Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century: As Jesus Said About Gay People, " ."

[AlexandriaTheMixed]

May I point out that the Corinthians list starts with "fornicators"?

Guess we're all fucked.

Lol. Funny. Word play. Talking about sex, then you use a naughty word for sex.

It was based on another joke I heard about banning gay people from paying taxes. But you're right - pardon me for getting off topic. All the posts have to explcitly relate to the topic of homosexuality. I still want to hear mattj's take on the sin of effeminacy, though.

Well, if they can't get married, and in some states not even have unions, etc. Why should they pay taxes?

[Cipher]

Well, if they can't get married, and in some states not even have unions, etc. Why should they pay taxes?

... Because they use roads?

Seriously, Jesus, look: I'm all about trying to actually point out the fallacies of major arguments for defending the lack of equality for homosexuals. But when you post quips this inane and ill-thought out, it's like an invitation for opponents to start tearing apart their absurdity rather than having to deal with the arguments that actually address their points and hurt their stances.

[miles0624]

Well, if they can't get married, and in some states not even have unions, etc. Why should they pay taxes?

So, if anyone has a grievance, they should not pay taxes. That basically transforms into "since I don't recieve x benefit, I shouldn't have to pay taxes." Did you even comprehend your own statement?

Sniped by Cipher.

[Grei]

Speak for yourself. I've never had sex with anyone that I wasn't married to. Those who do are ****s.

Is this a serious comment? Because if it is, marioguy, you are sadly, sadly mislead. I can think of about twenty people off the top of my head who fit your criteria for prostitution and yet are anything but. I'm sure most everyone else here probably could, too. This is a rather immature standpoint if it's honest.

[FE21]

There's a difference, to me, between having an adverse opinion but otherwise living and letting live, and being neutral to in favor of LGBT rights but just not saying or doing anything about it, and then wondering why the LBGT community thinks poorly of you. Armchair activism is one thing, but when you can do something in favor of equality and don't -- and frankly, the comparisons drawn to the civil rights movement are strikingly accurate -- then no **** people are going to think badly of you for it. Especially since "ignoring" is easier when, you know... you're not actively oppressed by certain majority groups of people.

What I meant in a (much) less trying-to-make-a-contract-confusing-so-you-don't-know-you-can't-return-mercendice english is if EVERYBODY ignored LGBT stuff (what else could I could have writen here?) we wouldn't have the homophobia problem in the first place! During various points while reading the responses to my post I wanted to respond, but that would have been stupid, so I'm just going to try to answer all the content in this post (to everyone who thinks this is kinda random because this is a completly different page, that 1 page=1 day). To ❤Lady Baltny❤: I know I write very confusing sometimes, sorry. To SunnyC: It's unfortunate isn't it (I'm talking about your last sentance)? To ❤Lady Baltny❤ & mattj: Unfortunatly, I have to agree with mattj. I have the translation from the original ancient hebrew (shoulda just started out with that instead of constantly trying to translate the translation of the latin!) on Leviticus 18:22 right here in my hand. But, I don't plan on including it in this post.

[CSolarstorm]

The lack of gay marriage in some states does not warrant a tax rebellion. It's probably best to wait for the major political players (now including Obama) to do their job and open up those opportunities in a legal way.

I agree FE21, it is very unfortunate.

[7 tyranitars]

The lack of gay marriage in some states does not warrant a tax rebellion. It's probably best to wait for the major political players (now including Obama) to do their job and open up those opportunities in a legal way.

I agree FE21, it is very unfortunate.

I agree it isn't a reasonable thing to do, even if you want to pull such a thing, you should pay the same ammound a married couple would have to pay. (If I am right being married in the USA gives tax benefits) I would actualy consider such a thing to be far more reasonable then just not paying taxes at all because you still use other facilities provided by the government.

[mattj]

But "fornicators" likely does. And whatever the proper, modern equivalent of "effeminate" might be, I doubt it's a quality you could justify discriminating.

Which is why as gay anti-discrimination bills continue to pop up, and actually receive debate, across the country, the oft-cited idea that they somehow violate the religious freedom of employers is absurd. I mean, you can accept that argument, sure, but only if you're equally willing to accept someone should be legally protected for discriminating against "effeminate" people or those with normal sex lives. You can't cherry pick from the source if you choose to interpret one part literally; what the Bible says about homosexuals, it also says about the groups cited above.

