you say that "one most definitely acts homosexual," are you talking about what they do in their bedroom? Do you think it appropriate to use those private actions to classify, as grounds for discrimination, the identity and character of that person?
You've given nothing more than a weak rationalization for discriminating against a group of people for being who they are.
"I wholeheartedly believe that this country and its many Christians will some day look back on its conversations about the gay community as we do now about segregation laws and sanctioned discrimination based on race."
The problem with this statement is that it suffers from a logical fallacy known as a false analogy. It is logically invalid to compare race to sexual orientation, because the two are fundamentally different. Race is simply a state of being, or an appearance – it has nothing to do with character of behavior. On the other hand, sexual orientation has to do with actions and behaviors. One does not act black, but one most definitely acts homosexual. A homosexual lifestyle is more akin to one’s diet than one’s race. It is inappropriate to discriminate against anyone based on their race or color, but it may be appropriate to discriminate against people based on their behavior – in fact we do that all the time. Whether or not such discrimination is warranted in the case of marriage is a separate issue, but the fact is that any comparison between homosexuality and race is fundamentally flawed. There may be wonderful arguments for publicly endorsing same-sex marriage, but turning it into a civil rights issue is not one of them.
Gods laws are still in force, the consequences involved with ordinances are different with regard to old covenant (before Christ) and new covenant (after Christ). One example, old covenant ordinance for the Passover was to kill a lamb. New covenant teaches that Christ was the new passover lamb, thus we are to partake of the symbols of the wine (His blood) and unleavened bread (His body) now at the Passover. True scholars of biblical history know this. Daughters sold into slavery? True then, true today. The point is that it is mans way of doing things, not God's. As a disbeliever, I dont see that you really grasp what has transpired with regard to mankind and God since Eden. I dont expect you to, and I certainly not here to change you or others..just to comment.
I wish I could answer all the questions that are being thrown at me but I'll attempt it.
Chris: I believe these were your question:
Did you choose to be heterosexual?
No, but there are many people with man conditions who would same the same thing. ie violent people not get the dubious distinction of being "programed"
Was it a choice you were presented with?
When I was a child I had "and experience" with another person in my congregation. Did it impact me, yes. Was I young and formable yes. Am I homosexul no.
Why would homosexuals choose it?
In our society we believe in paradoxical things, we belive a persons choice should NEVER be condemned (except when it's illegal) and we also have science telling us that we are genetically determined.
Harry and Chris. The world view of the scriptures is not scientific, theres no question about that. Our modern view however is akin to science worship(scientism). Our modern view of humanity is that he/she is chemicals bouncing against other chemicals overwhich he /she has no control. This degrates humanity down to chemistry. There is no higher purpose, there is no soul to it. Read the existentionalist this is their greatest outcry we don't have souls anymore. We are mechanical beings at the whim of DNA. Just because a gene has been found in common with homosexuals does not follow that they are genetically deermined. Teh christian world view is against this materalistic view of humanity. Man is not simply chemicals bouncing around against other chemicals, there is a higher life. Sex does not just serve for pleasure or procreation. Family and marriage, in teh christian world view, illustrate the community of God. Will the world come crashing down Harry? No but that was never the point of the post. the Church is supposed to stand AGAINST the spirit of the age and call people to a higher standard, Does god love homosexuals, yes, he may even allow many into heaven just like many other sinners, (that's his call not ours) this issue is really about view's of the world. the church should be standing squarely against any view that turns humanity into lables or puppets on a string. homosexuality isn't really the issue it's a question of how we view humanity. The church should be viewing humanity through the eyes of God not through the eyes of science.
Mike: your comments seem to have an undertone that because we are "non-believers" we don't or can't have a full understanding. I find the "believers" see through a prism of their religious reality and are unable access a situation objectively. You are free to believe what you believe...more power to ya...but one can not legislate your beliefs. I have yet to hear how, why, when...if Tom and Bob get married how all of a sudden the foundation of civilazation will come crumbling down. Please, explain this is in detail...event by event AND show example of this happening...like say in Canada. And when explaining NOT use a biblical story (where was Sodom and Gamora...the actual location?)
I have to ask, why do you assume I don't understand how "messy" it all can be. Frankly all of your posts have been quite easy to understand. The history of the Bible is frankly pretty easy to grasp too.
You sound more than a little arrogant with your assumtions about my ability to understand the implications (which you never named BTW) of it all.
Generally speaking America's view of and adherence to the Bible has changed tremendously over the years, yet organized religion flourishes, perhaps more so today than ever before. "Theological implications" be damned. Society changes religion changes along with it. You would have to be an absolute fool with no concept of American history or theological history not to see that. I do not take you for a fool.
Hey, who the last slave owner you knew, or the last Jim Crow law you followed? The last whitch you saw burned at the stake?Like I said the list of changes goes on and on. The church and Christian's views on the Bible do change. Not my opinion, just the way it is.
Yet the Christian church florishes....
I am glad it does, I love my church.
I thought my writing was clear and I think my answers to your posts have been clear and well defined.
Frankly Mike, you have not even made much of an attempt to answer the points in my posts. All you seem to want to do is bellyache about how nobody understands, etc, etc. You never seem to come to an actual point. I made many clear points, most of which you failed to address.
"So, whens the last time you stoned someone? If you have or will ever have a daugher will you sell her into slavery?"
This is the epitome of the fallacy of the reasoning of those who disregard the presence and authority of a Creator God...as if HE caused humans to do the things they did to be stoned- it was the capital punishment of that day and time. So, apparently these who claim there is no God are against the 'stonings' of modern day law (capital punishment) for those who have no remorse in the crimes against humanity that they commit. It seems that there is a correlation to be identified here...such who do not believe in God are opposed to ANY authority over them. Slavery was mans invention. Not God's. If He had suggested guidelines for it, that was His perogative for his purpose. Lets always be certain to put the blame where it belongs. Man rejected God since Eden, hes being doing it, as ol' blue eyes crooned, 'My way' ever since. It is amazing to see all of the 'high intelligence' of those who claim God is not real on this forum. Consider, wether your a believer or not, if mankind had followed the example of how and why Adam and Eve were created, and followed the guidelines in the old and new testament that show the misery that adultery, homosexuality and any type of perversion brings against what was originally ordained as good, then wouldnt we have a world with little or no sexually transmitted disease? The ones who consider those who follow biblical principles as base need to search their minds. Its not rocket science, folks.
