[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

That is an interesting statement. Are you sure, that you don't want anyone to die?

Yes. In direct response to the statement, "who cares if a faggot dies?" my answer is; I don't want anyone to die. See, death is a difficult thing for most. Particularly the kind of unwarranted death in the above context. In this sense I don't want anyone to die.

Imagine, that from this moment on noone ever dies anymore, but reproduction would continue, this planet would very quickly get overcrowded, ressources are finite, and people would get hungry very quickly, and thirsty but unable to die, they would eternally suffer a lot of pains...

Imagine a place where there is no sanctity of life. A place where gay teenagers are hanged for their sexual preference. Imagine a place where death is embraced and those who facilitate it, heroic. A place where there is no value of life, many without husbands, mothers, fathers, wives, sons and daughters, left with nothing because of the persecutorial actions of those who simply embrace hate and death. Imagine a place where we leave people to die because we want death.

Are you sure you want death?

Another angle is, if noone dies, then noone can get ressurected and noone comes into heaven/paradise and noone comes into hell... are you sure that you don't want anyone to die? Taliesin

In the context of the thread and in direct response to the statement; "who cares if a faggot dies?", I don't want anyone to die. Death is often difficult. What I want and God's Will are often two different things. I can appreciate death as the necessary biproduct of life, but I don't have to like it.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yes. In direct response to the statement, "who cares if a faggot dies?" my answer is; I don't want anyone to die. See, death is a difficult thing for most. Particularly the kind of unwarranted death in the above context. In this sense I don't want anyone to die.


Imagine a place where there is no sanctity of life. A place where gay teenagers are hanged for their sexual preference. Imagine a place where death is embraced and those who facilitate it, heroic. A place where there is no value of life, many without husbands, mothers, fathers, wives, sons and daughters, left with nothing because of the persecutorial actions of those who simply embrace hate and death. Imagine a place where we leave people to die because we want death.

Are you sure you want death?



In the context of the thread and in direct response to the statement; "who cares if a faggot dies?", I don't want anyone to die. Death is often difficult. What I want and God's Will are often two different things. I can appreciate death as the necessary biproduct of life, but I don't have to like it.

I think noone likes death, except of course suicide-bombers and suiciders per se, but I surely don't want that noone dies. I want that old people die a natural death, that hopelessly and incurably sick people die a natural death, and also that murderers, torturers and rapists die, that ruthless dictators die. Who would want Hitler to live along?

The reason why I want that is so that good people can receive their life and reward in God's nearness and that evil people receive their due punishment in the hereafter.

But otherwise we agree, I also don't want people that don't deserve it to die an unnatural death.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

If everyone was gay it would solve all these problems. No one would have to die but there would be no over-population as the numbers would remain fixed, the wars would be over instantly since nobody could join the army, and nobody would miss out on going to heaven since they all would have gone to hell anyway.

Clever.

Taliesin

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Do you ever contribute anything worthwile?

Yep. You sure as hell don't though. I've only seen two of your posts, and both of them were attacking me for my stance on why religions is for retards. Maybe you're just a regular around here who uses this name just to haggle me. Oh well. Welcome to my ignore list.

[Snow-i]

must be getting pretty long by now.

You don't remember our debate on SUV's?
Or the one on global warming?

I just find it frustrating that you are bigoted against those who have different views than you. You don't have respect for anyone elses opinion, or their right to have that opinion.

[ebuddy]

religions is for retards

[Kerrigan]

I don't think we should speak of "Religion" as "causing" various phenomena such as homophobia; things are never that simple. Case in point - the irreligious Hitler institutionalized homophobia by sending gays to the gas chamber.

In reality, a distaste for homosexuals runs through all areas of society, and its presence depends largely on the individual person. My best friend in the world comes from a country where the authorities inject hormones and/or hang young gay men. But as an individual, he has no problem with me being gay.

On the other hand, I was recently taunted at a party by a group of guys from a tolerant, socialist, predominantly atheist country. As individuals, they simply choose to act like jerks and taunt gay guys.

Dealing with homophobia is not fun because it can come from anyplace - it can even come from within the mind of the homosexual himself, or other homosexuals. There are certainly many people who are openly gay but despise this fact about themselves. This is why so many of us seem profoundly broken-spirited.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

What makes anyone have a sense of "maybe thats wrong"
I think they call it "instinct."

Like I said, some people ignore it long enough...

But by all means, don't let my "instincts" effect anyone having a good time.

On the flip side, my "instinct" tells me that I'd much rather pursue a guy than a girl.

If we are speaking of homosexuality as a moral issue dependent upon instinct, then it follows that it would be immoral for me to repress homosexual tendencies.