And then there's the whole notion of "Why Christianity?" I'm sure Scientologists put up with laws daily that somehow conflict with their religious views. The Book of Mormon is A-OK with polygamy, but the government isn't. Muslims can't always get their traditionally mandated prayer schedules into the work place or public schools.

Religious liberty is the right to practice your beliefs without persecution. It does not mean government has to comply with every minutiae of your dogma, because, quite frankly, it can't.

Just an aside, but I'd be seriously surprised if it didn't aslo include chronic masturbaters or even anyone prone to lustful or just sensual thoughts in this context. Hell, it's probably a stand-in for prioritizing sensory pleasure in general.

who here supports any legal discrimination?

[CSolarstorm]

I agree it isn't a reasonable thing to do, even if you want to pull such a thing, you should pay the same ammound a married couple would have to pay. (If I am right being married in the USA gives tax benefits) I would actualy consider such a thing to be far more reasonable then just not paying taxes at all because you still use other facilities provided by the government.

...that's actually a reasonable idea, in my mind! It would be interesting to see if that worked as effective protest tactic.

who here supports any legal discrimination?

We can talk/complain about people who are against gay marriage, even when they're not here. It's probably a little confusing for all the people who come in and out here to distinguish from your legal views and your religious views, that you don't actually object to gay marriage, but you still think that religiously speaking, homosexuality is a damnable offense.

[Zevn]

Who cares what they do now, when we know they will suffer immeasurably for all eternity?
__

Is that supposed to be a respectable stance?

[JDavidC]

I'll just outline some verses that are relevant to what is going on, and again, there may well be translation issues at play here (so I'll mention which Bible version I'm quoting).

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God.

It's probably best to analyse this in context, because there may not have been much consideration given to people who have natures that deviate from the norm. I believe such people would be offered an opportunity to be 'fixed' and to get into the kingdom of Heaven.

There is also this, I quoted 2 verses due to significance, rather than just the 1.

because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and thus has righteousness and with the mouth one confesses and thus has salvation.

I'm going to go as far as saying you have to believe in his teachings for the righteousness, rather than simply 'believing' in Jesus, otherwise you're not going to get the righteousness/repentance needed for salvation.

I do not think that people who are born with a specific nature are screwed, they'll be offered the chance to be fixed at some point. For the record, I'm going to say that I do not believe in a God that would allow someone to be screwed due to their nature, nor would I believe in eternal punishment from such a God, neither of those things make any sense, they just contradict his nature, and tbh, I find the idea of things like eternal punishment to be nothing short of blasphemy, IMHO.

[Silver Soul]

Well, CNN's Anderson Cooper is gay.

[Kaiserin]

What I meant in a (much) less trying-to-make-a-contract-confusing-so-you-don't-know-you-can't-return-mercendice english is if EVERYBODY ignored LGBT stuff (what else could I could have writen here?) we wouldn't have the homophobia problem in the first place!

If everyone ignored it, gays would still be unable to marry. And the fact they would be ignoring it would make things just as bad as they are through discrimination.

So no, I disagree with that statement. Ignoring it would be sweeping the issue under the rug as opposed to arguing why they don't believe it should come to pass, even if they're shitty reasons from my perspective. Personally, I think that's worse, because at least by arguing back, the other side is obviously interested enough in engaging the issue.

Apathy to it would make things even worse, in my opinion.

[CSolarstorm]

If everyone ignored it, gays would still be unable to marry. And the fact they would be ignoring it would make things just as bad as they are through discrimination.

So no, I disagree with that statement. Ignoring it would be sweeping the issue under the rug as opposed to arguing why they don't believe it should come to pass, even if they're shitty reasons from my perspective. Personally, I think that's worse, because at least by arguing back, the other side is obviously interested enough in engaging the issue.

Apathy to it would make things even worse, in my opinion.

By 'everybody' ignoring it, I'm pretty sure he means the people who disagree with it as well. In fact if you recall, the people who disagree were the subjects of his question in the first place: he couldn't understand how anyone would be against homosexuality when it doesn't affect them. If nobody agreed or disagreed with homosexuality (minus gay people themselves) it's less of a 'evil men win when good people do nothing' scenario than a scenario where both the evil men and good men are doing nothing in the first place. If nobody had opinions to force on gay people, I think we'd have one of two situations: a perfect world where gay people could marry however they wanted, or a pre-20th century situation before they coined the word homosexuality, where you wouldn't be persecuted for homosexuality, but trying to marry in the open would still raise questions because of the familiarity toward heterosexuality.

