So, there's this chicken place...

This sort of thing makes me wonder if racist folks flocked to patronize the hell out of the Montgomery bus system in 1956.

IMAGE(http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/uploads/2009/11/800px-rosa_parks_bus.jpg)

Off topic, but the coloring on that bus looks just like the ninja turtles bus.

NSMike wrote:

I can say that the feeling I felt when those Chik-Fil-As were filled up was far, far worse than the feeling I've gotten when I found out someone was talking about me behind my back, or someone didn't care about me. If you've ever had feelings of hope just sucked right out of you against your will, that's more akin to it. You can willingly give up hope on something, but this was different.

Of course, I'm rational enough to have overcome those momentary feelings, but it was impossible for me to suppress my gut reaction.

Hatred is as complicated as any emotion, and can be just as loud or as quiet as it wants to be.

Yes, but those people - and people in this thread with the same views (though maybe who haven't acted in the same way) - don't feel like they are being hateful. So how do you communicate with them in a way that, while they won't like it, might make them take a moment to consider how they are affecting other people?

How do you get them to suppress a gut reaction? Or sidestep?

It feels like you've got to challenge who they think they are at their core; make them question themselves and their actions. I suspect that's difficult to do if you assign a personality to them which they don't recognise or is 'too different' from how they imagine themselves. But if you can shift the focus of a lens a bit, maybe that will get closer to having it work.

I read a great quote from a disabled guy - brittle bones, 3' tall in a wheelchair - who was at a club and some young woman was repulsed by him and almost said as much. The thing is, her reaction wasn't to do with him - it was all about herself. So he tackled, gently, the point of view rather than the woman.

Of course people who are 'on my side' - not you - will take issue with this, because they think I'm advocating a stance rather than a tactic.

1Dgaf wrote:

So how do you communicate with them in a way that, while they won't like it, might make them take a moment to consider how they are affecting other people?

How do you get them to suppress a gut reaction? Or sidestep?

Well for one thing, they need to be educated. To see the scientific studies of hundreds of animal species that indulge in homosexuality. To understand that there are homosexual people out there who haven't even had sex, that it's not the sexual act that makes them gay, but who they are. To stop treating homosexuality like a choice, realize that those "cure people of being gay" camps, clinics, etc are never going to work and only do more harm than good. To examine that book they hold so dear and critically think about why they are so against gay marriage or homosexuality in general but are ok with divorce, people who work on Sunday and the businesses that employ them, eating certain kinds of meat, wearing clothes made out of certain materials, and on and on with all the very strange old testament laws that 99% of Christians ignore every day.

Maybe most importantly, read the New Testament again. The entire point of the Old Testament is history, to show how things were before Jesus. Animal sacrifices to atone for sins. A vengeful God wiping out cities with fire. Then Jesus came, made a new deal, set an example of how to live, and then died for you.

And he summed up his message pretty clearly in Matthew.

Matthew 22:36-40 wrote:

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

And that's it. Lying, stealing, murder, they don't need specific commandments. Do you like being lied to or stolen from? No? Don't do that to people then. You want to be killed? Don't murder anyone.

Now then think about this gay marriage thing. Do you want to feel hated, persecuted, and discriminated against for something that is part of who you are, something you can't change, and be denied the same freedoms and rights as most citizens of the country just for the way you were born? No, that doesn't sound appealing? Then stop doing those things to other people.

Again, the reason I used the words, "in this day and age," is that I know that Nomad is fully aware of everything you just posted. If it was 1973, then okay, let's educate.

But in 2012, it's a far more willful ignorance.

Jayhawker wrote:

Again, the reason I used the words, "in this day and age," is that I know that Nomad is fully aware of everything you just posted. If it was 1973, then okay, let's educate.

But in 2012, it's a far more willful ignorance.

Exactly, and willfull ignorance against a specific group of people is why it's called hate and not simply a lack of education. They're making a choice.

Minor point of order - while the NT does preach secular tolerance, that does not equate to moral acceptance or ambivalence. Like, Jesus saves Magdaline from secular punishment and doesn't say "Go on, I totally accept your behavior". He says "Go and sin no more".

So while I think there is a biblical basis for giving gay couples the same secular rights as married couples (Aquinas has a whole body of work about this too), I don't think that means people have to either stop considering a certain thing as morally wrong, or try convince people to change. In other words, people should have the concrete rights to everything that marriage grants, but you don't have the right to dictate that people accept you universally.