The whole issue is a bit paradoxical, but I'm reminded of two quotes help people understand it:

"Suum Cuique" (To each his own) - Cicero
"Man is disturbed not by things, but by the views he takes of them." - Epictetus

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I don't think we should speak of "Religion" as "causing" various phenomena such as homophobia; things are never that simple. Case in point - the irreligious Hitler institutionalized homophobia by sending gays to the gas chamber.

Hold your horses, Hitler might have rejected his Catholic upbringing, but he was far from irreligious:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In later life, Hitler's religious beliefs present a discrepant picture: In public statements, he frequently spoke positively about the Christian heritage of German culture and belief in Christ. Hitler’s private statements, reported by his intimates, are more mixed, showing Hitler as a religious man but also critical of Christianity. However, in contrast to other Nazi leaders, Hitler did not adhere to esoteric ideas, occultism, or neo-paganism[citation needed], and ridiculed such beliefs in his book Mein Kampf. Rather, Hitler advocated a "Positive Christianity", a belief system purged from what he objected to in traditional Christianity, and reinvented Jesus as a fighter against the Jews.

Other than that I largely agree with your post.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Hold your horses, Hitler might have rejected his Catholic upbringing, but he was far from irreligious:

I don't understand your point then. What religion was he?

- he was born and raised as a Catholic child like most in Germany. This does not mean Hitler was religious. It means his parents may have been.
- there is absolutely nothing to suggest Hitler was a practicing Christian or of any other religion. This, by definition is "irreligious".
- Hitler in fact, displayed indifference to and often hostility towards religion. By definition, Hitler was as irreligious as they get. I mean, unless you call naturalism/evolution a religion. His "master race" was founded on this principle.

[imacfly]

Funny how many talk about the Bible but not many quote it... so many words here in this post... Everyone claiming to have the answer.
You've read all the rest of this thead now I dare you to read this one if you really want to know. There are only two passages in the Bible, that I know of, which speak of homosexuality. Each passage shows God's response.

Genesis 19
And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.
10 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door.
11 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.
12 And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place:
13 For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it....
24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.
26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.
27 And Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the LORD:
28 And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.

Romans 1

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 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;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 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.

[mrtew]

Who the heck translated that? That's practically unintelligable. What little I do understand sure sounds craYzee though.... people actually believe that? His wife looked back and became salt? He offered his own daughters to the mob of pervs? Implacable backbiters? What a bunch of tripe.

[TETENAL]

He was a nice guy. He would rather have his virgin daughters raped than his guests harmed by the mob.

What has that got to do with homosexuality though?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

His wife looked back and became salt?

From what I understand, her maiden name was Morton.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

He was a nice guy. He would rather have his virgin daughters raped than his guests harmed by the mob.

Sometimes, we make the wrong choices in life.

[imacfly]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

Who the heck translated that? That's practically unintelligable. What little I do understand sure sounds craYzee though.... people actually believe that? His wife looked back and became salt? He offered his own daughters to the mob of pervs? Implacable backbiters? What a bunch of tripe.

You must, at least, understand this...
Romans 1: 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Sounds like the majority of this thread. I don't see you complaining about any of the rest of this thead or calling it tripe.

[OldManMac]

Thank god you're here to save us at last. Free at last!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by imacfly 

Genesis 19

Is about people who TRIED TO RAPE ANGELS. Nice try, but associating this passage with homosexuality is a bit like saying the problem with WWII-era Japan was the archaic fashion sense. Yes, these people were incidentally gay, but that's hardly seeing the big picture.

Originally Posted by imacfly 

Romans 1

Is about people who were turned gay as a punishment for their sins. This verse doesn't prove homosexuality is wrong any more than verses about people being struck blind prove vision problems are a sin.

Try getting your beliefs from the Bible rather than trying to force them in there.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Try getting your beliefs from the Bible rather than trying to force them in there.

Furthermore, don't just read one or two verses from the Bible, try to collect the entire picture. Such as; the wage of ONE sin is death. How to have life? The entire New Testament outlines how to have life. Just in case there are sinless believers here, The Ten Commandments from the Old Testament were speaking directly to you. The entire New Testament is speaking to you and I don't know of one person who is without sin.

Now ask yourself, is homosexuality weighed more heavily than your sin? Why and provide for me the verse that affirms it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Now ask yourself, is homosexuality weighed more heavily than your sin? Why and provide for me the verse that affirms it.

I said earlier that it was clear from the Bible that for the most part, God doesn't weigh sin differently. Sin is sin. If you have premarital sex, it's the same as having homosexual relations. If you commit adultery, it's the same as having homosexual relation.

Though, I guess the one difference is that there isn't a vocal segment of society getting big coverage in the media telling us that extramarital heterosexual sex and adultery should be looked at as moral and should be seen as a valuable part of society. That's what I see will homosexual relations.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I guess the one difference is that there isn't a vocal segment of society getting big coverage in the media telling us that extramarital heterosexual sex and adultery should be looked at as moral and should be seen as a valuable part of society. That's what I see will homosexual relations.