In a world where people mind their buisiness, perhaps we wouldn't know deconstructionism, and wouldn't know how to even explain the equivalancies that make life better today.

[Psychic]

Guys, seriously, please stay on-topic. :/

I'll be the first to admit that I don't fully understand the difference between homosexuality and effeminate there. In our modern English they're usually synonymous to an extent.

To get an idea of this, consider little girls who are tomboys. Plenty of female kids go through a tomboy stage, but that in no way dictates what their sexuality will develop into. While society expects them to grow out of this and become traditionally "feminine," there isn't anything wrong with a girl who doesn't like wearing skirts and playing with Barbies. A woman does not need to be feminine to be heterosexual. Unfortunately, some females are also just born with more "mannish" attributes that don't go away, but again, a girl's large shoulders or small breasts will not dictate her sexuality - you can't help what you're born with. Should they get sent to hell for this? The same applies to effeminate men.

Also, you may be interested to know that there are entire groups of, for example, straight men who enjoy crossdressing. They get along fine in their day-to-day lives, and many have happy, if not supportive wives. You don't have to be of a certain sexuality to look or dress a certain way, nor do you have to be male to wear pants. Homosexuals dress the same way as heterosexuals do, just like women often dress in the same clothes men wear (meaning it's not always skirts and dresses and high heels).


As a general note...why do I care about getting into heaven, anyway? I'm a straight gal, and I will sacrifice getting into heaven if it means I can do what I please in the sack. I would much rather live my life, do what I want and be happy than spend it bored to death in the hopes that it means getting into some place that may or may not exist when I'm dead. That's how I roll, and if you believe I'm going to hell, I would prefer if you just kept your thoughts to yourself, however well-meaning your intentions may be.

Some of these translations are very weird, by the way. Like physical abusers can get into heaven fine as long as they don't use any verbal abuse? Are drug addicts allowed into heaven? Tomboys?


    Spoiler:- old response to Malanu:

Show Spoiler

 

Ok but after you educate the people and they still have their opinions what then? We may not like the chauvinist, or the bigot, but what right do we have to tell them they cannot have their opinion? This is the part that is being missed Psychic. Both sides have a right to express their opinion, and then move on.

My point really wasn't that "disagreeing is bad," but "when your opinion infringes on the rights of others, there is a problem." It's when you let someone with that kind of opinion have any kind of power that these issues arise. Hitler was entitled to his opinion, and then he became the leader of the Nazi party, and here we are millions of deaths later.

Exactly, so why do the gays insist on making everyone comfortable with their way of life? It's not going to happen, shoot for the ones on the fence, and get them to see the light, but just walk away from the haters.

Welcome to Canada. We don't care about that ****. There are still haters, but it's damn well possible for a country to accept that gays as people, too, the same way we accepted women are people.

Why? both are opinions, one is just stronger than the other. Also, it takes a majority to change laws, and to date the majority is still saying no. So the minority has to do it's level best to become a majority. But for the moment, it is what it is.

Actually, the majority in the US is changing iirc, especially after Obama voiced his support. Many other countries are way ahead of you already.

You don't have to break it to me. I've had friends of mine beaten to death because they were gay, or denied employment because 'a woman could never do construction jobs', I know full well. BUT I also look back on history and see it's nothing new to mankind in the least.

I am sorry to hear that. However, looking back on history you can still see that times have changed. Black people went from being slaves to being people. But change doesn't happen on its own, especially if nobody works to bring it on. The fact that it`s not new doesn't mean we should ignore it and hope things just get better by themselves.

I do realize I'm being harsh Psychic, and I do apologize for it. It is however my opinion based on my experience and I do have a right to express it. I also have the obligation to accept what ever verbal backlash that comes. I was one of those bullied kids until Junior High. Have you seen the YouTube video of a student verbally bullying the bus monitor?

I am just stunned that you think it's okay to blame victims. The point is to blame the aggressor for what they did, not blame the victim for what they were forced to endure. You know that bus monitor's son killed himself? Do we blame him for his situation, whatever it may have been? Blaming victims of physical or verbal abuse ignores the actual problem, which is that there was a person who tried to get away with physically or verbally abusing them, and it lets them walk away.