Note that the same applies in the other direction, too. Christians have the right to practice and espouse their beliefs. They do not have the right to not be slapped with the "hate filled asshole" label.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Note that the same applies in the other direction, too. Christians have the right to practice and espouse their beliefs. They do not have the right to not be slapped with the "hate filled asshole" label.

I would agree with that, honestly. Thus my questions to you earlier. I stand by your right to believe what you believe without being called a bigot. My point was always this, though. As soon as you stage a public protest in defense of that belief you've put your beliefs in public you've subjected them to scrutiny. When people showed up at CFA to "show appreciation" they were putting those beliefs into the public square as directly in conflict with someone's lifestyle.

In other words I would say the "protestors" were misguided at best and bigots at worse.

So what if there are homosexual animals? Not everything natural is right; just like we want a cure for cancer, we need a cure for homos.

See? The facts aren't relevant to a lot of these people. Their belief in religions is in contradiction to the 'facts' as science sees them.

They I'll fit their way of living, include not obeying all religious rules, into their world view. This is how works. If you can't persuaded them by logic, is it possible to do reach them with emotion? Not 'look how the gays feel', or 'you're a bad person' but 'you're not the person I thoug you were'.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Minor point of order - while the NT does preach secular tolerance, that does not equate to moral acceptance or ambivalence. Like, Jesus saves Magdaline from secular punishment and doesn't say "Go on, I totally accept your behavior". He says "Go and sin no more".

Point of clarification - Mary Magdalene was not involved in the incident regarding an adulterous woman being brought before Christ. The text (John 8:1-11) only refer to a woman caught having an adulterous relationship. Mary Magdalene is often mistaken for this person or a prostitute, but the only reference to anything non-virtuous about Mary was the fact that she was possessed by seven demons and had several ailments (Luke 8:2, Mark 16:9).

So while I think there is a biblical basis for giving gay couples the same secular rights as married couples (Aquinas has a whole body of work about this too), I don't think that means people have to either stop considering a certain thing as morally wrong, or try convince people to change. In other words, people should have the concrete rights to everything that marriage grants, but you don't have the right to dictate that people accept you universally.

In the US, everyone has the right to espouse their beliefs. Cathy can talk until he's blue in the face about how gays are inviting God's judgement on America. It is his right.

However, Cathy transcended that speech into monetary donations to groups that want to punish me through the force of law. IMO, Cathy isn't a "hate-filled asshole" because he espouses his beliefs. He is one because he is helping to oppress a group of American citizens through the use of the law as a weapon of discrimination.

As I noted above, the inequality gays and lesbians suffer is blatant and palpable, but apparently we are supposed to take some great consolation in the fact that Cathy and his franchisees won't toss me out of their restaurants if I want to get some waffle fries.

Minor point of order - while the NT does preach secular tolerance, that does not equate to moral acceptance or ambivalence. Like, Jesus saves Magdaline from secular punishment and doesn't say "Go on, I totally accept your behavior". He says "Go and sin no more".

So while I think there is a biblical basis for giving gay couples the same secular rights as married couples (Aquinas has a whole body of work about this too), I don't think that means people have to either stop considering a certain thing as morally wrong, or try convince people to change. In other words, people should have the concrete rights to everything that marriage grants, but you don't have the right to dictate that people accept you universally.

It's hard to make that point when we're also told that Jesus said that he did not come to change the Law. Luke has him saying that "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." Some of the writers of the Synoptic Gospels treated him as a Jewish leader who approved of and followed Jewish - hence Levitican - law. Matthew and Luke followed that view. So there are definitely a few possible interpretations. If you depend on Leviticus or the Mosaic Law, you'd better be living the rest of the rules. All 613 of them. See your local Lubavitchers for more information.

But you've chosen the stance taken by John and others, writing later, who fitted Jesus into what was turning into a non-Jewish religion, and had him leaving the Mosaic Law behind. John was of the latter movement. John has Jesus saying "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement." That is, base your judgement not foolishly on the law, but on justice and righteousness. That is Jesus' message in John. So why would you cling to Leviticus?