Likewise, we don't have a large segment of society trying to ban adultery and sex-outside-of-marriage. Are they not perceived to be as heavy sins as homosexuality?

Maybe God sees all sins as equal, but Man certainly does not.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Likewise, we don't have a large segment of society trying to ban adultery and sex-outside-of-marriage. Are they not perceived to be as heavy sins as homosexuality?

Maybe God sees all sins as equal, but Man certainly does not.

This is the tricky part about all this for me personally. Our laws in many respects have roots in Biblical Law however, did God give us free will in order for man to take it away? This begs the obvious of course; thievery, slander, murder, etc... (not to compare these acts with homosexuality)

To be clear, I understand stupendousman's argument though. It is one thing to be tolerant of behavior, it is another thing entirely to expect society to condone and in some cases embrace it. The opposition to "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military establishes for me that it's not enough for one to be gay, in many respects they need to be able to celebrate it everywhere and at all times. This is not only naive of human nature, but is elevating "gay cause" above that which we'd allow in any other segment of people. I see it too often being used as proselytizing. This is where the homosexual community loses me in their arguments.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is the tricky part about all this for me personally. Our laws in many respects have roots in Biblical Law however, did God give us free will in order for man to take it away? This begs the obvious of course; thievery, slander, murder, etc... (not to compare these acts with homosexuality)

To be clear, I understand stupendousman's argument though. It is one thing to be tolerant of behavior, it is another thing entirely to expect society to condone and in some cases embrace it. The opposition to "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military establishes for me that it's not enough for one to be gay, in many respects they need to be able to celebrate it everywhere and at all times. This is not only naive of human nature, but is elevating "gay cause" above that which we'd allow in any other segment of people. I see it too often being used as proselytizing. This is where the homosexual community loses me in their arguments.

No one is asking you to "elevate" gay causes above that which we'd allow in any other segment of people. They're asking that they be allowed to have the same benefits and rights that you do. That is a disingenuous response, which brings to light underlying fears that you will be asked to "embrace" the homosexual lifestyle, which is absurd. No one can force you to embrace anything, unless you don't have the will power to resist, or unless you have some insecurity in your own beliefs, and as is obvious by your reply, you fear being forced to embrace something that you, and only you, should have the will power to resist. I think I see now why you wrote the response to the letter that I posted. You took it as a personal affront to your beliefs and value systems, so you struck back. That also explains why you wrote the part about garish people walking around on stilts, etc.; you see that as an attempt from those who have their beliefs to get you to accept those beliefs and celebrate them as they do. The truth is now coming out; you do indeed have a subconscious or unconscious need to fear that which you should have no fear of. If you are secure in your own beliefs then it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks, and that doesn't matter whether it's on the issue of homosexuality, or marriage, or religious beliefs, or on any issue. I don't care if the neighbors, Bill and Ken, proselytize their lifestyle to me. I'm secure enough in my beliefs that i'm not going to change them, period. I am in control of my beliefs and I can very easily turn off the proselityzing; I don't need to outshout them, or bicker over it. Sadly, it appears that a large majority of Americans are not in charge of their beliefs, as they allow a tiny fraction of the population to control their emotions and responses to that fraction's simple request to enjoy the same rights that the majority has. There have been a lot of social issues that have required a lot of shouting and "celebrating" to get people to realize that they were wrong about their views. Black people had to celebrate their pride in being black, with marches and demonstrations and sit ins; they weren't asking anybody to embrace their lifestyle. They were simply asking that they be ceded the same rights and benefits availabe to the majority. The history of humankind is littered with examples of irrational prejudices, that have later been realized as irrational.

I am the father of a lesbian, and neither she, nor her community, has any desire to expect you to embrace their lifestyle; it is your fears that cause you to believe that. They do, however, expect not to be discriminated against, just as any other human expects, and gets, even though their beliefs might be in the minority.

Thank you, for at least being honest enough, even though it was in a round about way, to lay your fears on the table. If you work on them, disregarding the sensationalism that surrounds this issue, like many others now in the news, you'll be pleasantly surprised that no one is out to make you celebrate homosexuality.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

No one is asking you to "elevate" gay causes above that which we'd allow in any other segment of people. They're asking that they be allowed to have the same benefits and rights that you do.

Uh...they currently do. Equal rights for equal entities. Already happening.

Of course, there is no logical, moral or legal right for unequal things to be given equal access.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Likewise, we don't have a large segment of society trying to ban adultery and sex-outside-of-marriage.

