What the hell is the difference? If someone is filled with hate, does it make a difference whether that hate comes from “sincerely held principles” or his warped upbringing, or what he ate for breakfast? Hate is hate, and religion is no excuse.
Excellent detailed work in breaking apart that one sentence.
Is it your contention then that Jesus didn’t say anything in the New Testament that countermanded the death penalty for homosexuality? Perhaps “Love thy neighbor as thyself”?
IANAC, but as I recall Jesus had a few words for those who wanted to execute someone for violating the Levitical laws;
[QUOTE=John 8:3-11]
The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know. It’s hard for me to view the Dukes of Hazard as racist, even though they drive around in a Dodge Charger with a Rebel flag painted on the roof named after a Civil War general.
I suppose Southerners view the Civil War the same way we might view Canada invading the US to enforce universal health care and a boring and highly regulatory stable banking system. Sure, it’s a good idea. But who are they to tell us what to do?
No, I don’t agree that “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” can be read to countermand the prohibition against homosexual acts. It’s not specific – if it had the meaning you ascribe to it, it would countermand almost any punishment for almost any offense.
Now, you can make a stronger case for suggesting that Jesus countermanded the death penalty, period, and I don’t necessarily disagree with that. But so far as I can tell, in this thread you’re the first to mention the death penalty – the OP merely discusses the Leviticus prohibition, and it’s in that context that my reply exists.
That assumes he is filled with hate. That is the arrogance of the OP, that he is so obviously right that the only possible reason for disagreeing with him is irrational hate. One could hate gay people and be pro-gay marriage, one can love gay people and be anti-gay marriage. One can be entirely indifferent to gay people and have either view on gay marriage.
Sure. As per my immediately prior post, this suggests Jesus was eschewing the death sentence of Mosaic law in favor of mercy – but at the same time, he clearly agrees the woman had sinned, and he tells her to stop sinning.
But the OP does not mention death, and is focused simply on the aspect of whether Leviticus prohibits the eating of shellfish and also prohibits homosexual activity; he suggests that it’s inconsistent to continue prohibiting homosexual activity in obedience to god while enjoying tasty clams, mussels, and oysters.
I pointed out to the OP that there is no inconsistency – that in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus rejects the prohibition against unclean food.
How can you love gay people yet want to deny them rights?
Most people consider themselves or their side to be a force for good.
Should polygamous or incestuous marriage be allowed?
I favor legal same-sex marriage.
I don’t favor sloppy argument.
So my answer to you is: “I love my son but I want to deny him the right to drive, vote, marry, and determine his own medical treatments.”
At least for now – when he’s older, not so much.
Sure, why not, as long as everyone is consenting?
Thanks for clearing that up. I am sure no one could have understood what I meant without this enlightening post. :rolleyes:
I still don’t know what you meant.
My post was intended to suggest that an opponent of same-sex marriage might believe that denying legal same-sex marriage rights to individuals was in the best interest of both society and those individuals. Your post seemed to be unaware of this possibility.
Maybe you could clarify your point? It’s easy for me to imagine a same-sex marriage opponent who answers you as follows:
“How can you love gay people yet want to deny them rights?”
“It’s because I love them, and want to see them freed from sin, and want to see society not condone sin, that I seek to deny them rights.”
Again, this is not a position I take, but I can easily imagine it. Your post seemed to indicate you can’t, or at least didn’t, imagine it.
I am not going to get into a meaningless pissing contest with you. I believe my point is clear. If someone “loves gays” then he/she isn’t going to oppose equal rights for them. If you use religious bullshit in the “love the sinner, hate the sin” way, then that is not true “love” for people.
If a person who loves gay people is treating gays in a manner that’s functionally indistinguishable from how someone who hates gay people would treat us, why should I give a shit that he “loves” me?
Also, is there a part in the New Testament where Jesus say he’s cool with people wearing a shirt made from two different fibers?
No True Scotsman.
I knew a Scotsman who ate lobster.
This was a very brave thing to post.
Except that this a Straw Man.