Chris i realized that I failed to answer the question but something happened to the site last night so I couldn't answer.
Who knows if homosexuals choose, choice it's self is very difficult to understand and I oubt you unerstand the just how messy the whole thing truely is
Yes you failed to unerstand the analogy thats why your logic is flawed, No I it's not something I don't want to hear. all three of you once again failed to understand ANY part of what I was saying. YOU all ust don't care what the theological implications of this change may be, this COULD be because your not christians, I dont know don't want to be presumptious. But that was my main point, none of you seem care what your "chrisians should ...." implies this is a discussion for christians if your not what makes you qualified to tell us what we "should" believe/
you said.... As far as "cherry picking the Bible goes"-The Holy Bible either is the Infallible Word of God or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. How can you call yourself a true Christian when you don't accept the Natural Law and sound biblical doctrine?
So, whens the last time you stoned someone? If you have or will ever have a daugher will you sell her into slavery?
Lets face it *all christians* cherry pick! Yes, I am quite sure *you* even.
"In homosexual sex there is no procreation there is NO purpose to it other than gratification."
So Mike, I guess we can assume that you and your wife NEVER do "it" unless there is a realistic possibility of conception, right? Doesn't sound like much of a marriage if you two don't do it just for the fun of it. Or don't you see it as fun? My wife and I sure do; and I hope my kids do too, someday, when they're ready, emotionally, financially, socially ....
You do seem like a good guy but i have to say that your morality seems a bit selective. There are plenty of things in the Bible that have been changed and/or ignored over the past 2000+ years.
Women's rights, divorce, dietary laws, the list goes on and on and on. I should know, my Grandfather is a minister, he has pointed out the changes to me since I was a kid.
All Comments (100)
Oh and by the way your title doesn't mean a thing to me. You have no idea whats in the Bible and your an assistant professor. I sure wouldn't want you having anything to do with teaching my kids. your worldly opinions mean nothing to God. He didn't ask you for advice. Oh and by the way what has slavery got to do with Christianity anyway? Once your saved , your not of this world anymore. If you love the world your an enemy of God. Oh and by the way sorry you can't spout off scriptures too LOL the reason for it there is none to back your theory without twisting them.
June 23, 2008 3:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 23, 2008 15:55
Lord have mercy on your soul. I see a bunch of overly educated fools trying to have a form or godlyness but deceiving many and sending them to Hell. I pity you on judgement day young lady.
June 23, 2008 3:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 23, 2008 15:35
Thank you for your eloquent defense of the human dignity of homosexuals. I pray that you are right that in a better future people who call themselves Christians will be embarrassed that their parents were so small minded.
June 21, 2008 5:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 21, 2008 17:30
Talk about "Cherry Picking" verses! In one breath you quote Jesus commanding us to love one another, in another breath you discount any negative mention of Homosexuality in the Bible as "tired" and "weak". For an Assistant Professor of Religion, I'm astonished at your intellectual dishonesty. The Bible is either right or it's not. Your slavery analogy is also "tired and weak." The Bible doesn't encourage slavery. (I presume you are referring to Ephesians) The apostle Paul wants newly-converted slaves to exemplify Christ to their masters through Love, as opposed to Rebellion. That's not an encouragement for Slavery. That's an encouragement for evangelizing through love in the current condition you are in. You should consider a few Hermeneutics courses during your time at Boston College. It will add some credibility to your title.
April 11, 2008 12:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 11, 2008 12:42
Ms. Freitas,
Do you believe that truth is dependent on your feelings? I have met nice homosexuals, but that doesn't change the rational principle that human sexuality -- apart from feelings and from a purely functional perspective -- was designed by God to procreate. Homosexual behavior is fundamentally disordered from a physiological perspective.
Not to mention, homosexuality was removed from the list of mental disorders for political rather than scientific reasons.
Love, passions, etc., are irrelevant. Who the heck are you to judge those who cling to orthodox Christian beliefs about human sexuality as "unChristian."
Why not say its unChristian to condemn consensual incest or gluttony for that matter? Love thy neighbor they say. Liberalism has as much to do with reason as oil does with water.
Liberals are the most judgmental people on the planet.
March 7, 2008 7:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 7, 2008 19:18
If you met a brother and sister who were madly "in love," would you say they should be allowed to marry or those involved in other intrafamilial sexual relationships.
Comparing homosexuality with slavery is a non sequitor. Jesus never abrogated the law against homosexual relations, which falls neatly within the topic of fornication. i.e., all sexual behaviors forbidden in Leviticus.
>>If gay people are to be condemned for being gay (and they are) then the celibate gay person is just as sinful as one who is sexually active.
Incorrect, a person is condemned not for their passions, but for their actions. It's what you do that matters.
The celibate gay, simply for being what he or she is, is more sinful than the heterosexual. Some try to get out of this by pointing to the doctrine of original sin, but that doesn't hold up as original sin covers all people EQUALLY. Some people didn't get more than others. Others recognize the dilemma and insist that being gay must therefore be a choice, which of course is patently ridiculous.
>>Original sin left us subject to sin and death, and how can you say that homosexual behavior is from God and not from the demons if a) God is not the author of evil b) the Bible condemns homosexual behavior without explicit caveats.
All human behaviors and desires are learned, and a dogma of Christian faith is free will. Do you choose to act on her passions? If you choose to act on your passions, how can you not be guilty of them?
If you deny that "being gay" is a choice, all you are doing is being in denial. I choose not to sleep with women. Homosexuality is a passion like all other passions discussed in the Bible,.
March 7, 2008 7:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 7, 2008 19:12
As a Christian, I believe that God, through His Son, Jesus Christ, is The Creator. It is not my rules, but His. If He created male and female to be joined, so be it. If He were to change His purposes for creation it would be our privilege to comply. Please stop maligning my worship as fear or prejudice or narrow-mindedness. People do not have to align themselves with God's will, but won't you please stop distorting the truth? Once again, these are HIS rules, not mine (or yours).
January 26, 2008 4:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 26, 2008 16:31
You are completely missing and ignoring what the bible's position (God's position) is about homosexuality. It does not matter what YOU or anybody beleives, that is the point.
