Drifting occurs.
I am not upset.
No one is in trouble.
I am simply noting that actual theology is not going to resolve the issue of the OP, (particularly when a number of posters on one side of the issue flat out reject the notion that theology has any value), and I am encouraging anyone who wishes to pursue the theological discussion to take it to a different thread.
Sure, because bigotry is a behaviour, pretty much regardless of the rationale driving it.
No, bigotry is the thought driving the behavior . . . or lack thereof. If you believe that gay=wrong, that’s bigotry, regardless of any behavior on your part.
And it should be noted that religious people don’t get a pass on this, especially as they themselves are constantly revising their views of the scriptures.
Refusing to take into consideration rational arguments because of emotional prejudices projected onto a deity is no excuse. Liberal Christians are already proving that there are ways on interpreting the Bible to remove the hate.
If nothing else, this should be done for the sake of the LGBT youth.
*Not everyone will believe in the same thing and that’s okay. I’d prefer to be around a Christian that openly dislikes gay marriage than to have a president who hides the fact that he hates it.
We can’t give equal rights to everyone without taking away the rights of another one.*
Maybe I defined it too narrowly, but I think you have too. Actually, it’s both - it’s the thinking and the behaviour.
But…
Nobody will ever know or care if someone privately holds bigoted views that they never speak about.
And (this was my point)…
Being able to back up bigoted views and/or actions with a subjective explanation that not everybody shares, is worthless - which is why this thread can quite legitimately dismiss the bullshit rationale that people might have for their unreasonable views and actions.
What a meaningless saying.
Well, that’s pretty far afield of what I was debating.
My point was that it’s bigotry (though perhaps I should have said “prejudice”) because it’s due to an emotional reaction that is not based on scripture, but rather, either innate or cultural bias (that happens to be barely mentioned in scripture).
I say, the scripture isn’t the reason, because if Christians followed scripture, they’d be against divorce, charging interest, and a lot of other things they don’t seem to care much about. I’ll admit it’s not a particularly strong argument on my part, but I do suspect that I’m right.
If there was some theological principle that governed what scripture is ignored and what is not, that would be a good argument against my claim. And in fact, there is a good argument regarding Leviticus and other OT inconsistencies. (That is, there’s a reasonable argument why Christians can eat shellfish. Whether that should apply to the ban on women cooking for men during menstruation is another matter, unless you think menstruation isn’t related to sex. The fact that a lot of women would LOVE a ban on cooking at that time is also beside the point! 
)
When you give everyone equal rights, you take away my right to be superior and my right to live in a world in which some people are second-class citizens.
I can see the meaning. It’s bad ethics, but it does have a meaning. We can’t have integration without taking away the “right” of segregation. We can’t have women voting without taking away the “right” of men to make all the decisions.
It’s the problem people have with all sorts of things, even including clean water regulations. It takes away someone else’s right to dump toxic waste in the stream. We’ve all given up the right to drive on the left side of the road…in order to be able to drive on the road at all.
The rebuttal isn’t so much that it’s meaningless, as “Yes, and that’s good.” The “rights” we want to take away are those which are vastly more harmful to others than any possible infringement on their individual liberty.
Taking away someone’s right to practice bigotry in marriage, hiring, housing, commerce, and voting rights is something to be celebrated, not bewailed.
Judaism and the original shellfish argument makes sense because the Jews are “under the law” but it doesn’t make sense for Christians because they follow Christ who fulfilled the law. Both laws referring to the Law of Moses.
Religion is man’s way to reconcile to God, as was first seen in the Garden of Eden when Adam and his wife clothed themselves with fig leaves to hide their shame of sin after eating the forbidden fruit. Religion is man’s response which is very different from Christianity. Christianity is God’s response and God’s way (the only way) to reconcile man since man is sinful. Sin = death so man’s outcome was death or eternal separation from God. Christ = life so He came to die so that His Righteousness could be imputed on those who believe. He received our death and we received His live.
Ok, now that I’ve laid the background, let’s talk about homosexuality. It is very clear that homosexuality is unnatural both from the original Biblical Creation (Adam and Eve) and physiological recreation (male and female). The Bible also makes reference that it is wrong, both in the New and Old Testament.
As a Christian I am not against homosexual people, but I against the sin much like I am against the sins of lying, stealing, killing and adultery. What hurts is when the government legalizes things that God calls unrighteous, like abortion or in this case homosexuality.
Now if you do not follow the same beliefs as me, then as a Christian I cannot hold you to the same standards. Now, on the other hand, if you call yourself a Christian AND I have a close friendship relationship with you AND are openly practicing Biblical sins, I have an obligation to lovely call you out for being hypocritical in your belief.
Christians are in an uproar because the government is lowering the moral standard of our nation by calling what is Biblically wrong, right. Homosexuality is not the first or last time they will do this, and I believe Christians feel that this makes society weaker because the government’s moral standard by which society is legally allowed to live by has been lowered.