Is there really a "large segment" of society that wants to ban consensual homosexual activity? It would be my estimate that there's about as much of that as there is keeping the laws against heterosexual non-marital co-habitation. You're talking about a small and non-vocal group.

Maybe God sees all sins as equal, but Man certainly does not.

No argument there.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

No one is asking you to "elevate" gay causes above that which we'd allow in any other segment of people.

Hate crime? If someone hates me and kills me, can I rest assured as an Anglo-Euro white male that they will get an additional penalty for hating me? No. You are elevating their rights over my own. Why am I not equally regarded for protection against hate? I've already explained why hate crime legislation including homosexuality is ridiculous and it has nothing to do with fear.

You've already forgotten the subject of the letter and my refutations of it. Having been silenced by me upon your last error in judgment, you're launching more judgment.

They're asking that they be allowed to have the same benefits and rights that you do. That is a disingenuous response, which brings to light underlying fears that you will be asked to "embrace" the homosexual lifestyle, which is absurd.

You've missed the entire theme of my post KarlG. You're so fearful of my perspective (which, by your logic implies guilt and insecurity in your own beliefs) that you're twisting what I've said out of context. I've already spoken that I support the right of gays to marry. I don't believe homosexuals will degrade the definition of marriage any more than heterosexuals already have.

No one can force you to embrace anything, unless you don't have the will power to resist, or unless you have some insecurity in your own beliefs, and as is obvious by your reply, you fear being forced to embrace something that you, and only you, should have the will power to resist.

That's absolutely preposterous. Either I'm gay or I'm not right? You're saying there's the possibility I fear becoming gay? What is "will power to resist"??? As a Christian, I've called on other Christians to cease persecuting them for their gender preference and to stop "resisting" them. Again, I don't have a problem with gays having the SAME rights as me. I said it is naive to EXPECT (not force, expect) people to condone or in some cases (which implies rarity) "embrace" homosexuality. You don't think this occurs?

- Diversity training in the work place; I in fact am "expected" to embrace diversity which includes homosexuality. To be clear, I am perfectly accepting of gays and am not opposed to my company including homosexuality however, I believe it is naive to "expect" society to condone and embrace it. You call me "fearful" when this is exactly what is happening. Again, I am not phobic or fearful of homosexuality, but I have a particular distaste for agendas regardless of where it's coming from.

I think I see now why you wrote the response to the letter that I posted. You took it as a personal affront to your beliefs and value systems, so you struck back. That also explains why you wrote the part about garish people walking around on stilts, etc.; you see that as an attempt from those who have their beliefs to get you to accept those beliefs and celebrate them as they do. The truth is now coming out; you do indeed have a subconscious or unconscious need to fear that which you should have no fear of.

- Homosexual clergy; The Methodist Church is mired in their own legal proceedings regarding the inclusion of openly gay ministers. I've been to many churches and cannot recall once the proclamation of any minister as to his "open heterosexuality" or why that was even relevant in service. According to the director of the United Methodist Action; "I pray he will resist the pressures from liberal clergy to play cute semantic games and try to uphold the letter of church law while ignoring its spirit. It is sad that this is even a controversy. Christianity’s historic standards are clear. Persons who disagree with them should, as a matter of integrity, seek employment elsewhere.”

The problem is... they won't. They will continue the naive practice of expecting society to condone and embrace homosexuality. They will do so in the workplace. They will do so among clergy and throughout Churches. BTW, this is not only an issue in the Methodist Church.

Not only are you not qualified to tell me what I fear, you don't even have a legitimate argument in this discussion. Having a lesbian daughter (which you've mentioned a couple of times now, some additional introspect might be in order) I can understand the dog you have in the fight, there just isn't any fight in your dog.

If you are secure in your own beliefs then it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks, and that doesn't matter whether it's on the issue of homosexuality, or marriage, or religious beliefs, or on any issue.

On the contrary; I believe the more we focus on our differences, the more push-back you'll see. I believe the more we focus on our similarities, the more common ground we can find. Because I completely railed on you for implying I was homophobic you've stopped using the word, but you're taking about every back road to it. You've got the wrong guy KarlG. Your insistence on this is making me wonder exactly how secure you are in your beliefs.

I don't care if the neighbors, Bill and Ken, proselytize their lifestyle to me. I'm secure enough in my beliefs that I'm not going to change them, period. I am in control of my beliefs and I can very easily turn off the proselityzing; I don't need to outshout them, or bicker over it. Sadly, it appears that a large majority of Americans are not in charge of their beliefs, as they allow a tiny fraction of the population to control their emotions and responses to that fraction's simple request to enjoy the same rights that the majority has.

What gay right have I expressed opposition to KarlG? This is your problem. You need to lash out at someone, but for what I can't for the life of me tell.