It's very clear according to God that gay sex is a sin! NOW!, does that person repent from that sin or continue to sin? That is free will.
If that person chooses to repent then only God can forgive the sin through Jesus's death on the cross. If that person is one of God's "ELECT", then Christ shed his blood for that elect person and that person would be following God's laws. Jesus said; "you shall know them by their fruits."
I can care less if someone chooses a life of homosexuality and ignores God's word. It is not up to me to judge that person and all I can do is pray that they repent and God touches them by regeneration. That is what Jesus was saying when he replied; "you must be born again."
If you choose to support your thoughts about homosexuality by not using scripture, there is no basis for your arguement.
December 7, 2007 1:02 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 7, 2007 01:02
This is the problem today we run into rules whether made by man for rule of law or for religion, it is called a status quoe the minority in one way of life does deserve to live how they want, but that doesn't mean I have to accept what in all actuality is a small minority when you take in the fact there are Billions of people on this earth, not just a few million anymore. Also all the fights for there same right's are starting to come back and prove they are in the wrong, I know I don't have to post news links, also is it right that a donor for children have to pay for someone else's poor decision. Or when a women leaves a men to be a companion or married to another woman in the hetro world we would not have to pay alimony because our obligation is taken over by another who takes our place, but yet we want our cake and eat it too. I am tired of conforming to things that are wrong to be made right. Without artificial insimnation then how do you reproduce.
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 2Timonthy 3:1-5
July 25, 2007 10:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 25, 2007 10:32
Hello, If people say the are christians then they believe the (BIBLE)and nothing else. This should answer any and all questions and put an end to this (excepting) anything in America nonsence.
1st Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked
will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Everyone needs to remember we are here only for a
short time. And do you really want to be doing something that is wrong in Gods eyes when your heart stops beating?
June 23, 2007 8:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 23, 2007 20:12
What a bunch of small-minded fools now claim the mantle of Christianity. The God who created a universe with more stars than grains of sand on earth isn't worried about what two people do in bed. Christians, get your heads out of the gutter.
June 23, 2007 2:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 23, 2007 14:31
Debbie J - Maybe Jesus wouldn't be hanging out in gay bars, as you say. He probably wouldn't be spending much time in Hooters or "gentlemen's clubs" either. But who knows?
June 20, 2007 1:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 20, 2007 13:03
Anti-gay Christians face a theological dilemma. If gay people are to be condemned for being gay (and they are) then the celibate gay person is just as sinful as one who is sexually active. The celibate gay, simply for being what he or she is, is more sinful than the heterosexual. Some try to get out of this by pointing to the doctrine of original sin, but that doesn't hold up as original sin covers all people EQUALLY. Some people didn't get more than others. Others recognize the dilemma and insist that being gay must therefore be a choice, which of course is patently ridiculous.
June 20, 2007 12:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 20, 2007 12:54
Why Gay unions should not be allowed:
- If homosexuality was a correct way of life, we would not be here today. It is as simple as saying that the parts do not fit. It is common sense, males and males or females and females can not reproduce, therefore that lifestyle would have led the human race into extinction, if it would have been tolerated.
- So why should we encourage or "tolerate" this behavior? All it will lead to is the destruction of the human race.
- the foundation of humanity has continued through the 5000=years (scientifically) on the basis of heterosexuality. It can not be denied that no matter what God or what way this Earth was created, heterosexuality, has sustained and continued life on earth for ALL SPECIES.
-this leads to my second point,
-I don't care what science or studies that you throw into this, no matter that male or female animals hang out with the same sex, that has no relation to them being homosexual. It is like saying that little johnny has invited his ten best friends over for his birthday party. They are all boys. Does that make him gay? NO.
-and another of my questions is, why on Earth are you comparing humans to animals. The defining factor that makes the human race superior to all races, is the fact that we humans know the difference from wrong and right. Animals do not. You can not compare humans, (that is moral and decent humans) to animals, because animals are stupid. humans are not animals, we are humans which is why we have been the strongest and smartest form of life on the planet.
Homosexuals are acting like animals in the sense that they only listen to their bodies sexual impulses, totally ignoring what is right from wrong. We have already found that if homosexuality was right, we would not be here, but since we are here, that makes homosexuality the wrong lifestyle.
-the institution of the family, the traditional family is the correct way of life, shown and proven through thousands of years of life on Earth.
Now if you bring religion into it, the christian bible clearly defies and denounces homosexuality. Throughout the bible, many references are made to sexual immorality and homosexual prostitutes, as being wrong and that these people will not inherit the kingdom of God, Heaven. Read 1st corinthians:6, and Tell me that what I just said is not true.
Many people refute this fact, saying that aren't Christians supposed to love all people and accept all people?
The answer is yes. As a christian, it is our duty to love all, including homosexuals. But, that does not mean that as christians we should tolerate their lifestyle. As christians, we are supposed to help these people. As we know, from clear and precise scripture, homosexuals will not go to heaven, so it is our job to help them to pursue a healthy lifestyle: heterosexuality. That is where the love and forgivness of Christ comes into play, he loves all people, even if they sin and turn from his way, but he does not forgive those who do not try to be forgiven, those who do not try to change. That is the christian mission in the lifestyle of homosexuality, to help homosexuals to change.
-For example: as a christian, I can have a gay friend, a friend I dearly cherish, but as a christian, it is my duty to extend the love and forgiveness of God, and try to help my gay friend to change. You can love a gay or lesbian as a human, a person, but you cannot accept their lifestyle.
Many try to refute this argument by saying that homosexuals are born the way that they are. No they choose it. If you, as a christian, accept homosexuality, and believe that homosexuals are born that way, then you are being a hypocrite. Why would your loving God, who loves everyone and everything, who, as you believe created the universe and everything in it, say that homosexuality is wrong and denounce it, and then create homosexuals? Are you saying that God, your God, who created everything did not know what he created? So he didn't know that he created homosexuals, yet says that their lifestyle is sinful? how Dare you confuse the living word of God. Homosexuals are not born gay, if you are a christian, you can not believe that they are, because why would God make homosexuals and say that their way of life is wrong? He wouldn't because he loves all of his creation. He just gives his creation free will, and that is why homosexuals choose to be gay.
-And if you want to bring science into it, there is no clear scientific evidence that declares the cause of homosexuality in humans or animals.