If you approve of that sentiment, why would you be against gay marriage at all? What justification outside of the OT is there to prevent the *state* from authorizing gay marriage, completely outside of religious ceremonies and sanction? That's the question. Why is imposing Levitican rules on our nation any better than forcing Americans to recognize, say, Islamic family law? Outside of cultural history, there is no difference; each is equally unjust, because it involved placing purely religious rules on the secular population.

DOMA, as the law of the land, is no more morally justifiable than the Dred Scott decision, and it's based on the same type of reading of religious sources.

Robear wrote:
Minor point of order - while the NT does preach secular tolerance, that does not equate to moral acceptance or ambivalence. Like, Jesus saves Magdaline from secular punishment and doesn't say "Go on, I totally accept your behavior". He says "Go and sin no more".

So while I think there is a biblical basis for giving gay couples the same secular rights as married couples (Aquinas has a whole body of work about this too), I don't think that means people have to either stop considering a certain thing as morally wrong, or try convince people to change. In other words, people should have the concrete rights to everything that marriage grants, but you don't have the right to dictate that people accept you universally.

It's hard to make that point when we're also told that Jesus said that he did not come to change the Law. Luke has him saying that "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." Some of the writers of the Synoptic Gospels treated him as a Jewish leader who approved of and followed Jewish - hence Levitican - law. Matthew and Luke followed that view. So there are definitely a few possible interpretations. If you depend on Leviticus or the Mosaic Law, you'd better be living the rest of the rules. All 613 of them. See your local Lubavitchers for more information.

But you've chosen the stance taken by John and others, writing later, who fitted Jesus into what was turning into a non-Jewish religion, and had him leaving the Mosaic Law behind. John was of the latter movement. John has Jesus saying "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement." That is, base your judgement not foolishly on the law, but on justice and righteousness. That is Jesus' message in John. So why would you cling to Leviticus?

If you approve of that sentiment, why would you be against gay marriage at all? What justification outside of the OT is there to prevent the *state* from authorizing gay marriage, completely outside of religious ceremonies and sanction? That's the question. Why is imposing Levitical rules on our nation any better than forcing Americans to recognize, say, Islamic family law? Outside of cultural history, there is no difference; each is equally unjust, because it involved placing purely religious rules on the secular population.

DOMA, as the law of the land, is no more morally justifiable than the Dred Scott decision, and it's based on the same type of reading of religious sources.

It is true that Christ didn't come to change the Law, He came to fulfill it. He came to keep it with perfection, and He did. What no other human could do from the dawn of time, Christ did in keeping the entire Law. It is because of this accomplishment that He alone in the human race did not deserve the wages of sin. He was the last Levitical unblemished lamb sacrifice. The Blameless took on the blame of the world, so that any who believe in His finished work and their own utter inability to work their way to reconciliation with God are given the free gift of forgiveness if they repent and turn from sin.

/end derail

I know this might surprise some of you, but I agree that it would be hard to show a mandate for preventing a secular governing body from recognizing gay marriage in scripture(OT or NT). There is however much written about abstaining from sexual immorality, including homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments as we have discussed before.

Nomad wrote:

I know this might surprise some of you, but I agree that it would be hard to show a mandate for preventing a secular governing body from recognizing gay marriage in scripture(OT or NT). There is however much written about abstaining from sexual immorality, including homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments as we have discussed before.

There is also crystal clear language from none other than Christ himself regarding the prohibition of divorce except, perhaps, on grounds of adultery, and yet every single state in the union has rather liberal divorce laws.

I certainly don't look forward to a return of the good, old-fashioned days of "American morality" where we trapped people in failed marriages and put homosexuals in jail for having sex with each other.

I know this might surprise some of you, but I agree that it would be hard to show a mandate for preventing a secular governing body from recognizing gay marriage in scripture(OT or NT). There is however much written about abstaining from sexual immorality, including homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments as we have discussed before.

It doesn't surprise me to hear this from you; it heartens me instead. Political religion is quite different from private religion, and can be much more harmful, as the Founders understood. That's one thing we've lost in the fervor of the last few decades.

I read a decent comment somewhere else a few months ago (which I can't find now) about Leviticus 18:22, which I'll summarize here. I'm not a biblical or historical scholar, but it made sense to me.

---------

Basically, it hinged on the understanding of the word "as" as a synonym of "while". So, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." becomes "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, while with womankind: it is abomination."

