# Anti-gay Christians are merely bigots **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 10, 2015, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-christians-are-merely-bigots/724810 "2015-07-10T22:26:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2015, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-christians-are-merely-bigots/724810/81 "2015-07-11T20:13:57Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > No, it’s discernment. It’s fact. Just because I love steaks and milkshakes, that doesn’t make a steak a milkshake or a milkshake a steak. If I like both cats and dogs, I don’t have to delude myself into thinking they’re one in the same for me to fully appreciate either. Sorry, that’s not how logic works. Magellan, do you think women should be allowed to speak in church? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2015, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-christians-are-merely-bigots/724810/82 "2015-07-11T20:14:34Z")
> [@Eternal\_Truths](#): > > I am not talking about the way things work in your created universe. I’m talking about the way things work in the unchangeable universe that you and I both inhabit. In this universe we find both unchangeable purpose and meaning. For one to deny one or the other is simply a misuse of the intellect. It is obvious what “nature” intends when sex is happening, and the pleasure is not the purpose. You still haven’t told us where you are getting your definitions. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2015, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-christians-are-merely-bigots/724810/83 "2015-07-11T20:45:52Z")
> [@Eternal\_Truths](#): > > I am not talking about the way things work in your created universe. I’m talking about the way things work in the unchangeable universe that you and I both inhabit. In this universe we find both unchangeable purpose and meaning. For one to deny one or the other is simply a misuse of the intellect. It is obvious what “nature” intends when sex is happening, and the pleasure is not the purpose. I have noticed that you tend to put forth your personal opinions as if they were proven facts, but you have yet to back up these “facts”. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2015, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-christians-are-merely-bigots/724810/84 "2015-07-11T21:17:23Z")
[Here’s an article](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2014/11/10/god-hates-shrimp-picking-and-choosing-among-abominations/) from Fred Clark which discusses some of the various methodologies that are used to selectively ignore passages from the OT. I don’t want to quote the whole thing, but it covers three main methodologies that people seem to use to justify their opposition to homosexuality, and he rebuts them. Here’s one of the rebuttals. > [@](#): > > _The anti-gay stuff is reaffirmed in the New Testament, while the anti-shrimp stuff is not._ > > Again, this approach offers some promise of a more principled methodology. We need to be cautious here — approaches requiring a stark distinction between the New Testament and the “old” risk the pitfalls of ancient heresies and all-too contemporary anti-Semitism. But still, this is worth exploring. > > The principle we can distill from this seems to be something like this: commands from the Hebrew scriptures that are reaffirmed in the New Testament are binding for Christians today; those that are not reaffirmed in the New Testament are not. This principle seems to account for the particular matter of the shrimp/gay disparity, but I’m afraid it doesn’t fit quite so neatly when it comes to many of the other commandments from the Hebrew scriptures that we would need for it to explain away. > > Consider, for example, the prohibition against lending at interest and the commandment that all debts be forgiven every seven years. These are explicit, unambiguous commandments in the Hebrew scriptures, both repeated many times over. They are also, inconveniently, both reaffirmed in the New Testament. Jesus himself upped the stakes on these commandments — not only must we not lend at interest, he said, but we must lend without the expectation of repayment. > > Yet almost all contemporary Christians disregard these commandments completely. Our lives are shaped by a form of capitalism that is built upon a foundation of lending at interest. We have mortgages, checking accounts, life insurance, student loans, savings accounts (in theory) and all the rest. There’s more good stuff in the article. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2015, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-christians-are-merely-bigots/724810/85 "2015-07-11T21:22:49Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Considering that both Trajan and Hadrian succeeded Nero, who was involved in two different same-sex marriages, I’m not sure why you think they’d have found the idea so outrageous. Considering that same-sex marriage wasn’t made illegal in Rome until the reign of Constantius II (a Christian, incidentally), around two hundred years after Trajan, I’m not sure why you think they’d have needed to legalize it. Do you have a cite for this? Or more detail, at any rate? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2015, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-christians-are-merely-bigots/724810/86 "2015-07-11T23:33:53Z")
> [@Eternal\_Truths](#): > > I am not talking about the way things work in your created universe. I’m talking about the way things work in the unchangeable universe that you and I both inhabit. In this universe we find both unchangeable purpose and meaning. For one to deny one or the other is simply a misuse of the intellect. It is obvious what “nature” intends when sex is happening, and the pleasure is not the purpose. Sorry, what? _The definition of the English word ‘sex’_\* is a universal constant? \*That is, the thing you saw fit to correct us all about on the last page. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2015, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-christians-are-merely-bigots/724810/87 "2015-07-11T23:46:29Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > So you say. I suspect that, were Christ to return, your type of Christian would be among the first in line to crucify him again. I suspect you have your own personal Jesus who is no more, or less, valid than his. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2015, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-christians-are-merely-bigots/724810/88 "2015-07-12T00:34:58Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Gays and straights aren’t steaks and milkshakes. They’re both people, and you think one group of people isn’t equal to another group of people. That’s pretty much all there is to it. Well, they’re not. If there were no difference we wouldn’t refer to one group as straight and one group as gay, now would we? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2015, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-christians-are-merely-bigots/724810/89 "2015-07-12T01:12:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > > [@astorian](#): > > > > I offer the same challenge I’ve offered before: > > > > Have there been many non-Christian societies? Yep. > > > > Non-Christian societies in which there were no taboos against sodomy? Yep again. > > > > Non-Christian societies in which there were no taboos against sodomy AND in which the monarch himself regularly engaged in homosexual relations? Yep yet again- ask Alexander, Trajan or Hadrian. > > > > Now the challenge: explain why Alexander, Trajan and Hadrian never even THOUGHT about changing laws to allow men to marry each other, if the only possible explanation for opposing that is Christian bigotry or squeamishness about sodomy. Explain why they’d have LAUGHED at the idea, if the only possible explanation for opposing gay marriage is hatred or ignorance. > > I’ve made a similar point before. That resistance to SSM is no restricted to Christianity, or any religion. We look back thousands of years and we can see contributions made by ancient societies. They were all mini experiments in how to live together. And, as you point out, while homosexual activity had periods where it was openly part of society and enjoyed very little if any stigma, marriage really wasn’t in the cards. People acknowledged the desire some had for gay sex and had no problem with it. There was also an understanding that people of the same sex could genuinely love each other. But taking those two things, putting them together and equating them with the ideal of opposite sex marriages and the institution responsible for the raising of children was not fathomed. So the tactic that many SSM proponents use, blaming it all on the church, doesn’t hold up. > > This all points to a feeling some of us have that SS unions are not equal to OS ones. Nature supports that belief. People like to disparagingly refer to it as the squick factor, attempting to minimize its validity. But while I support extending all the same legal benefits and privileges to SS couples that OS couples enjoy, I do draw the line at “marriage”. It’s just factually a different relationship. Just as **magellan01** has declared his point on several previous occasions, I have noted the flaw of that point nearly as often–a flaw that **astorian** ’s observation does nothing to override. References to previous societies that never even considered Same Sex Marriage ignore a significant point: the world has changed. Marriage has definitely been tied to procreation throughout history: responsibility for children, provisions for inheritance, identification of family/clan bonds, and a number of other issues. However, just as family/clan importance has been dwindling in Western society for several hundred years, significant factors that bonded marriage to procreation have changed. Specifically, the necessary tie between sex, marriage, and procreation has been utterly lost. Chemical contraception, (“the Pill”), removed the direct connection between sex and inevitable procreation. The development of IVF and similar therapies broke the last bond that limited procreation to actual sex. Changing attitudes toward adoption have made it more acceptable for people to raise children whom they did not procreate, themselves. At a time when any heterosexual union was liable to result in procreation and when no homosexual union could possibly result in procreation marriage was the device by which societies regulated the relationships that sexual activity initiated. (Marriage was never limited to only a method to regulate the results of procreation, of course. Even such a conservative institution as the Catholic Church has long acknowledged the unitive nature of marriage beyond the procreative nature.) Around this societal device, other roles and functions arose in conjunction with marriage that were not directly tied to procreation. With the immutable nature of procreation-only-through-sex irrevocably changed, the societal bond between procreation and marriage was no longer necessary. The other functions and roles of marriage within society, (focusing on many aspects of partnership), remain while the role of procreation, while hardly disappearing, is no longer a necessary aspect. Pretty much simultaneously, recognition that homosexuality was not a deviant behavior, (neither criminal in intent nor disordered in psychology), opened the possibility of open discussion of homosexual relationships. Sufficient numbers of homosexuals came out into the open that most of society could see and recognize that their lives were pretty much the same, on a day-to-day basis, as those of heterosexuals. So, art the same time that heterosexual marriage stopped having a necessary relationship to procreation, science and changing attitudes toward adoption provided homosexual couples that ability to engage in child rearing. With the lack of a necessary connection between marriage and procreation or child rearing, and with the availability of ways for homosexual couples to raise children as a couple, an idea that would not have occurred to Alexander makes sense, today, and the fact that he would not have understood the concept points only to the level of biological science in his day, not to any legitimate societal barrier to SSM. ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2015, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-christians-are-merely-bigots/724810/90 "2015-07-12T03:25:37Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > But, in all seriousness, who are you to tell Christians what they should or should not believe? Next, you’ll be telling them that the host doesn’t _really_ transubstantiate into the Body of Christ. :eek: I, for one, have very little desire to tell others what they should or should not believe when it comes to religious faith. I just won’t tolerate it when they want to use their religious faith to limit the rights extended to my by the law. And as for the part about transubtantiation, there are plenty of Christians who are more than willing to tell other Christians the host doesn’t transubstantiate into _anything_, much less the Body of Christ. They are called Protestants. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2015, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-christians-are-merely-bigots/724810/91 "2015-07-12T06:23:37Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Well, they’re not. And thus my argument is proved. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2015, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-christians-are-merely-bigots/724810/92 "2015-07-12T08:03:09Z")