These are all reasons why gay unions or homosexuality in general is not okay. This is not a political issue, it is a moral issue, and issue of right or wrong. They question you need to ask yourseleves is what is right? And very clearly, for a christian: the bible declares homosexuality wrong, as a member of another faith: I'm sure their is some peice of data in your books denying homosexuality, and for atheists or people who don't follow a common or specific religion: common sense shows the truth and living proof of life.
Thank You
May 19, 2007 12:46 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 19, 2007 00:46
I admire your fervor but I don't think Jesus would fraternize regularly in gay clubs or in South Beach. That is a stretch.
He asked his fellow man to show tolerance and compassion for the outcast. That is what this issue requires from all of us.
As for gay marriage in a church, Martin Luther would probably recommend-- if he were alive today-- to create your own denomination rather than force an entire, entrenched theological system to bend to the winds of change.
It will not.
Henry the VIII couldn't get them to do it and he was king of one of the most powerful monarchies of his time, if my high school history serves me well.
May 18, 2007 4:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 18, 2007 16:56
Wow, a "Christian" that doesn't want to see bible verses. How spiritual.
How about this - A couple of strictly secular arguments.
Gays don't produce offspring and as a result, there's no future generation. So it's for survival of the species.
It's unnatural. Our bodies weren't designed to accomodate same sex unions. If this is OK, why not sex with animals, say monkee's. What is the limit? Are there none?
I pray that all those claiming to be christian will at some point finally look into the bible and look for accurate understanding. Matthew 7 talks about those who claim to be Christians but are not. Christianity is not a religion of acceptance but one of discipline. What do you think disciple means? What do you think Matthew 7 is about?
Regarding who Jesus would "hang out with" today, it would be those who accepted his teachings. If we learn nothing else from John 6, we learn Jesus didn't bend his message to make it popular. At that chapter, a "great number" went out from believing in him.
The Jews didn't accept homosexuals, why would you think Jesus would change for today?
And finally, thanks for being a fine example of 2 Tim 4:3.
May 17, 2007 10:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 17, 2007 22:24
HISTORY _is_ WARNING US ALL! --- When anything goes, chaos follows!
Let us be reminded of the cause of decays and downfalls of every known great civilizations --- MORALS' DEGRADATION! Avoid thinking that we are far greater than they are and will be in control with our future because ONLY technology changed in our time --- still our human hearts are deceptive and is able to blind the destructive truth of our own harmful desires! DO NOT BE DECEIVED!
Globalization may have opened doors to uplift people’s lives but it caused economic and social adversities like morals’ degradation. Advancing the worship of technology, sex, and luxury. . . Globalization wiped out the nobler purpose of education. . . it has only brought about the need to merely meet the demands in the global jobs market AND successfully produced many men and women with NO CONSCIENCE, WITH CORRUPTED VALUES, AND WITH NO FEAR OF GOD.
April 6, 2007 5:33 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 6, 2007 05:33
Hi Jennifer,
It is an imperative that people open their hearts and stop the dialogue of hate.
I think you are being a bit harsh, majority of the contributions to this discussion seem pretty hate free.
The problem I have, is that if the bible is taken as read ,in its totality,and christianity is based on the bible, then it seems incompatible with a same sex relationship.
In much the same way ,my mixed genetic background, make any desire to be an orthodox jew[conversion not allowed?] , not possible.
This a fault inherent in christianity and the bible, rather than the people they condemn.
Hence my comment.
Hi Anonymous,
Have you had a chance to give some thought to my "certificate authorised by the government".
Keeping in mind that lots of hetero people who are married,haven't gone thru a religous ceremony.
March 20, 2007 5:29 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 20, 2007 05:29
Donna, yes Jesus hung out with the oppressed, but he never failed to point out their sins!
March 19, 2007 1:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 19, 2007 13:18
Donna writes:"Anyone who believes in the dignity of the human person, and Jesus’s commandment to love one another and preach the Gospel to anyone who will listen, wouldn’t dare deny the right of one human being to enter into a sanctioned and lifelong commitment with someone he or she loves,"
Ok, I'm married for 20 years with three kids and a stay at home wife. I cant stand my current wife but have found a lovely lady 10 years younger, Time to leave my current old bag. I hope you wont deny me or critisize my right of one human being to enter into a sanctioned and lifelong .... pretty ridiculous eh ?, there are limits on everything even if they sound really really nice.
March 18, 2007 11:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 18, 2007 23:51
Dear Ron:
I just read your last post in which you said:
'I have no problem with religous authorities not recognizing same sex unions in their organizations.
For them to do so ,is in fact, illogical.
Just as illogical, as practicing gays who feel they can be Christians, I might add.'
From my own experience, I am and was a member of a gay affirming and loving Christian church in San Francisco. My relationship with my partner was respected and blessed. The church members prayed for her during her battle with cancer, and we received the personal support and love of many who attend this church. After my partner (who was German) and I returned to Germany because of limitations with her health insurance in America, we received letters of support and visits from friends in the church . And after my partner's death two members of the church came from San Francisco to her memorial service here.
What, in the light of such love, is illogical about feeling we can be Christians?
We are Christians - simply so, thank God.
It is becoming a historical imperative that people, Christians included, open their hearts and stop the dialogue of hate taking place in their minds against gays and lesbians.
March 18, 2007 4:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 18, 2007 16:14
Hi Anonymous,
I note your point on the fact that the legal, social, etc benefits of marriage are MOSTLY available by other means. ie NOT All.
I have no problem with religous authorities not recognizing same sex unions in their organizations.
For them to do so ,is in fact, illogical.
Just as illogical, as practicing gays who feel they can be Christians, I might add.
The key words in your post are "certificate authorised by the government".
I would be happy if every adult had equal access to such a certificate.
As far as your reply on discrimination and law, I think you need to look again at that. Inherent in your statement is the premise, homosexual behavior is harmful and evil and dangerous to society. If so , perfectly logical to attack and contain it, any way you can.
If not, then the state should not dicriminate.
March 17, 2007 9:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 17, 2007 21:28
All this sad fighting aside, can anyone tell me if there is a gay-friendly church denomination in Germany where I can go, as a lesbian, and learn to be a better loving Christian - towards everyone?
Here's hoping someone has an answer for me,
Jennifer
March 14, 2007 2:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 14, 2007 14:32
An email from TDAY on March 6th would have been laughable, were it not so sad. This is a person - probably a male - who has truly swallowed the religious Kool-Aid.