It's not about gay sex, it's about multiple-male threesomes. Why is that important? If two women have sex with one man, and one or both end up pregnant, it's easy to determine who the father is. Two men and one woman muddies the waters quite a bit. Since the Levites passed property and tribal status through patrilineal descent, it was pretty important to know who the father was, compared to typical Jewish status being passed from the mother.

---------

What does this have to do with chicken? Nothing. Is it historically correct? I have no idea.

Also, it's technically "And with a male not you male shall lie down beds of a woman abomination she". And since the typical interpretation of the KJV version specifically separates participants by sex, God apparently doesn't have a problem with lesbians.

I am just saying, God was kind of a dead beat Dad. He knocked up a young girl and left it to an older guy to raise his son. He then let him die on a cross for everyone else's sin.

And this is the guy we want to take lessons from about "traditional" family planning?

Real nice, God. Real nice.

SallyNasty wrote:

*true stuff *

Another interesting point is Augustine of Hippo, who wrote a treatise on marriage to combat some of the heretical views of other apologists of the time, who advocated against marriage (as sinful) or for multiple wives (based on OT examples) and the like. In this, he bases the legitimacy of marriage on several things. The most important understanding is that chastity is *always* better than marriage; but since while that would hasten the coming of the Kingdom of God by decreasing the population, it would also cause many to fall into sin due to sexual desire, marriage is therefore allowable for the procreation of children, and also for the creation and maintenance of friendship between man and wife. That maintenance includes voluntary sexual activity not for the purpose of producing children, even though that is a sin in the unmarried, it is less of one in the married (indeed, he urges that the avoidance of sin be considered a *virtue* of marriage). Further, he acknowledges that sex does not have to be a part of marriage - the friendship, or faith in each other's eternal company, shared by a married couple should last beyond desire; thus old people can be legitimately married.

So the Biblical basis of marriage for St. Augustine is procreation, and "faith" between partners - extended friendship including exclusive recreational sex if needed to avoid sin on the part of one partner. He makes various arguments that this state of marriage is exclusive, so much so that there is only one legitimate reason to dissolve a marriage - adultery without the intent of producing male children - and that this is so important that unless the partner who was put aside dies, the other one cannot remarry. (Adultery with the intent of producing an heir seems to him to be something that could be considered, with the approval of both parties.)

So for the great 4th century thinker, marriage is forever, and divorce is impossible without death (although celibate separation is fine, but only in the case of great sin, since voluntary separation is a violation of the marriage faith.) If someone wants to argue that marriage is only for procreation, they need to also argue that remarriage after divorce be illegal, and that older people, the infertile and similar cases should not be allowed to marry in the Church; otherwise, they are violating God's Law according to St. Augustine.

Don't forget that the Roman emperors are divinely sponsored by God, and the Roman Empire has a special place among nations because of this favor. Oh, and marriage is a weakness, tolerable to prevent sin, but chastity is always better if it can be maintained by the partners in their lifelong Christian fellowship.

It's an interesting piece.

Nomad wrote:

There is however much written about abstaining from sexual immorality, including homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments as we have discussed before.

Yeah, you might not want to rely on the bible too much for lessons of sexual morality. After all, it's the same book that says that a man can rape any woman he desires just so long as he pays a couple pieces of silver; that a man can imprison a woman after he slaughters he father and brother in battle and then make her his sex slave; and that rape victims should be stoned to death if they didn't "cry out for help."

Seriously, until Christians follow all the crazy sh*t in Leviticus they need to shut up about homosexuality. I mean how many of those Chick-fil-A'ers do you think gobbled down a chicken sandwich that had cheese on it--a clear no-no in Leviticus--without a second thought?

Robear wrote:

Another interesting point is Augustine of Hippo, who wrote a treatise on marriage to combat some of the heretical views of other apologists of the time, who advocated against marriage (as sinful) or for multiple wives (based on OT examples) and the like. In this, he bases the legitimacy of marriage on several things. The most important understanding is that chastity is *always* better than marriage; but since while that would hasten the coming of the Kingdom of God by decreasing the population, it would also cause many to fall into sin due to sexual desire, marriage is therefore allowable for the procreation of children, and also for the creation and maintenance of friendship between man and wife. That maintenance includes voluntary sexual activity not for the purpose of producing children, even though that is a sin in the unmarried, it is less of one in the married (indeed, he urges that the avoidance of sin be considered a *virtue* of marriage). Further, he acknowledges that sex does not have to be a part of marriage - the friendship, or faith in each other's eternal company, shared by a married couple should last beyond desire; thus old people can be legitimately married.