I know that I am going to get plenty of backlash from my view, but I am trying to be loving and honest in my response.
Let me the first to respond to your post if I may. If you have read any of this long thread you would have seen that I too am a born again Christian, so coming from that perspective, I believe your words here are spot on and very representative of the Christian perspective regarding homosexual behavior and SSM. Well done. Clap clap
TM
PS. I don’t suppose you will get a lot of these so let me give you at least one- AMEN!
The fact that you, like many Christians, use the word “man” to mean both men and women speaks volumes. Women are NOT men, and using that word to mean them is bigoted! I guess you think grown up females are “girls.”
God’s way is NOT the only way for everyone. Maybe for you.
In short, if you don’t support abortion, don’t have one. If SSM isn’t for you, so be it. And if you want to live in a country where religion governs law, join the Taliban, who share your anti-abortion and homophobic beliefs.
I do not see, how this is “very clear”. You might have a point, if you could demonstrate that sexuality was created for the one and only purpose of reproduction. Then any kind of sexuality that does not serve reproduction might be called “unnatural”. But can you demonstrate that? You are referencing the book of Genesis. I am no Bible scholar, but I am not aware of any passage saying. “Sexuality must serve reproduction or else it is unnatural.” What it does say is “Be fruitful and increase in number”, but that is usually not interpreted as a command towards every single person but towards mankind as a whole. And for all I know mankind has been very fruitful.
Yes, there are several passages, which are usually interpreted that way. But can an interpretation of scripture not also be a misinterpretation? History has examples where interpretations that used to be fairly common are considered very bad misinterpretations today.
Just to be clear on where you stand: You think the government should never have legalized homosexuality at all? You are also mentioning adultery. Should that also be outlawed? That would be a fairly radical stance and I am not sure if it is what you intended to say.
I agree. However, you are calling for laws that basically force non-believers to live by those standards.
If you have a Christian friend, who says he has a different idea of what the Bible says, you might want to discuss that with him. Calling him a hypocrite is usually not a good start.
You are working from the assumption that Christian faith (particularly your personal variety thereof) is setting the bar for what is a high or low moral standard. While it is ok that your personal moral code is determined by your faith, you should accept that others have different views and that you are living in a country that generally attempts to let all of its citizens live (and love) according to their views.
I appreciate the honesty and I note your attempts to be evenhanded in your response.
However, I’m not seeing a lot of “loving” in this. Telling someone “I love you even though you do stuff than makes you morally inferior” is not love; at best it’s pity and at worst it’s condescension.
According to English Stack Exchange, the word “man” can be used as a reference to both man and woman. nouns - Can "man" always be used to mean both men and women? - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange
No disrespect was implied in my original post, if it came across to you in that way then please accept my apology, thus the limitations of posts verses verbal exchange.
I can see your point, but I must admit that I am not trying to portray myself as morally superior. I am a sinner, it’s that plain and simple which is why I need a Savior - Jesus Christ.
I love others because I, like them, fall short of the glory of God.
Does anyone really deep down think that adultery is a good thing? The government cannot stop it from happening but I am all for them making it unacceptable in public and judicial perception.
Agreed, I would never call them out publicly, that would not be right. Also, if I don’t do it in love then the Bible says it’s just a bunch of noise (1 Corinthians 13). I would not call them a hypocrite, but isn’t that a sense of what we all are to some degree based on the “standards” we claim to live by?
Agreed. I do accept others but I do not have to agree with their standards, even in my own household I love my family but we all have different TV shows we like to watch. This doesn’t mean I have to watch their shows and them mine. The root issue is which standards are authoritative. It is my belief that the Bible is God’s Word and thus guides me down many roads, one being my moral conscience. Since I believe this, wouldn’t you expect me to promote a lifestyle and encourage a society which emulates these ideals?
If I may jump in here and add my two cents. My brother and I both said we would encourage and reprove our Christian brother and sister in regard to participating in a homosexual lifestyle. We would not grab any Tom, Dick, or Harry off the streets who don’t use the Bible as their source of authority, who are gay, and reprove them to their face. It is not our standing to do that, only the House of God.
But, we would not only reprove and encourage a bother and sister in regards to homosexuality, but fornication, adultery, lying, drunk ness, lewd conduct, and so forth. Please don’t limit our concern just regarding homosexual behavior. As you know, adultery and divorce far exceed that.
Now what is our basis for reproving and encouraging our brother or sister in Christ? God’s word tells us to do such. Thus, we are merely being faithful to the one we follow and love and serve. (If you want the Bible site(s) let me know.).
I have to run now or else my wife will come up here and whack me with a frying pan. Later.
TM
Thank you for your response. Remind your wife that Jesus would not approve of spousal abuse, even if it does result in a fun “SPANG” noise.