Spouting selective beliefs is not the same as thinking. Running one's life based on a bumper sticker mentality is not the path to either knowledge or salvation.
March 14, 2007 1:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 14, 2007 13:16
That was the biggest bunch of nonsense I have ever read Steve. How about this: liberals want to create an atheocracy in the image of the Soviet Union. They want want make us slaves in the name of equality, and if we do not agree, they will send us to re-education camps, or even to the Gulags. The Left loves a good genocide now and then. Demonizing the other side is not an argument. So far, nobody has really even attempted to give in argument supporting same-sex marriage. Are the arguments really that poor?
March 12, 2007 10:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2007 22:08
The whole argument against gay people having equal rights is religious. Churches have the right to (not)perform various ceremonies as they believe. Gay people can get religiously married, e.g. United Churches of Christ, Unitarian-Universalist, Jewish reform, even Jewish Conservative. Also some Episcopal and Presbyterian churches do gay marriage, but the term used is commitment ceremony. There are other independent churches as well.
The whole problem is that Religious ceremonies do not give the legal benefits of marriage. That requires a state marriage license, and a signing of state legal contracts, usually done on the day of the religious marriage ceremony.
Religious conservatives want to control government as well as their religion. This is the real slippery slope. History is full of horrifying genocides and other crimes when religion gets control of government. The crusades - tens of millions murdered in the name of God, witch trials - perhaps a million women burned at the stake by Christians, their guilt 'proven'by being denounced by a neighbor, and of course the church and the neighbor shared the deceased's property. The Inquisition - tens of thousands tortured and murdered for daring to challenge the word - the infallibility of the church. Slavery, supported by biblical passages, women's suffrage - the conservatives wanted to keep women as their property, ending Jim Crow laws that institutionalized virtual slavery for a hundred years after the civil war, and of course inter-racial marriage, finally legalized in 1968. Of course, throughout history, there is the persecution of the Jews, culminating when a man born Catholic led his nation to WWII. His people were fearful due to the terrible economic collapse of the depression, he used the fear to fill his people with hate and 50 million died. This included 6 million of Jesus's own people, the Jews, whose ashes mixed in hitler's smokestack with the ashes of Gernany's Gays and others this madman deemed less then human. Nows there is the long standing abuse of children by the Catholic church - the worst part of the church's - is genocide against children almost the proper term - is the churches sweeping it under the rug, for to solve the problem they'd have to admit their infallibility is a lie, and the whole house of cards would come tumbling down.
So now, we have a new group for the conservative churches to vent their anger upon. It's the gays asking for equality under the law. I've been conventionally married for 39 years, I'm from Massachusetts and am proud that our gay/lesbian citizens there have full marriage rights, and several other states give them the same (state only, not federal) benefits through the partial marriage device called civil unions. I'm proud of these states standing up for another group who fit Jesus ministry of helping the despised, persecuted and dispossessed.
The fundamental problem with conservative Christianity is that they are religions of fear. Do as we say, you go to heaven. Don't do so, you burn in hell. The leaders care only for their own power, even though they don't, and probably can't even fathom what they are doing. They really are the true anti-Christ, for they forget everything Jesus said, twisting it to their dogmas, for they themselves fear that if the truth comes out, yes, the house of cards will fall, as people learn to not check the brains God gave them at the church door, and begin to make the churches houses of social progress, not houses of terror by another name. These houses of worship promote what is really hatred, driven by the fear- hatred's companion - they create of another misunderstood group of our citizens. Via prayer (repetition)it builds a filter into the minds of the faithful so they actually cannot comprehend what they are doing, and they always have blind dogmatic responses when their fears and hatreds are challenged, for they dare not confront the demons planted in their minds.
I'll also note that all these references to the Bible - well the Bible can be endlessly interpreted and selectively used to justify many terrible deed. Marriage has evolved over the centuries, women aren't the property of their husbands and marriages aren't arranged for tribal or business relationships in America. women can work outside the home, Blacks can marry, inter-racial marriage is legal. All this change takes time, for in conservative religions there is little sense of what can be, or what is right, only dogmatic following, rather then thinking and questioning history, of which much of mankind's is so terrible that even God must question what He created.
Most of Western Europe (except Italy, Greece, and No. Ireland), Israel, Canada, the Republic of South Africa (freed of their Christian based nightmare of Apartheid), some parts of Mexico, and New Zealand have either gay marriage, civil unions that grant full nationwide marriage rights except the word, or for France, Switzerland, and Germany partial civil union recognition. America stands almost alone in advanced western nations in letting conservative churches terrorize the minds and blind the eye and heart to the idea of liberty and justice for all, upon which this nation was founded, but has struggled for the whole of its existence. It's about time more of the churches came around to recognize how they condemn and hurt gay people, or even terrorize them, and cause thousands and thousands of suicides, mostly of teen-early twenties youth who are gay. This is just another of the crimes of conservative religion, and we can pray and work that these churches people will see God's light, read the Ten Commandments, and begin to understand. I did.
March 12, 2007 5:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2007 17:12
RON BAUER
Many of the legal, social, and financial benefits that marriage provides can all be obtained independent of a marriage certificate authorized by the government. Many of the legal benefits that marriage provides can be obtained through other legal means, such as a will. Second, the criterion for marriage – one man and one woman – does not discriminate against anyone, as the same criterion applies to all people. A heterosexual man cannot marry another man nor can a homosexual man marry another man. Our legal system must apply equally to all citizens, regardless of subjective thoughts and feelings. For example, drug laws are applied equally to all citizens – nobody can legally use drugs, yet nobody argues that drug laws discriminate against drug users because non-users have no desire to use drugs and drug users do. All laws discriminate, but the relative question is whether or not the discrimination is warranted. To simply argue that this is “discrimination” is basically to say nothing at all. If the innovator wants to change established rules, then a good reason must be provided. It discriminates, is not an argument.
March 12, 2007 11:47 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2007 11:47
Ross
" We have to draw the line somewhere", again a perfectly valid statement. Society is built on such lines.
However, the line has to be drawn in the same place for everyone.
Gay marriage no more condones or promotes, incest, paedophilia, gay incest etc than traditional marriage.
These lines aren't crossed by allowing consensual adult relationships.