I am defending their right to have their opinion not to act upon it. It's one thing to say I don't support gay rights, then there is a whole different level where someone lynches someone and beats them to death cause they are gay!

But there is also a difference between disliking homosexuals vs suppressing their rights. Whether or not they should get equal rights keeps getting put on ballots, so even if you're not actively beating up a person, you are still able to vote to prevent them from having the same rights you enjoy. Democracy is great and all, but whether or not someone should have basic human rights should be a given, and not up for debate.
 

~Psychic

[FE21]

By 'everybody' ignoring it, I'm pretty sure he means the people who disagree with it as well. In fact if you recall, the people who disagree were the subjects of his question in the first place: he couldn't understand how anyone would be against homosexuality when it doesn't affect them. If nobody agreed or disagreed with homosexuality (minus gay people themselves) it's less of a 'evil men win when good people do nothing' scenario than a scenario where both the evil men and good men are doing nothing in the first place. If nobody had opinions to force on gay people, I think we'd have one of two situations: a perfect world where gay people could marry however they wanted, or a pre-20th century situation before they coined the word homosexuality, where you wouldn't be persecuted for homosexuality, but trying to marry in the open would still raise questions because of the familiarity toward heterosexuality.

In a world where people mind their buisiness, perhaps we wouldn't know deconstructionism, and wouldn't know how to even explain the equivalancies that make life better today.

Yep, that's exactly what I was trying to say!

[skatingandgaming]

The only anti-gay arguments are either
A. Some kind of fake religious testimony
or B. A nonfactual scientific debate.

Being gay is natural, and there's absolutely no reason why gays can't marry.

[Celestial Moth]

The only anti-gay arguments are either
A. Some kind of fake religious testimony
or B. A nonfactual scientific debate.

Being gay is natural, and there's absolutely no reason why gays can't marry.

Straight out. The only reason people dont like homosexuals is because people dont understand it.
People hate that which they cant understand

I'd like to quote the anime full metal alchemist move: conqueror of shamballa, if i may:

Dietlinde Eckhart:This land is completly foren, not like my world at all.

Edward: Your wrong about that eckhart, people here laugh and weep just like you, live the same, die the same.
Theirs one thing i wanna know, what made you start this attack, i thought the point was to use weapons of this world to conquer your own?

Dietlinde Eckhart: I have to,This entire world must perish, opening a new door to a new world was thrilling at first, a utopia that could make us greater, but then i realize how different it was from our own then i got scared, this world is fare to strong to be trusted, i have to destroy it now before it conquers us.


Most People just dont understand that their are things that can operate beyond the comprehension of theirselfs.

[Adrexus]

Straight out. The only reason people dont like homosexuals is because people dont understand it.
People hate that which they cant understand

I'd like to quote the anime full metal alchemist move: conqueror of shamballa, if i may:

Dietlinde Eckhart:This land is completly foren, not like my world at all.

Edward: Your wrong about that eckhart, people here laugh and weep just like you, live the same, die the same.
Theirs one thing i wanna know, what made you start this attack, i thought the point was to use weapons of this world to conquer your own?

Dietlinde Eckhart: I have to,This entire world must perish, opening a new door to a new world was thrilling at first, a utopia that could make us greater, but then i realize how different it was from our own then i got scared, this world is fare to strong to be trusted, i have to destroy it now before it conquers us.


Most People just dont understand that their are things that can operate beyond the comprehension of theirselfs.

I would say that is not necessarily true. My reasons for opposing homosexuality are based in my religious convictions. I have no inherent dislike of homosexuals. I do take what the Bible says about homosexuality as a sin seriously. It does me no good to hate homosexuals merely for being effeminate or being attracted to the same sex. I don't approve of christians (or anyone for that matter) bashing homosexuals with derogatory remarks. There are people who dislike homosexuals merely for those reasons I previously stated. But please don't assume that all religious people hate homosexuals merely because we don't understand them. I have spent much thought about this subject before coming to the conclusions that I have.

[Celestial Moth]

I would say that is not necessarily true. My reasons for opposing homosexuality are based in my religious convictions. I have no inherent dislike of homosexuals. I do take what the Bible says about homosexuality as a sin seriously. It does me no good to hate homosexuals merely for being effeminate or being attracted to the same sex. I don't approve of christians (or anyone for that matter) bashing homosexuals with derogatory remarks. There are people who dislike homosexuals merely for those reasons I previously stated. But please don't assume that all religious people hate homosexuals merely because we don't understand them. I have spent much thought about this subject before coming to the conclusions that I have.