There have been a lot of social issues that have required a lot of shouting and "celebrating" to get people to realize that they were wrong about their views. Black people had to celebrate their pride in being black, with marches and demonstrations and sit ins; they weren't asking anybody to embrace their lifestyle.

What was their lifestyle KarlG, their skin color?

See, I believe you're being disingenuous by comparing the right of gay marriage to the right not to be sold as property on an auction block, hung by the neck, and enslaved. They simply do not compare.

They were simply asking that they be ceded the same rights and benefits availabe to the majority. The history of humankind is littered with examples of irrational prejudices, that have later been realized as irrational.

Who are you talking to???

I am the father of a lesbian, and neither she, nor her community, has any desire to expect you to embrace their lifestyle; it is your fears that cause you to believe that. They do, however, expect not to be discriminated against, just as any other human expects, and gets, even though their beliefs might be in the minority.

This is proof of what I'm saying. I've not opposed any gay rights KarlG, yet I'm being called a homophobe and fearful. If I'm not discriminating against the homosexual and I support their right to marry; why on earth are you arguing with me??? What do you want from me?

Thank you, for at least being honest enough, even though it was in a round about way, to lay your fears on the table. If you work on them, disregarding the sensationalism that surrounds this issue, like many others now in the news, you'll be pleasantly surprised that no one is out to make you celebrate homosexuality.

I've never thought that anyone would expect me to celebrate homosexuality nor am I fearful of celebrating something I can't as a heterosexual. You may continue to be naive in trying to get the rest of society to. After all, if I've stated clearly that I don't oppose the rights of gays to marry and find the act of discriminating against them deplorable, my only guess is that you expect something more. If not for me to celebrate, embrace, or condone homosexuality-what on earth are you arguing for?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Hate crime? If someone hates me and kills me, can I rest assured as an Anglo-Euro white male that they will get an additional penalty for hating me? No. You are elevating their rights over my own.

I agree with this. The idea of hate crimes is misguided. A gay man's life is not worth more or less than mine. It's no more horrible to kill a man because he's gay than because he looked at you wrong — they're both cold-blooded murder. If you feel the punishment for the crime is insufficient, make it stronger for everybody, not just "special" people.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- Homosexual clergy; The Methodist Church is mired in their own legal proceedings regarding the inclusion of openly gay ministers. I've been to many churches and cannot recall once the proclamation of any minister as to his "open heterosexuality" or why that was even relevant in service.

I'm a bit confused about this point. This paragraph fragment seems to indicate that you think openly gay ministers should be allowed, since it's not relevant to his service.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

According to the director of the United Methodist Action; "I pray he will resist the pressures from liberal clergy to play cute semantic games and try to uphold the letter of church law while ignoring its spirit. It is sad that this is even a controversy. Christianity’s historic standards are clear. Persons who disagree with them should, as a matter of integrity, seek employment elsewhere.”

The problem is... they won't. They will continue the naive practice of expecting society to condone and embrace homosexuality. They will do so in the workplace. They will do so among clergy and throughout Churches. BTW, this is not only an issue in the Methodist Church.

This section, though, seems to be rebuking people who push for gays to be allowed as clergy. Is it a valid criterion for a minister or not?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

See, I believe you're being disingenuous by comparing the right of gay marriage to the right not to be sold as property on an auction block, hung by the neck, and enslaved. They simply do not compare.

That's hardly the only right blacks have had to win, though. The right to be considered equal to every other person in the eyes of the law and the right to vote are two examples of things that are very much along the same vein as the right to marry whom you choose.

[OldManMac]

eBuddy, I apologize if I've mischaracterized you. As you can no doubt tell, this is a touchy issue for me, not because of my own insecurities, but because one of my greatest wishes is to be able to walk my oldest daughter down the aisle, and I'm not always optimistic that will happen in my lifetime.

[Kerrigan]

Sometimes I think that straight people spend more time and effort worrying about homosexuality than homosexuals do.

Edit- That's not to say it's a bad thing to have straight people coming to our defence.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't understand your point then. What religion was he?

- he was born and raised as a Catholic child like most in Germany. This does not mean Hitler was religious. It means his parents may have been.
- there is absolutely nothing to suggest Hitler was a practicing Christian or of any other religion. This, by definition is "irreligious".
- Hitler in fact, displayed indifference to and often hostility towards religion. By definition, Hitler was as irreligious as they get. I mean, unless you call naturalism/evolution a religion. His "master race" was founded on this principle.

Maybe you should read what I quoted again. Hitler was practising a form of Christianity which conformed to what he thought was right, a skewed form of Protestantism. In that regard he was just like most any other Christian.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

They will continue the naive practice of expecting society to condone and embrace homosexuality.

Oh dear …

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

he was born and raised as a Catholic child like most in Germany.