So the Biblical basis of marriage for St. Augustine is procreation, and "faith" between partners - extended friendship including exclusive recreational sex if needed to avoid sin on the part of one partner. He makes various arguments that this state of marriage is exclusive, so much so that there is only one legitimate reason to dissolve a marriage - adultery without the intent of producing male children - and that this is so important that unless the partner who was put aside dies, the other one cannot remarry. (Adultery with the intent of producing an heir seems to him to be something that could be considered, with the approval of both parties.)

So for the great 4th century thinker, marriage is forever, and divorce is impossible without death (although celibate separation is fine, but only in the case of great sin, since voluntary separation is a violation of the marriage faith.) If someone wants to argue that marriage is only for procreation, they need to also argue that remarriage after divorce be illegal, and that older people, the infertile and similar cases should not be allowed to marry in the Church; otherwise, they are violating God's Law according to St. Augustine.

Don't forget that the Roman emperors are divinely sponsored by God, and the Roman Empire has a special place among nations because of this favor. Oh, and marriage is a weakness, tolerable to prevent sin, but chastity is always better if it can be maintained by the partners in their lifelong Christian fellowship.

It's an interesting piece.

I don't have your education to say things the way you do. Its why I try and learn from these posts as much as possible. But I do find it interesting that we are now talking directly about the divorce section of Cathy's statement, which is what I tried to bring up awhile ago as being important.

The importance is one of hypocracy. If one believes portions of written work contained in a specific peice of literature but completely ignores other sections of the same literature for any reason, then the argument of lawfully abiding by the "chosen" ideals is pretty much moot. This goes for almost any subject or medium.

PAR

par wrote:

The importance is one of hypocracy. If one believes portions of written work contained in a specific peice of literature but completely ignores other sections of the same literature for any reason, then the argument of lawfully abiding by the "chosen" ideals is pretty much moot. This goes for almost any subject or medium.

Which is exactly why I now believe that the opposition to gay marriage and homosexuality is nothing more than the "ick" factor.

This seems to be a common place where this discussion gets bogged down. Someone will point out verses that explicitly condemn homosexuality, someone will counter with a verse, someone will reference "cast not the first stone" or "remove the plank from thine own eye" or the concept of Christ fulfilling the law. That's all well and good, but there are millions of people out there who look at those same verses and take a completely different interpretation. In the end, a lot of this is eye-of-the-beholder stuff, based upon interpretations of a 2000 year old book and personal revealed wisdom that other people can't check on or verify. Arguing chapter and verse may get you somewhere with a few people who based their objections purely upon a biblical interpretation that they can be convinced is faulty. But most of these people probably aren't in that crowd, if only because most believers aren't, for lack of a better term, that by-the-numbers in their faith.

I do wish they were, personally, for the sake of an increased basis for dialogue, but even then you're going to run smack up against "Well, I've prayed about this and..."

Leaving the rest of us who weren't privy to that cosmic discussion out of the loop.

*edit*

That sounded really pessimistic, so let me add - I think this problem is already being solved. It's being solved by the same 2 things that made non-christian homophobes become okay with homosexuality - time and familiarity. How many stories go something like "Well, I was against gay marriage until I found out my child/friend/cousin was gay, and that changed it for me and made it real". Many of those who went to CFA day, in a few years, will feel foolish for ever having done so. And their children will overwhelmingly feel that it was foolish. Stats show that year by year, inevitably, it's becoming something Americans are cool with. It's just taking too damn long.

OG_slinger wrote:
Nomad wrote:

There is however much written about abstaining from sexual immorality, including homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments as we have discussed before.

Yeah, you might not want to rely on the bible too much for lessons of sexual morality. After all, it's the same book that says that a man can rape any woman he desires just so long as he pays a couple pieces of silver; that a man can imprison a woman after he slaughters he father and brother in battle and then make her his sex slave; and that rape victims should be stoned to death if they didn't "cry out for help."

Seriously, until Christians follow all the crazy sh*t in Leviticus they need to shut up about homosexuality. I mean how many of those Chick-fil-A'ers do you think gobbled down a chicken sandwich that had cheese on it--a clear no-no in Leviticus--without a second thought?

Context is king.