I say in somwhat shame that i misjudged you bro, as your logic is sound.
Many people do obviosly hate for lack of knowledge. Though i will not dive into the psychological points of view.
I understand that homosexuality from some points of view could be considered un-natural ( of the sorts) thus holding an affiliation
of an insult towards the beings in which truly created everything, though all things were mirrored first before they could be materialized.
If you hate homosexuality then your hating god's divine plan, as all possible equations and possibilities need to be actualized before all knowledge is harvested.

[Amiちゃん]

On the topic of homosexuality, there was a news piece on the boy scouts and how someone is trying to fight for gays to join. Those who don't know, they had this rule for quite some time that gays were banned from being in the boy scouts.

What are you thoughts on it?

Also my thoughts are that while I can understand that they are for the safety of the children (yes there ARE some creeps that are after young boys), I wish that they and others could know how easy it is for someone to lie about their sexuality. Like if someone were to ask me whether orally or on paper what my sexuality was, I'd say straight. If I was asked that on a job application, I'd say straight, tho that's not really... what I am. Well, it's easier for someone like me to say they are the norm but for others, it seems hard but in the end it's not that difficult. Can others actually lie about their sexuality in order to draw blood? etc

[Malanu]

The boy scouts were founded on what was once considered good wholesome values. That hasn't changed since their inception, what has changed is what we consider good and wholesome. Though it is inconvenient and inconsiderate not to mention dated, they have a right to set up guidelines for membership as they see fit. I was a cub scout leader for a minute with my son. I found their rules and "morals" confining and dated. So my son and I left the pack.

[marioguy]

On the topic of homosexuality, there was a news piece on the boy scouts and how someone is trying to fight for gays to join. Those who don't know, they had this rule for quite some time that gays were banned from being in the boy scouts.

What are you thoughts on it?

Also my thoughts are that while I can understand that they are for the safety of the children (yes there ARE some creeps that are after young boys), I wish that they and others could know how easy it is for someone to lie about their sexuality. Like if someone were to ask me whether orally or on paper what my sexuality was, I'd say straight. If I was asked that on a job application, I'd say straight, tho that's not really... what I am. Well, it's easier for someone like me to say they are the norm but for others, it seems hard but in the end it's not that difficult. Can others actually lie about their sexuality in order to draw blood? etc

I really don't get how protection of the boys is a valid rationale to ban gays from joining the Boy Scouts. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean that they are attracted to young boys anymore than being straight means that you're attracted to young girls. Even if you are attracted to someone, doesn't mean that you're going to rape them.

It's also illegal to ask someone's orientation when interviewing them for a job.

[Moogles]

On the topic of homosexuality, there was a news piece on the boy scouts and how someone is trying to fight for gays to join. Those who don't know, they had this rule for quite some time that gays were banned from being in the boy scouts.

What are you thoughts on it?

That it's an incredibly disgusting practice and people who would endorse it should be ashamed.

Also my thoughts are that while I can understand that they are for the safety of the children (yes there ARE some creeps that are after young boys)

Those are pedophiles, not homosexuals. The terms are not mutually exclusive. Anybody who is attracted to a small child is a pedophile. If it's a man attracted to a young boy this doesn't make him gay, it still makes him a pedophile.

I wish that they and others could know how easy it is for someone to lie about their sexuality. Like if someone were to ask me whether orally or on paper what my sexuality was, I'd say straight. If I was asked that on a job application, I'd say straight, tho that's not really... what I am. Well, it's easier for someone like me to say they are the norm but for others, it seems hard but in the end it's not that difficult. Can others actually lie about their sexuality in order to draw blood? etc

I think this is a pretty good point. It's incredibly easy to lie about such a thing because there's no way that we can prove it unless we see it in the bedroom. I actually do plan on lying to donate blood (which is incredibly sad but that's for another time.)

[marioguy]

Those are pedophiles, not homosexuals. The terms are not mutually exclusive. Anybody who is attracted to a small child is a pedophile. If it's a man attracted to a young boy this doesn't make him gay, it still makes him a pedophile.

It makes him a gay pedophile.