Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I believe that many Christians use the Bible as a shield to hide their personal hatred for homosexuality, rather than as the basis for their hatred because if Christians are merely expressing their hatred for the sins listed in the Bible, then there should be equal outrage for other sins.
The same could be said for adultery, pedophilia, rape, incest, or ANY sexual crime. Of course, our society has now accepted adultery, fornication, and to a large part, is becoming more friendly toward homosexuality.
Quote:
As an example: 1 Corinthians 6:9 includes "sexual sin," which is actually listed first out of the ten sins listed. One could interpret "sexual sin" to apply to pornography. So I ask where is the Christian outrage against the state of Utah, which in 2009 ranked number one for "online pornography consumption." In fact, "[o]nline porn subscription rates are higher in states that enacted conservative legislation banning same-sex marriage or civil unions and where surveys show support for conservative positions on religion, gender roles and sexuality, according to an analysis published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives."
When Christians assert that their hatred for homosexuality is based on their religious conviction, what they are truly saying is that their conviction is a shield that creates an impenetrable barrier such that any beliefs that are based on religious convictions cannot be questioned or challenged. Indeed, so long as Christians preface their beliefs to be based on their religious convictions, they can justify any belief, including torturing small children if they wanted. IMO, that is an improper use of the idea of having a religious conviction.
I contend that because Christians are not equally outraged by the other nine sins listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 -- because they don't seem to speak much about them in comparison to homosexuality -- their outrage over homosexuality is not truly based on a religious conviction because the Bible offers no reason for Christians to make such an extreme distinction between the sins listed. That is, the Bible doesn't rank the sins. They're merely listed. In fact, out of the list of ten sins, homosexuality is listed fifth, hardly a place that suggests it is the most wicked sin of all. See Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
To be clear: I am not arguing in this post that Christians are not permitted to hate homosexuality. I am merely arguing that because there is not an equal outrage for the other sins listed, which arguably concern principles that are far more important to our society than homosexuality, regardless of how one might feel about homosexuality, such as denouncing greedy people, abusive people, and people who cheat others, that it is unwarranted to give Christians special consideration for their religious conviction concerning homosexuality when it seems clear to me that it's not based solely on instructions found in the Bible.
What does that mean? Perhaps not much, ultimately, but it serves to remove the barrier that makes the religious conviction an unquestionable topic. It places the parties on equal footing to discuss the issue of homosexuality, rather than having Christians simply maintain that their hatred is based on their religious conviction and thus their beliefs cannot be questioned or challenged.
I appreciate your comments about Jimmy Swaggart. I was reluctant to include him as an example because I wasn't trying to score points solely on the basis of his notoriety. His story worked to support my point that the Bible doesn't instruct Christians, for instance, to condemn homosexuals but cut adulterers a break.
The church largely follows society. Society has accepted the other sexual sins, and in time most of Christianity will likely accept homosexuality. And you're right -- it's hypocritical to do so.
The same could be said for adultery, pedophilia, rape, incest, or ANY sexual crime. Of course, our society has now accepted adultery, fornication, and to a large part, is becoming more friendly toward homosexuality.
The same can be said for any sin, not simply (or even especially) sexual sins. The church used to ostracize and shame people for getting divorced and now largely does not. It used to be far more putative and uninterested in rehabilitation for what it saw as more "serious" sins than it is now. I would submit that these changes are positive ones as they are both pragmatic and compassionate alterations.
With respect for example to divorce, acknowledging that it happens and not punishing people when it does is not even close to the same thing as condoning or encouraging it. There is still plenty of room to encourage people to work out their issues, to value loyalty and devotion and to be understanding of differences that don't result in physical or mental abuse. There is plenty of room to warn of its disadvantages and to regard it as a last resort.
If find conservative Christianity often fails to understand this distinction. At all. To the point that they used to (and sometimes still do) encourage people to remain in loveless, abusive and dangerous relationships just to try to edit divorce out of their reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
The church largely follows society. Society has accepted the other sexual sins, and in time most of Christianity will likely accept homosexuality. And you're right -- it's hypocritical to do so.