March 11, 2007 10:24 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 11, 2007 10:24
Donna,
We have to draw the line somewhere otherwise we'll start paving the way towards the recognition of unnatural relationships like incest, paedophilia, gay incest etc.
March 11, 2007 6:13 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 11, 2007 06:13
Hi Anonymous,
Quite right, there is nothing contrary between traditional marriage and the golden rule.
However marriage in our society provides legal, social and financial benefits.
I think I would have every right to be aggrieved if my wife and I were ,for instance, denied those benefits, if same sex relationships were the more common variety.
That is discrimination, and I feel does violate the rule.
I notice from other threads that unless procreation is involved, marriage is not appropriate[or for that matter sex]. Such attitudes would seem to outlaw marriage in a whole lot of circumstances.
No marriage for the impotent, the sterile, those women past child bearing age. No sex past the arrival of the required number of children, and in all the above circumstances.
I suppose I could get my wife of 32 years to find me someone among her servant girls to allow me to continue having sex righteously[ie for procreation], but I'd miss her, and that would all be a bit old testament for my liking.
March 10, 2007 10:48 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 10, 2007 10:48
"Hi,I have to admit upfront that having been an atheist from childhood, I struggle to understand the need that requires "GOD" in peoples lives.
But even more puzzling for me, is the lack of understanding of so many "christians", of what seems to be the basic tenet of Jesus's message.
"Do unto others......". I remind you all of the sins of Onan, got a feeling quite a lot of you qualify."
There is nothing contrary between traditional marriage and the Golden Rule. You are making the assumption that if I were homosexual, I would be opposed to traditional marriage. I can only speculate, but considering there are other homosexuals that find nothing wrong with traditional marriage, I would say that I would feel the same way, and thus I would be doing “unto others as you wish them to do unto you”. I would not expect society to endorse my homosexual relationship as “marriage”, anymore than I would expect society to grant me a driver’s license at age twelve.
There is nothing hateful about traditional marriage, and to subscribe these motives to proponents of traditional marriage avoids the actual argument over what the purpose and reason for marriage is. There are many types of relationships, but not all deserve to be called marriage. A homosexual relationship may be wonderful for those experiencing it, but these are private experiences that the public has no interest in endorsing. Marriage is fundamentally of public interest, and unless there is a profound reason for publicly endorsing homosexual relationships, I find no reason in doing so. Homosexuals can continue to enjoy their private relationships without government endorsement.
March 9, 2007 3:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 15:16
So, you call yourself Christian? God forbids same gender sex. No ifs, buts or maybes. He destroyed Gomorra because of it. Finding an explanation or loophole or excuse for LGBTs is like finding one for murder. Is murder wrong?
March 9, 2007 2:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 14:21
Hi,
I have to admit upfront that having been an atheist from childhood, I struggle to understand the need that requires "GOD" in peoples lives.
But even more puzzling for me, is the lack of understanding of so many "christians", of what seems to be the basic tenet of Jesus's message.
"Do unto others......".
I remind you all of the sins of Onan, got a feeling quite a lot of you qualify.
March 9, 2007 4:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 04:42
wow this is a blog
im reading this on my lunchbreak
and if what im getting is that you want to live your life as you see fit.
thats cool and is your right
what fires up most people not just christians
is the fact that we try to live our life as the bible tells us. right or wrong.
and for doing so we are called bigots haters
for letting our belifes be known.
we hear the arguments about not wanting the bible in school.
but we can have a book called my 2 dads
and as far as a hater i am
i hate that i cant watch tv with out somebody
going on and on about how gay they are or who came out of the closet. cussing and all in prime time. i hate that my kids get this forced on them at school from the tv cartoons they should be able to hear both sides.
i hate the billions of dollars that are wasted on unnessery lawsuits by groups that just look for things to sue for.
and as far as the bible is concerned if you dont want to read it dont. But dont go complaining
if we voice our oppenions you do it. fair is fair
dont force your way of life on us
i preach that each man or women has choosen thier path in life.
i will not baptise a child for the simple reason
they have to decide for themselves if they
understand and want to be baptised.
i wont marry gays not because its aginst the law
or im a hater or bigot.
but because in the eyes of my god it is wrong.
i have 2 cusins 1 male 1 female and gay
who i love very much they both have partners and they are pretty cool
i guess what im trying to get at is stick to your belifes but dont force them on others
March 8, 2007 4:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 8, 2007 16:07
You are incorrect on numerous accounts. What you have described as a “false dichotomy” is simply a fact. There is a huge difference between a state of being, and a state of behavior. It is impossible to act black in any true sense of the word, but homosexuality is entirely defined by behavior. This is not a “convenient way to separate groups”, but a fact. There may be certain behaviors that are associated with blacks, but being black is not the cause of that behavior – we do not discriminate based on the blackness of an individual, but on that individual’s behavior. Both heterosexuality and homosexuality are fundamentally behavioral issues. In my initial post I never advocated for or against same-sex marriage, I only pointed out the fundamental flaw in comparing homosexuality to race. I also never claimed that homosexuals are solely defined by their homosexual behavior. You are the one that wants to turn one behavioral act into something akin to racial identity. Many things make up an individual’s character, including homosexual behavior.
The fact is that marriage does not take into account behavior. Marriage is simply defined as a unique relationship between one man and one woman. There are many different kinds of relationships, but not all of them warrant the status of marriage. Unless there is a substantial public interest, the public ought not change the meaning of marriage. I fail to see how same-sex marriage is in the public interest. The burden of proof is on the one advocating change - a burden I feel that is far from being surpassed.
You ultimately could not grasp the point behind mentioning the fact that men act more violently. The point is that it is the behavior itself that is wrong, regardless of the underlying causes of that behavior. I thus did not advocate that supporting the discrimination of homosexual behavior is as equally justified as discriminating against violent behavior. You simply jumped to that conclusion. In fact, I never advocated that it is warranted to discriminate against homosexual behavior at all – it may or may not be. There are certainly some forms of behavior that are completely irrelevant. After we agree that the underlying causes of behavior are irrelevant to the morality of that behavior, we can then discuss the morality of homosexuality.
All morality is based on discrimination. The entire basis of morality is discriminating against right and wrong behavior. Your attacks are nothing but platitudes and slogans without any substance. Simply shouting “discrimination” is not an argument. In fact, it shows a lack of argument. The argument is akin to this:
If you support tax cuts, you hate poor people.