The passages you are vaguely referring to are setting limits on the practices of the day. If you rip enough sound bytes from any source you can make a case for lunacy.

Here are some references with context.

Romans 1:22-27
22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Corinthians 6:9-20
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

12 “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything. 13 “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joine to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

Leviticus is important as any other book, but one small part of the entire Bible.

Like I said earlier. Glad to be an atheist. I can take people as they are. As people and without any pre-existing context beyond my own experiences.

Honestly, Nomad, regardless of what the context you state is there, you're reading one translation of the Bible. One. There are many many others out there that translate from the original in different ways, and different people understand the translations in different ways. And humans being the way they are, they've probably made errors here and there regarding the Bible.

Your quotations of the Bible haven't, and don't, change minds. People who believe as you do are going to get confirmation bias, and those who don't won't suddenly change their minds.

This is not an issue about freedom of speech. This isn't an issue of the Bible. This isn't even an issue about governmental interference in business.

This is, has been, and continues to be solely an issue of a company taking its beliefs and donating millions of dollars to agencies who fight to keep a minority's right from being given to them. As I have stated I don't know how many times before, why should I have fewer rights than you do because you're straight and I'm gay? Living in a secular republic state means that the Bible isn't supposed to come into account for this, so I'm going to posit this: if you can't come up with a reasonable explanation why I have fewer rights that doesn't involve parsing the Bible to the infinite degree that happens, then there isn't any good reason why, legally, I am a lesser person in the eyes of the United States government than you are.

Nomad wrote:

Context is king.

The passages you are vaguely referring to are setting limits on the practices of the day. If you rip enough sound bytes from any source you can make a case for lunacy.

Wow, two whole references in the bible is enough to justify denying people basic human rights?

I haven't seen Christians flock to show their support for the universal condemnation of adulterers. Hell, a good portion of them have committed that sin. Nor have I seen Christians unite against the greedy and swindlers of Wall Street.

It seems the only group in that list that they seem to get worked up about are homosexuals. And that's the problem. Christians seem to be highly selective in what so-called immoral behaviors they want to focus on. And if they can ignore all those other biblical laws without any problem then why should anyone take their stance on homosexuality seriously?

When Christians unite in protesting McDonald's for serving cheeseburgers or every clothing store for mixing fabric (as well as trying to pass legislation preventing people from doing both) I might take their stance on homosexuality more seriously. Until then, they are simply focusing on homosexuals because they personally find it icky and are simply using the bible to justify their position or hide behind.

Nomad wrote:

Context is king.

So is translation.

I'm not sure you 3 are understanding me. I'm not arguing against gay marriage. I'm simply addressing the idea that homosexuality is only discussed in the old testament.

Rub, there may be many translations out there, but most of them are pretty close to what the original Greek says. In this day and age, it's not difficult to get your hands on a Greek New Testament and a Greek/English dictionary and check the verse translation yourself.

bombsfall wrote:

I think this problem is already being solved. It's being solved by the same 2 things that made non-christian homophobes become okay with homosexuality - time and familiarity. How many stories go something like "Well, I was against gay marriage until I found out my child/friend/cousin was gay, and that changed it for me and made it real". Many of those who went to CFA day, in a few years, will feel foolish for ever having done so. And their children will overwhelmingly feel that it was foolish. Stats show that year by year, inevitably, it's becoming something Americans are cool with. It's just taking too damn long.

Agreed. Persistence, personal exposure, openness, understanding, support, education, and time. I have a lot of hope that these things will help combat the ignorance and hate that perpetuate these views. Seven years of marriage equality in Canada so far and the country is still standing. Hell, I had a catholic wedding there in BC and my hetero marriage is doing just fine! The pride parade today was AWESOME, by the way (My marriage wasn't threatened there, either). Wish I could have gotten pics but my phone was dead.

Showing solidarity purely for the support of the CFL as a good christian enterprise is bullsh*t. Sorry. It's bigotry. It's embarrassing. I'm embarrassed by my fellow Americans that attended, may their gods help them. It's hate hiding behind a ruse of good intentions.

Don't have a problem with the CEO or what he said; freedom of speech and all that to which we are all privy. I have a problem with the many thousands of people who went to CFL because it was a way for many of them to stick it to those yucky gays without having to be up-front and honest about the fact that they think there's something wrong with it.

Edit: Tannhauser'd, basically.