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.
Several people on here are talking about the Bible without really understanding what they are talking about. First, the Bible DOES say homosexuality is a sin. There is nothing unclear about it. It was not as God intended. If you don't believe in God, then it isn't as nature intended. I could explain this further, talking about physiological purposes or tearing or go into graphic detail, but the argument most are using center around the Bible. People are saying Christians are intolerant because they believe practicing this act is a sin, but the Bible also condemns all other sex sins outside of marriage. The Bible is clear what Christians are to consider marriage so even if society says marriage can include homosexuality, it would still be a sin just like if a society says it's okay to kill a child for any reason, the Bible would say it was wrong. This isn't intolerance. I still tolerate it and don't condemn my friends who are gay anymore than I do my friends who are living together as a couple and aren't married. However, they know I'm a Christian and don't consider them right with God. We have all committed sins just as egregious, but if we repent and accept that we aren't worthy and accept the relationship with Christ, then we can be saved. That doesn't mean we stop sinning, but that we don't dwell in sin. Secondly, the people who are talking about hair, dietary habits, etc. are not understanding how the law was given by Moses. Moses gave two types of law. He gave the 10 commandments and some laws publicly before all the Jewish people. These were laws to be followed by everyone. He later gave societal laws to Aaron to tell the people. These were laws to be followed by the Jewish people. In the New Testament this was even clarified when Gentiles were converted and the Jewish Christian leaders wanted them to be circumcised and follow Jewish laws. They were told they didn't have to because they weren't Jewish. Homosexuality was not a societal law, nor was fornication. Believing something is wrong doesn't make one intolerant; One can speak against an act without speaking against people. Christians also believe drug addiction is a sin. There are a huge number of former drug addicts at my church who are accepted as anyone else. If someone wants to be a practicing homosexuality, they have every right to. People who try to stop them from practicing this behavior privately are intolerant. People who believe it's wrong, but that they have the right to do what they want are tolerant. People who believe they can't continue in that lifestyle and be a Christian aren't intolerant. They are believing in what the Bible says. It would be the same as someone saying they can be single and married at the same time. The definitions don't go together. This doesn't make them intolerant. There are intolerant people who bash on gays (like the people who show up at funerals), but there are also people in SF who are just as hateful.
Not all people automatically leave when they are offended. It is usually a symbolic response anyway. There are always going to be people who (intentionally or not) offend others, and thats just life. But, this situation points to a bigger problem... What is the real intent of the it gets better program? Is this a gay vs Christian scenario? If it is, then fine lets argue it from that position! The pro-gay crowd, and liberals in general are always trying to exaggerate these special interest situations where minorities are being bullied by the good guys (i.e. conservative Christians) Look at Travon Martin, illegal immigration, class warfare and taxes, etc. You want me to PAY for birth control? I'm outraged
I agree with the bolded.
I'm not going to debate a "gay vs. Christian scenario" or even a "gay vs. conservative Christian scenario" because it is setting up a false dichotomy. I am also not going to debate special interest scenarios that have nothing to do with the thread topic.
The "real intent" of the It Gets Better Project is to have people who lived through bullying in their younger years, and survived it, to tell their stories to young people who are currently being bullied for their sexual orientation in order to show them that even though things feel desperate in this moment, that life can and does improve.
Not sure if you read this link upthread (quote from final paragraph): The Urban Legend : Savage speech shocks, inspires high school journalists at the NSPA convention "Savage, who is a Catholic though he is often called anti-faith by his critics, said that he believes the reconciliation of religion and sexuality can be a powerful healing tool. Said Savage: 'For many LGBT kids, faith has to be part of the solution.'"
Can you (or anyone) explain to me how that last statement is anti-Christian or makes the It Gets Better Project an organization with anti-Christian intent?
Last edited by eastwesteastagain; 04-29-2012 at 10:06 AM..
"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
Romans 1:28-32 KJV
Shouldn't you be out killing people who, for instance, are "disobedient to parents," or at the very least advocating that the courts apply the death penalty to such a morally criminal act? Or whisperers! Get the whisperers!!!
Last edited by helenejen; 04-29-2012 at 09:10 AM..
No, not quite. If the "antis" were simply questioning the validity of homosexuality and gay marriage, without resorting to calling them hateful names (in addition to the usual slurs, things like "perverts" "deviants" "unnatural freaks" etc), I would not call them hateful. But if you take a look at ANY discussion related to gay people, there will always be those who can't refrain from being vicious. Don't you see the difference there?
I also never hear any valid reasons to oppose these issues, as the only arguments are either Bible-based or "it's icky and I don't like it." If I ever question something related to Christianity, I'll usually do so by challenging the translations or interpretations of specific passages... I've never suggested they don't deserve equal rights, and my debating points never include being personally offended by them.
How would such a right even be defined - as the right to not have your feelings hurt? I'm one of those "everyone else" of which you speak, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest to include gay unions as a part of marriage. As it has already been pointed out numerous times, marriage has been redefined more than once throughout history... and as a straight person who may one day marry, it really doesn't affect the validity of my marriage by allowing them to share. It's called being inclusive, and in no way would it cancel out your own relationship. This whole mindset seems like you guys are really insecure, or just being plain stubborn.
As a member of the straight population, don't I have the right to say it's okay? You don't speak for all of us, and I'm certainly not alone in my feelings here.
Since so many people have already been married under the traditional definition of marriage shouldn't consideration for these people require those who wish to marry under an expanded definition of marriage to brand their version in such a way as to avoid hijacking marriage as previously defined?
Wouldn't this new word for marriage, a word which includes same-sex unions, avoid conflicts associated with redefining unions entered into before the definition was changed?
Wouldn't both sides be able to claim victory if this strategy were adopted?
Or was the point to attempt to normalize homosexuality by hijacking the word "marriage"?
Since so many people have already been married under the traditional definition of marriage shouldn't consideration for these people require those who wish to marry under an expanded definition of marriage to brand their version in such a way as to avoid hijacking marriage as previously defined?
Wouldn't this new word for marriage, a word which includes same-sex unions, avoid conflicts associated with redefining unions entered into before the definition was changed?
Wouldn't both sides be able to claim victory if this strategy were adopted?
Or was the point to attempt to normalize homosexuality by hijacking the word "marriage"?
What do you mean by "avoiding conflicts"? What conflict have you seen arise in CT, DC, IA, MA, NH, NY, VT, and the Coquille and Suquamish Tribes due to gay people being allowed to contract civil marriages? What's with all this talk of "consideration" for people married under a "traditional definition" of marriage? I thought people were civilly married under a civil, secular law.
This is a debate stricly about whether gay couples should be discriminated against under the law. Period. How does restoring gay people's equal rights under the law "conflict" with anything or attack some sort of "tradition" or "definition"?
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.
and we can see how hypocritical they can be, give a speech against bullying then use bully tactics against the people your speaking to.