Oh how I have heard it all before.
March 7, 2007 10:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 7, 2007 22:48
Your argument depends on a false dichotomy--being gay is "only a behavior" while being black or female "doesn't involve behavior." This is a convenient way to separate groups and thereby rationalize discrimination against some but not others. Unfortunately, there is more to being gay, and more to gay people, than what "behaviors" you imagine they exhibit in their bedrooms. (And your imagination must be active and restless, to such energy to these images as a way of rationalizing discrimination against the people who practice them.) Likewise, one could easily argue there are behaviors associated with being black, or female, or obese, but these behaviors do not constitute the characters or identities of these people either. The fact of the matter, as you like to say, is that being gay is not a behavior, any more than being straight is simply a behavior.
You say that men have a tendency to act more violently than women, but we don't discriminate against men as a result, we only curtail their violent behavior. And then you invoke a false analogy, based on a false assumption (so many falsehoods!). Categorizing violent behavior as "inexcusible" is easily justified--it causes undeniable harm, there are undeniable victims, and so on. So, you analogize that discriminating against gay behavior is equally justified--without supporting the assumption that gay behavior is inexcusible. Discrimination is always condoned in the mind of the discriminator because he believes the differences he has chosen to focus on make the target group bad or inferior. To me, it's just a false assumption.
Although you may set your moral compass using discrimination as a guide, racism, sexism, and homophobia are not platitudes--they are offensive behaviors that are enabled by attitudes and arguments like yours, and they should be curtailed instead of excused. It is ironic for you to accuse me of ad hominem attacks, when all I am attacking is your discriminatory "behavior."
March 7, 2007 9:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 7, 2007 21:43
RAFAEL
My assumption has nothing to do with the causes of behavior. The fact of the matter is that whether or not behavior is determined does not excuse the behavior. It is a fact that men are more conditioned towards violence than women are, but this does not mean that men are excused from committing violent acts, nor does it mean that our criminal justice system is sexist because most prisoners are men. Acts of violent behavior are wrong, regardless of the cause of that behavior. Likewise, the argument for same-sex marriage must be independent of the cause of behaving homosexually.
I most certainly act straight. Whenever I engage in a heterosexual act, I am behaving in a particular manner. Whatever the cause of this behavior is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it has to do with behavior. Nothing about race or color has anything to do with behavior, thus the comparison between homosexuality and race is logically invalid. I discriminate against peoples behavior, like we all do everyday. There is nothing ontologically immoral about discrimination – in fact; it is morally irresponsible not to discriminate. You may not believe it is warranted in the case of same-sex marriage, but your accusations of “discrimination” are meaningless and ad-hominem. I may in fact agree with you if the arguments are convincing, but platitudes of “racism, sexism or homophobia” are weak and pathetic.
March 7, 2007 7:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 7, 2007 19:20
KS,
Your argument about false analogies is built on a logical problem known as a false assumption. You assume that sexual orientation is a behavioral choice--as you say, like what food someone chooses for breakfast. If you would spend a moment listening to those who know better, you might come to understand that the majority of gay people feel they were born that way, just as you were born straight.
Would you characterize yourself as someone who "acts" straight, or someone who *is* straight? If you're not merely acting, what's the basis of your logic that gay people are acting? When you say that "one most definitely acts homosexual," are you talking about what they do in their bedroom? Do you think it appropriate to use those private actions to classify, as grounds for discrimination, the identity and character of that person?
You've given nothing more than a weak rationalization for discriminating against a group of people for being who they are.
March 7, 2007 6:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 7, 2007 18:43
"I wholeheartedly believe that this country and its many Christians will some day look back on its conversations about the gay community as we do now about segregation laws and sanctioned discrimination based on race."
The problem with this statement is that it suffers from a logical fallacy known as a false analogy. It is logically invalid to compare race to sexual orientation, because the two are fundamentally different. Race is simply a state of being, or an appearance – it has nothing to do with character of behavior. On the other hand, sexual orientation has to do with actions and behaviors. One does not act black, but one most definitely acts homosexual. A homosexual lifestyle is more akin to one’s diet than one’s race. It is inappropriate to discriminate against anyone based on their race or color, but it may be appropriate to discriminate against people based on their behavior – in fact we do that all the time. Whether or not such discrimination is warranted in the case of marriage is a separate issue, but the fact is that any comparison between homosexuality and race is fundamentally flawed. There may be wonderful arguments for publicly endorsing same-sex marriage, but turning it into a civil rights issue is not one of them.
March 7, 2007 4:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 7, 2007 16:57
George,
Gods laws are still in force, the consequences involved with ordinances are different with regard to old covenant (before Christ) and new covenant (after Christ). One example, old covenant ordinance for the Passover was to kill a lamb. New covenant teaches that Christ was the new passover lamb, thus we are to partake of the symbols of the wine (His blood) and unleavened bread (His body) now at the Passover. True scholars of biblical history know this. Daughters sold into slavery? True then, true today. The point is that it is mans way of doing things, not God's. As a disbeliever, I dont see that you really grasp what has transpired with regard to mankind and God since Eden. I dont expect you to, and I certainly not here to change you or others..just to comment.
March 7, 2007 12:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 7, 2007 12:15
Harry Chris,
I wish I could answer all the questions that are being thrown at me but I'll attempt it.
Chris: I believe these were your question:
Did you choose to be heterosexual?
No, but there are many people with man conditions who would same the same thing. ie violent people not get the dubious distinction of being "programed"
Was it a choice you were presented with?
When I was a child I had "and experience" with another person in my congregation. Did it impact me, yes. Was I young and formable yes. Am I homosexul no.
Why would homosexuals choose it?
In our society we believe in paradoxical things, we belive a persons choice should NEVER be condemned (except when it's illegal) and we also have science telling us that we are genetically determined.