Hitler was born and raised in Austria.

[imacfly]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yes, these people were incidentally gay, but that's hardly seeing the big picture.

That's right, the big picture was that the city was destroyed. Please read it again.

Genesis 19
And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.
10 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door.
11 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.
12 And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place:
13 For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it....
24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.
26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.
27 And Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the LORD:
28 And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.
[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Romans 1 Is about people who were turned gay as a punishment for their sins. This verse doesn't prove homosexuality is wrong

You admit it's wrong in your statement. Are you punished for something that is right?

[Kerrigan]

Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I agree with this. The idea of hate crimes is misguided. A gay man's life is not worth more or less than mine. It's no more horrible to kill a man because he's gay than because he looked at you wrong — they're both cold-blooded murder. If you feel the punishment for the crime is insufficient, make it stronger for everybody, not just "special" people.

I'm a bit confused about this point. This paragraph fragment seems to indicate that you think openly gay ministers should be allowed, since it's not relevant to his service.

I don't think openly gay ministers should be allowed in Church entities that have expressed opposition to it in their doctrines. There's no doubt in my mind that homosexuals could be effective and necessary in ministry, but the Methodist or Catholic Churches may not be the places for this. I believe there is something more at play in this and it has to do with "changing doctrine" without regard for how it would alienate an overwhelming majority of the congregation. This is why I use the word "naive". The director used; "integrity" to suggest they seek this position elsewhere. I agree.

This section, though, seems to be rebuking people who push for gays to be allowed as clergy. Is it a valid criterion for a minister or not?

You don't need to subvert specific Church doctrines to be a minister. I would not join a synagogue to preach about Jesus. Should a Jew who does not believe in the deity of Christ be allowed in Christian ministry?

That's hardly the only right blacks have had to win, though. The right to be considered equal to every other person in the eyes of the law and the right to vote are two examples of things that are very much along the same vein as the right to marry whom you choose.

I agree with this and I've expressed my support for gay marriage. I don't have a compelling reason to oppose it. It simply does not affect me. I don't believe we've been given free will by God for man to legislate it away. I get a little miffed when I see comparisons of homosexuality to true institutional racism however. I used the most obvious rhetoric that came to mind to illustrate my distaste for it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Oh dear …

I suspect you have a problem with the context in which I used the statement you hacked. If so, I'm interested in hearing what you've got.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by imacfly 

That's right, the big picture was that the city was destroyed.

BECAUSE THEY TRIED TO RAPE TWO ANGELS, yes. That's hardly relevant to a conversation about homosexuality, though. Homosexuality ≠ angel rape.

Originally Posted by imacfly 

You admit it's wrong in your statement. Are you punished for something that is right?

Reread the passage. They weren't punished for homosexuality. Homosexuality was their punishment for other sins. In the same way, when somebody is struck blind as a punishment, he isn't being punished for his vision problems. Their sin was idolatry; their punishment was homosexuality.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

eBuddy, I apologize if I've mischaracterized you. As you can no doubt tell, this is a touchy issue for me, not because of my own insecurities, but because one of my greatest wishes is to be able to walk my oldest daughter down the aisle, and I'm not always optimistic that will happen in my lifetime.

I can understand your frustration KarlG as I have two daughters of my own and look forward to that day myself. While we've had our share of differences, I think we can certainly appreciate our similarities in this.

One of my complaints about fellow Christians (evidenced by imacfly's posts) is that they spend so much time preaching the bad news (and particularly about homosexuality) that I think they forget what the good news is.

I was talking with a gay friend of mine and he was telling me about some of his "spiritual" endeavors. He believes in a deity, but he's not convinced of the more dominant religions. He literally told me he was "searching" for a religion. As a Christian, I'm not typically the evangelical type and won't generally approach you about Christianity, but when someone admits they're searching and begins to ask you questions well... you're no Christian if you don't speak up at this point. I asked him if he'd ever considered going to a Christian Church (thinking if there was even an ounce of willingness, I'd invite him to mine) and his reply was quick; "Absolutely not. I would not be caught dead walking into a Christian Church." He feels persecution there and believes the Christian Church would make him feel "dirty". I didn't know what to say other than "that's too bad that you've been alienated from the Christian Church. We don't always represent well". It was one of those conversations that you come up with all the right words, but 3 days late.