This begs the question of why the church follows society. The answers usually given:
1) The church can't depart very far from societal morality or its members won't be able to function well within society. This is true even for an enforced superset of societal morality. After awhile it just becomes impractical to demand very much more from people than is generally supported by society. All the high-minded idealism sounds good in theory but requires sustainable output of energy to support and enforce. When too few members of a society care about behavior / situation "X", the burden of adhering to "X" falls disproportionately on fewer individuals.
2) The church is not strong / godly / surrendered enough to the holy spirit / too worldly, etc. Which in turn begs the question, how can that be when the church is supposedly heir to a superior, authority-backed, approved and perfect moral code, adherence to which is supposed to make people happier, better adjusted and healthier?
3) The church is being systematically undermined by a vast conspiracy of the godless. Which also begs the question -- why is that a universal problem when the church is supposed to have the moral high ground? Why doesn't the church systematically undermine the godless with their inferior-to-non-existent morality?
The problem with saying the judge is right is that he is a public servant. It may be lawful to discriminate in his church. but it is not lawful to reject service to others as a judge. If the couple were Christians and the judge was Muslim and decided to reject service to them because of their Christian faith then you would see an outrage among Christians. This sort of thing just illustrates the hypocrisy of people who oppose the marriages of people because of menial things like having a different religion or sexual orientation. Also, the incessant opposition to gay marriage is a form of lunacy. You never see them get outraged over the marriages of rapists, pedophiles or child abusers. It just goes to show the warped priorities of anti gays.
I have a right to practice my religion. If my religion prevents me from doing something, then I have a right, as a private business owner, not to provide service in a particular case. Again....key words "private business". No government funding.
If you are a private business serving the public, you don't get to define who the public is.
Private businesses cannot say they will not serve Asians, for example, if the business is one that Asian people frequent. The same is true of any protected class. This is true even if your religion says you may not serve Asians.
If you are a private business serving the public, you don't get to define who the public is.
Private businesses cannot say they will not serve Asians, for example, if the business is one that Asian people frequent. The same is true of any protected class. This is true even if your religion says you may not serve Asians.
Unfortunately, private businesses can often define who the public is. It's easier to say who they can't discrimnate against. They can't discriminate against Asians, in your example, because that's a race and possibly national origin. Homosexuals, in general, are not a protected class. (That's not absolutely true because laws are changing quickly.)
I deleted the lengthy, legal memo I wrote to post here because I don't want to become known as that guy whose posts aren't read because he likes to write so much. I do apologize for my lengthy posts.
So instead here's a random website called Crime Against Naturethat discusses the Right to Refuse Service, which explains the issues and provides a general summary of the current state of the law.
What the article mentions, and may be interesting to know, is that the foundation on which the federal government regulates discrimination of private businesses is actually the Commerce Clause. It was a clever legal idea.
So, until sexual orientation is considered a protected class, private businesses can refuse to serve them, provided there aren't local state laws that prohibit this type of discrimination. The specific case cited in the article above violated Oregon's law enacted in 2007 protecting LGBT.
I deleted the lengthy, legal memo I wrote to post here because I don't want to become known as that guy whose posts aren't read because he likes to write so much. I do apologize for my lengthy posts.
Economy of words is a worthy aspiration, which some denizens of these fora ought to take as an example. However, Mantronix, I haven't found your postings tedious and welcome your participation here.
Economy of words is a worthy aspiration, which some denizens of these fora ought to take as an example. However, Mantronix, I haven't found your postings tedious and welcome your participation here.
I have a right to practice my religion. If my religion prevents me from doing something, then I have a right, as a private business owner, not to provide service in a particular case.
The law and the courts disagree with you. Who are we to believe - people with years of formal education and experience in the field, or some random amateur on the internet?
Anyway, can you please post the bible verse which would prohibit a Christian from providing a cake for a wedding reception? If you want the government to give you special privileges because your religion demands it, it is only fair that the government scrutinize those beliefs to make sure they are real and not something made up on the spot as an excuse to break the law for other reasons.
It's small town rural south. They were referred to another official who agreed to the ceremony.
My prediction: if this couple has the resources to pursue the issue, they won't get very far.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