Harry and Chris. The world view of the scriptures is not scientific, theres no question about that. Our modern view however is akin to science worship(scientism). Our modern view of humanity is that he/she is chemicals bouncing against other chemicals overwhich he /she has no control. This degrates humanity down to chemistry. There is no higher purpose, there is no soul to it. Read the existentionalist this is their greatest outcry we don't have souls anymore. We are mechanical beings at the whim of DNA. Just because a gene has been found in common with homosexuals does not follow that they are genetically deermined. Teh christian world view is against this materalistic view of humanity. Man is not simply chemicals bouncing around against other chemicals, there is a higher life. Sex does not just serve for pleasure or procreation. Family and marriage, in teh christian world view, illustrate the community of God. Will the world come crashing down Harry? No but that was never the point of the post. the Church is supposed to stand AGAINST the spirit of the age and call people to a higher standard, Does god love homosexuals, yes, he may even allow many into heaven just like many other sinners, (that's his call not ours) this issue is really about view's of the world. the church should be standing squarely against any view that turns humanity into lables or puppets on a string. homosexuality isn't really the issue it's a question of how we view humanity. The church should be viewing humanity through the eyes of God not through the eyes of science.
March 7, 2007 10:29 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 7, 2007 10:29
Sorry Tday,
The Bible is very clear that we are to stone those who work on the Sabbath (among other "stonable" offences)
The Bible is also very clear on daughters being sold into slavery.
Robin made a good point.
You responded with a semi-coherent mish-mash....
March 7, 2007 10:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 7, 2007 10:14
Mike: your comments seem to have an undertone that because we are "non-believers" we don't or can't have a full understanding. I find the "believers" see through a prism of their religious reality and are unable access a situation objectively. You are free to believe what you believe...more power to ya...but one can not legislate your beliefs. I have yet to hear how, why, when...if Tom and Bob get married how all of a sudden the foundation of civilazation will come crumbling down. Please, explain this is in detail...event by event AND show example of this happening...like say in Canada. And when explaining NOT use a biblical story (where was Sodom and Gamora...the actual location?)
Rapheal: thanks for you posts!
March 7, 2007 10:10 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 7, 2007 10:10
Mike,
I have to ask, why do you assume I don't understand how "messy" it all can be. Frankly all of your posts have been quite easy to understand. The history of the Bible is frankly pretty easy to grasp too.
You sound more than a little arrogant with your assumtions about my ability to understand the implications (which you never named BTW) of it all.
Generally speaking America's view of and adherence to the Bible has changed tremendously over the years, yet organized religion flourishes, perhaps more so today than ever before. "Theological implications" be damned. Society changes religion changes along with it. You would have to be an absolute fool with no concept of American history or theological history not to see that. I do not take you for a fool.
Hey, who the last slave owner you knew, or the last Jim Crow law you followed? The last whitch you saw burned at the stake?Like I said the list of changes goes on and on. The church and Christian's views on the Bible do change. Not my opinion, just the way it is.
Yet the Christian church florishes....
I am glad it does, I love my church.
I thought my writing was clear and I think my answers to your posts have been clear and well defined.
Frankly Mike, you have not even made much of an attempt to answer the points in my posts. All you seem to want to do is bellyache about how nobody understands, etc, etc. You never seem to come to an actual point. I made many clear points, most of which you failed to address.
March 7, 2007 10:05 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 7, 2007 10:05
Robin stated above:
"So, whens the last time you stoned someone? If you have or will ever have a daugher will you sell her into slavery?"
This is the epitome of the fallacy of the reasoning of those who disregard the presence and authority of a Creator God...as if HE caused humans to do the things they did to be stoned- it was the capital punishment of that day and time. So, apparently these who claim there is no God are against the 'stonings' of modern day law (capital punishment) for those who have no remorse in the crimes against humanity that they commit. It seems that there is a correlation to be identified here...such who do not believe in God are opposed to ANY authority over them. Slavery was mans invention. Not God's. If He had suggested guidelines for it, that was His perogative for his purpose. Lets always be certain to put the blame where it belongs. Man rejected God since Eden, hes being doing it, as ol' blue eyes crooned, 'My way' ever since. It is amazing to see all of the 'high intelligence' of those who claim God is not real on this forum. Consider, wether your a believer or not, if mankind had followed the example of how and why Adam and Eve were created, and followed the guidelines in the old and new testament that show the misery that adultery, homosexuality and any type of perversion brings against what was originally ordained as good, then wouldnt we have a world with little or no sexually transmitted disease? The ones who consider those who follow biblical principles as base need to search their minds. Its not rocket science, folks.
There is a way that seems wise unto man......
March 7, 2007 9:45 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 7, 2007 09:45
Chris i realized that I failed to answer the question but something happened to the site last night so I couldn't answer.
Who knows if homosexuals choose, choice it's self is very difficult to understand and I oubt you unerstand the just how messy the whole thing truely is
Yes you failed to unerstand the analogy thats why your logic is flawed, No I it's not something I don't want to hear. all three of you once again failed to understand ANY part of what I was saying. YOU all ust don't care what the theological implications of this change may be, this COULD be because your not christians, I dont know don't want to be presumptious. But that was my main point, none of you seem care what your "chrisians should ...." implies this is a discussion for christians if your not what makes you qualified to tell us what we "should" believe/
March 7, 2007 6:30 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 7, 2007 06:30
Paul S.
you said.... As far as "cherry picking the Bible goes"-The Holy Bible either is the Infallible Word of God or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. How can you call yourself a true Christian when you don't accept the Natural Law and sound biblical doctrine?
So, whens the last time you stoned someone? If you have or will ever have a daugher will you sell her into slavery?
Lets face it *all christians* cherry pick! Yes, I am quite sure *you* even.
March 7, 2007 3:50 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 7, 2007 03:50
"In homosexual sex there is no procreation there is NO purpose to it other than gratification."
So Mike, I guess we can assume that you and your wife NEVER do "it" unless there is a realistic possibility of conception, right? Doesn't sound like much of a marriage if you two don't do it just for the fun of it. Or don't you see it as fun? My wife and I sure do; and I hope my kids do too, someday, when they're ready, emotionally, financially, socially ....
March 7, 2007 2:07 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 7, 2007 02:07
Hate to do this to you Mike, But I gotta go.
You do seem like a good guy but i have to say that your morality seems a bit selective. There are plenty of things in the Bible that have been changed and/or ignored over the past 2000+ years.
Women's rights, divorce, dietary laws, the list goes on and on and on. I should know, my Grandfather is a minister, he has pointed out the changes to me since I was a kid.
God bless and good night.
March 7, 2007 1:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 7, 2007 01:42
Mike,
My argument is not fla