> [@Pinmin](#): > > The orthodox Christian view is just because someone has desires, that doesn’t make them right to follow through. Hence the belief that sex is intended only for a man and woman who are married. > > What is wrong with celibacy for someone with same sex attractions? A Christian should restrain themselves from lots of natural desires and actions. I shouldn’t punch the guy who makes a rude gesture toward me. I shouldn’t dog whistle at the attractive lady walking down the street. I shouldn’t take things that don’t belong to me, even if I really like them. Know what else a good Christian shouldn’t do? Meddle in other people’s lives. Everyone has an opinion, and now we know what yours is. As long as Christians don’t discriminate against others over issues that don’t concern them, they are free to hold whatever opinion they like. ---
**Author:** ![usedtobe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@usedtobe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/usedtobe)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2015, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-christians-are-merely-bigots/724810/93 "2015-07-12T08:32:11Z")
News Flash! People wrap their hateful opinions in Religion! Imagine that! ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2015, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-christians-are-merely-bigots/724810/94 "2015-07-12T09:01:07Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > And thus my argument is proved. How odd…it looks like the rest of that quote got left off somehow. Here is the full quote again: [QUOTE=magellan01] Well, they’re not. If there were no difference we wouldn’t refer to one group as straight and one group as gay, now would we? [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2015, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-christians-are-merely-bigots/724810/95 "2015-07-12T12:25:36Z")
The statement that was made was that gays and straights “[are] both people, and you think one group of people isn’t equal to another group of people”. So when you reply “well, they’re not”, that seems pretty clear. The “rest of that quote” that you so helpfully provided is a non sequitur, since no one here has argued that gays and straights are identical, only that they deserve equal rights. There are a few participants here who for some reason feel that they don’t. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2015, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-christians-are-merely-bigots/724810/96 "2015-07-12T12:27:43Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > And thus my argument is proved. > [@magellan01](#): > > How odd…it looks like the rest of that quote got left off somehow. Here is the full quote again: > [@Miller](#): > > Gays and straights aren’t steaks and milkshakes. They’re both people, and you think one group of people isn’t equal to another group of people. That’s pretty much all there is to it. > [@magellan01](#): > > Well, they’re not. If there were no difference we wouldn’t refer to one group as straight and one group as gay, now would we? :dubious: You appear to be making the mistake of conflating “equal” with “identical.” No one is saying that there is no difference, because that’s NOT what “equal” means. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2015, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-christians-are-merely-bigots/724810/97 "2015-07-12T13:20:12Z")
Harrumph… so now they’re down to “can’t you see it’s bloody obvious what the meaning of the word is” ? > [@kaylasdad99](#): > > :dubious: > > You appear to be making the mistake of conflating “equal” with “identical.” No one is saying that there is no difference, because that’s NOT what “equal” means. And furthermore it’s a matter of how reserving another distinct word to designate the same legal civil status implicitly creates a “separate-but-(allegedly)equal” situation that we already have determined is NOT the right way to organize things. If it walks like a marriage and quacks like a marriage and entails rights and duties like a marriage, it’s a marriage. IANAL but AFAIK there is no current legal contract where signing the exact same paper results in it being called one thing or the a whole other depending on the gender indentities of the signers. ---
**Author:** ![Dhammyjhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b782af/32.png) [@Dhammyjhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dhammyjhay)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2015, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-christians-are-merely-bigots/724810/98 "2015-07-12T13:52:46Z")
First and foremost, i’d like us to recall that God created man and woman(not man nd man or woman nd woman)… Secondly, if i’m not mistaken, it is clearly stated in the bible that a man and woman(again not man nd man or woman nd woman) shall leave their parents home nd come together to live as one… Now, what i’m tryinq to point out is the simple, clear, nd obvious fact that the bible never for one mention ‘gay marriage’… Then why should we as xtians support that which was not commanded by God… Nd i’m sure that if God wanted gay marriage then the bible would av made that know to us… ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2015, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-christians-are-merely-bigots/724810/99 "2015-07-12T13:56:37Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > Harrumph… so now they’re down to “can’t you see it’s bloody obvious what the meaning of the word is” ? > > And furthermore it’s a matter of how reserving another distinct word to designate the same legal civil status implicitly creates a “separate-but-(allegedly)equal” situation that we already have determined is NOT the right way to organize things. If it walks like a marriage and quacks like a marriage and entails rights and duties like a marriage, it’s a marriage. IANAL but AFAIK there is no current legal contract where signing the exact same paper results in it being called one thing or the a whole other depending on the gender indentities of the signers. Well, back in the bad old days, not only were “husband” and “wife” different words, but they had very different rights, despite both signing the same papers. For instance, if the wife died, the property they owned as a couple was assumed to belong to the husband, who did not pay inheritance tax. If the husband died, the property was assumed to have been owned by the husband, and the wife had to pay tax on the estate. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2015, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-christians-are-merely-bigots/724810/100 "2015-07-12T14:58:57Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > [Here’s an article](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2014/11/10/god-hates-shrimp-picking-and-choosing-among-abominations/) from Fred Clark. Thanks! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-christians-are-merely-bigots/724810.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-christians-are-merely-bigots/724810.md?page=6)