Can you clarify what you mean by that? Or was it just a snarky jab? Per the name of the forum, I’m trying to participate in “discussion”.
But the next three examples do harm to other people on a direct and individual basis. No one has ever demonstrated the harm – especially to individuals directly! – caused by two men being in love and having sex.
There’s nothing wrong with celibacy…and there’s nothing wrong with the two discreetly closing the door and then fucking like wildcats.
I agree that all those other sins don’t get the same attention, but since it says homosexuality is sinful, that doesn’t make it OK even if those preaching against it on Sunday are coveting their neighbors Porshe on Monday. The pastor at my megachurch got caught with his pants down, and I think we should have forgiven him rather than run him out. Since all Christians sin one way or the other there’s naturally going to be a certain level of hypocrisy and focusing one someone elses sin. Does that make them “Bigots”? Maybe
How about this: NEWT GINGRICH CHRISTIAN - Is He or Isn't He A Christian?
Says some pretty harsh things about Newt (calls him Machiavellian, among other things).
As I’ve mentioned, they have not been given a pass, but you don’t hear about it because it’s not newsworthy. Your perception of them getting a pass may not be accurate.
I clarified the types of Christians because you may also be confusing the pass given by social Christians and believing that religious Christians giving a pass as well.
Jesus also said to “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”
Why don’t they just pay attention to that and let god worry about the gays, if he has a problem with them.
My point wasn’t about the effect to others, but that Christian beliefs label things wrong that may be seen as natural desires. I bring that up because it’s often used as a defense. You say there’s nothing wrong with that (f— like wildcats), but Christian beliefs say it is wrong unless it’s between a man and woman who are married.
A strange thing happened when they tried to define their politics by their religion - they ended up re-defining their religion by their politics.
And all the talk of hypocrisy is no argument - look up “tu quoque fallacy”.
Most opposition to homosexuality is just fear of the unfamiliar. This may be a form of bigotry, but it’s far from the worst. Fortunately, this is also the easiest form of bigotry to correct: As people get to know gay neighbors, family members, and celebrities, they’ll realize that they really aren’t so different after all, and that they needn’t fear them. Which has in fact been happening, and is why the majority now supports gay marriage.
Of the remainder, I think the dominant element is the self-loathing closeted homosexuals. These are men (and they do seem to be mostly men, for whatever reason) who are tempted by gay sex, and therefore think that everyone is tempted by it, and who conclude that those few who give into it must just be the weak-willed. But if everyone gave into these urges that they assume everyone has, then the human race would end, and so such urges must be fought. I’m not sure how to correct this form of bigotry, since any argument just seems to reinforce the delusion.
Only well after these two forms of bigotry do you find truly religious opposition, and what’s claimed to be religious opposition is usually one of those two forms.
I live in the Bible Belt; many here claim to be “good Christians” yet never darken the door of the church, or attend for social or business reasons (all the bankers go to that church). I was offering a valid clarification that has no mention of politics.
Plenty of strawman for my cornfields. It’s not fear, it’s not hate. A religious Christian should love all regardless. That doesn’t mean they have to agree that everything that person does is good and right. And disagreement is not hate.
That is taken out of context, but that’s not the point of my reply.
I will agree with you somewhat on this. I believe too many who claim to be Christians are looking to make America a theocracy rather than doing what they should be doing as Christians. They should live their beliefs regardless of country, form of government, etc. However, Christians can and should vote according to what they believe is best for the country just like everyone else.
Dang it, I did mention politics. However, the clarification wasn’t dividing by politics. I know good Christians on both sides of the aisle. I was clumsily trying to say both groups are often lumped together when talking about Christians and politics.
The Biblical explanation as to the matter of observance of Leviticus in Christianity is addressed through Acts chapter 15, wherein the Council of the Apostles resolved that the members of the new sect are relieved of Levitical prohibitions and mandates except those regarding idolatry, blood* and sex*(*). The Fundies for some reason never seem to be aware of that part and instead fall back on the “every single word from Gen. 1:1 to Rev. 22:21 is absolutely unquestionable”.
(*Let’s face it, what kind of Abrahmic religion is not hung up about sex 
)
That in spite of this there seems to be greater accommodation for the imperfection of sinners when it comes to *other *sexually/maritally-oriented conducts (adultery, premarital cohabitation, casual divorce), but oh you gotta be hardline with gays, does raise eyebrows as to exactly what makes that one category of sin so goddamned (if you’ll pardon the expression) different from the others (other than that those engaged in it simply refuse to abide by the ruling that it’s sin…). But like **Chronos **said, once you become more exposed to it in relative normalcy, most begin backing off from the hardcore position.
As mentioned, one of the problems that many hardline ChristianCons have with this is that they believe everything but conventional marital sex is a “temptation” that *everyone *is exposed to and *anyone *could fall into… or fight succesfully; thus it must not be accommodated, because social acceptance will mean more people will not bother fighting it. That path leads to a lot of pain and embarrassment.
I’d just like to mention that there is a major misuse of the term “sex” going on here. That term denotes the act between a man and a woman which produces offspring. Actions between two men or two women which make use of the same sexual functions is not “sex”, it is “sodomy” (the term used by all news outlets and courts of law to describe that action),
Our apologies. We had no idea that you owned the English language.
However, like the argument that the word marriage CANNOT refer to a same-sex couple, this is complete and utter bullshit.
Marriage=procreation except in defective cases. These aren’t my definitions lol, where are you getting your denotations from?
You’re welcome to mention it, and thanks for doing so. But I expect you have some evidence to support your claims? Because your definition of “sex” does not coincide with that in any of my dictionaries.
Nope.
.
The primary end(goal) is procreation… and the conjugal act(sex) is the mechanism by which procreation comes about. Depositing semen in someone’s colon does not come close to this in any way.
If marriage was a simply a documentation of someone’s love for something else then many young men could truly get married to xbox, or someone to their pet. If sex was any use of the reproductive faculties then one could truly have sex with a refrigerator…
have we lost all sense?
Speak for yourself. When I have sex, the primary end goal is pleasure.
or procreation comes about as an unintended side-effect.
This much, at least, is accurate. And that should tell you something about the primary end goal[s] of the people who engage in the practice.
Marriage is the documentation and legal registration of the forming of a family.
On the contrary, the outcome of Obergefell v. Hodges is strong evidence that, collectively, our sense is becoming stronger and more sensible.