Regardless of whether or not you consider homosexuality a sin, sin is something all are guilty of and not just the sexual kind. I won't go through all Ten Commandments, but suffice it to say those alone encompass just about every transgression you can imagine from humankind and little of it has to do with sexuality. If you consider Jesus' words regarding sin, you find out this includes the thoughts of your mind. I'm a red-blooded American male and have caught myself double-taking a beautiful woman and it wasn't as if I was appreciating her style choices. This is adultery. Double-taking your neighbor's vehicle is sin. If you had to be "clean" to enter a Church, they'd be entirely empty on Sunday. In other words, there's plenty of conviction to go around, but that's not always (in fact, not typically) the message Christians get on Sundays. We're told the wage of one sin is death, but that through Christ we can have life. In other words, I'd be willing to bet our sins do not begin and end with any sexual transgression. Too many Christians have focused on this difference without acknowledging our similarities, not one of us is without sin. The reason the Bible points these traits out to us is to remind us that we need God's Grace for salvation. That per our own power, we are not capable. In short, much of The Bible makes us less and God more. All who are seeking earnestly are worthy, all are welcome. Though we don't always express this fact accurately. Sermon over.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Homosexuality ≠ angel rape.

Statements like this are why I even bother checking this thread from time to time.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Statements like this are why I even bother checking this thread from time to time.

These tiresome "debates" with religious types are positively Middle Ages. How many times do we have to listen to closet-case paranoiacs denounce homosexuality? We get the point - you think it's immoral. We don't. Get on with life.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

These tiresome "debates" with religious types are positively Middle Ages. How many times do we have to listen to closet-case paranoiacs denounce homosexuality? We get the point - you think it's immoral. We don't. Get on with life.

I don't usually care, but the "society shouldn't accept it at all" crowd gets old.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

I don't usually care, but the "society shouldn't accept it at all" crowd gets old.

Actually, you are correct. The older members of society will never accept it, and the young do, or at least don't worry about it. Some day, hopefully soon, we will look back at this and realize that, just as other social issues before it, ignorance and fear will be vanquished.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Is about people who TRIED TO RAPE ANGELS. Nice try, but associating this passage with homosexuality is a bit like saying the problem with WWII-era Japan was the archaic fashion sense. Yes, these people were incidentally gay, but that's hardly seeing the big picture..

That's quite incorrect: God sent the angels to Sodom or Gommorah, in order to bring the message to Lot, that the towns would be destroyed and that he and his family should better get out. The decision to destroy these towns was made by God before the incident with the tried rape of the guests of Lot, of which the possible rapers didn't know that they were angels.

The reason for the destruction of the towns was presumably that the citizens became completely wicked, trangressing every bounds in every way, the homosexuality of them and the willingness to rape people, were merely symptoms of an underlying evil.

Knowing that, one can interpret the passages as meaning that the practice of homosexuality is a severe sin for anyone, or that the practice of homosexuality is only a severe sin for those that are normaly oriented heterosexually.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

How about this from wikipedia (Source: Homosexuality and Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Homosexuality in the Torah

The Torah, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, is the primary source for Jewish views on homosexuality. It states:

וְאֶת זָכָר לֹא תִשְׁכַּב מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תּוֹעֵבָה הִוא

"[A man] shall not lie with another man as [he would] with a woman, it is a toevah" (Leviticus 18:22).

Leviticus 20:13 then states וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת זָכָר מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תּוֹעֵבָה עָשׂוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם מוֹת יוּמָתוּ דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם:

"A man shall not lie with another man as he would with a woman; the two of them have done a toevah; they shall be put to death; their bloodguilt is upon them.

The term to'eva is usually translated as "abomination" and is used in the Bible to refer to a variety of forbidden acts including incest, idolatry, eating unclean animals, and economic injustice. In the context of sexual prohibitions, the word is also interpreted by the Talmud to be a contraction of the words to'eh ata vah, meaning "You deviate from what is natural." (literally "You are wandering astray with it" since the Hebrew word to'e means "wandering", ata "you", vah "with it")

At least for those bound by the Torah, it seems pretty clear-cut, don't you think?

Taliesin

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Regardless of whether or not you consider homosexuality a sin, sin is something all are guilty of and not just the sexual kind. I won't go through all Ten Commandments, but suffice it to say those alone encompass just about every transgression you can imagine from humankind and little of it has to do with sexuality. If you consider Jesus' words regarding sin, you find out this includes the thoughts of your mind. I'm a red-blooded American male and have caught myself double-taking a beautiful woman and it wasn't as if I was appreciating her style choices. This is adultery. Double-taking your neighbor's vehicle is sin. If you had to be "clean" to enter a Church, they'd be entirely empty on Sunday.

Maybe you're willing to accept a church that sentences you to death for checking out hot chicks or cool cars (which is the stupidest thing I've ever heard) but many gay people aren't. Everyone knows that adultry is a sin but that's not the same as being homosexual. Imagine if your church told you that sleeping with your wife is a sin. Maybe it wouldn't bother you since you're willing to accept that virtually everything else you do is, but once gay people have struggled to find enough 'pride' to accept themselves as gay, they are usually not in the mood for a preacher to tell them that they're evil sinners again. Gay adultry is a sin of course, or gay rape, but gays are not going to put up with you Christians saying that gay love is sinful at its core. Would you leave your church if it told you that loving your wife is a sin? Please answer that.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

Maybe you're willing to accept a church that sentences you to death for checking out hot chicks or cool cars (which is the stupidest thing I've ever heard) but many gay people aren't.

No one is requiring gays to accept anything. I dare say most gays don't accept a church that sentences them to death. In fact, I'd go so far as to say most church attendees don't accept churches that sentence them to death for sin.

Per Christian doctrine, you are not sentenced to death for your sin specifically because Jesus was. Christians refer to this as atonement. If you'd like to learn more about this, it is fascinating and I'd be happy to go into more detail for you.

Everyone knows that adultry is a sin but that's not the same as being homosexual.

Everyone knows that adultery is sin?

Imagine if your church told you that sleeping with your wife is a sin. Maybe it wouldn't bother you since you're willing to accept that virtually everything else you do is, but once gay people have struggled to find enough 'pride' to accept themselves as gay, they are usually not in the mood for a preacher to tell them that they're evil sinners again.

First of all, the Church does not refer to sinners as "evil sinners". This is a pretty archaic view of what goes on inside the Church building. If you IM me with a general idea of your location, I'd be happy to point you to any one of several Christian Churches if you're interested in learning more about what goes on inside.

Secondly, according to a study by Atwood & Schwartz, 2002 - Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy; 45-55% of married women and 50-60% of married men engage in extramarital sex at some time or another during their relationship yet 90% (by the way, clearly not all) believe adultery is immoral. Whether you believe this study is accurate or not, it means a significant chunk of the congregation on Sunday is trying to be good Christians, able to find 'pride' in themselves again only to hear what "evil sinners" they are. As if that wasn't enough, those who've told little lies to get out of luncheons, off the phone, and out of meetings or those who like to talk poorly about someone of whom they know little about, etc... sin is not defined exclusively by sexual indiscretion. It seems most who attend Church would endure the title "evil sinners", but the fact of the matter is that most do not refer to it in such a simpleton manner.

Gay adultry is a sin of course, or gay rape, but gays are not going to put up with you Christians saying that gay love is sinful at its core. Would you leave your church if it told you that loving your wife is a sin? Please answer that.

Yes, I probably would leave the Church. If I believed the Church was teaching doctrine that conflicted with the Bible, I'd likely find a Bible Study or some other way to fellowship with the like-minded. Church does not have to be a formal environment of hate. The reason we're told the wage of one sin is death is to clarify that A) no one is without it and... B) that it makes no sense to weigh sin as if mine is less offensive than yours. People have at times made it to be hateful, but people do what people do. We make choices in our lives that often reflect our personal circumstances. On the other hand, just because something happens to reflect my personal choice does not necessarily mean it was the correct decision. All I can do is the best I can do and with my heart after God I believe wherever I go, good will follow.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

Maybe you're willing to accept a church that sentences you to death for checking out hot chicks or cool cars (which is the stupidest thing I've ever heard) but many gay people aren't. Everyone knows that adultry is a sin but that's not the same as being homosexual.

A. The Church doesn't currently sentence people to death for sin. I believe that sort of thing went out after the "new covenant".
B. "Being homosexual" gives you desires, just as being heterosexual gives you desires. If you are straight and married, you can still desire other women. The sin is when you act on it. The same is true for a homsexual you acts on his desires (at least according to the Bible).

Imagine if your church told you that sleeping with your wife is a sin. Maybe it wouldn't bother you since you're willing to accept that virtually everything else you do is, but once gay people have struggled to find enough 'pride' to accept themselves as gay, they are usually not in the mood for a preacher to tell them that they're evil sinners again.

If you believe in the God of Abraham, I very well doubt whether he cares much if you're "not in the mood" to hear when you've sinned. The best way not to hear it, is to not sin I'd guess.

Gay adultry is a sin of course, or gay rape, but gays are not going to put up with you Christians saying that gay love is sinful at its core.

If you're not a Christian, why would you care? Personally, I don't care if all my "body thetans" are cleansed or if Scientologists think that makes me flawed. That's of course because I don't personally believe in Scientology.

Would you leave your church if it told you that loving your wife is a sin? Please answer that.

Yes I would, given that there is no real Biblical or historical backing for such a notion. Christianity has told me that many things that I'd enjoy or like is a sin though. It sucks, but I do the best I can to refrain.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If you are straight and married, you can still desire other women. The sin is when you act on it.

Hm...

Originally Posted by Matthew 5:27-28

27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

Hm...

Only if she's married.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by imacfly 

Romans 1

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 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;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 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.

I have it on good authority that Romans 1 actually means we should all be having the bum fun.