Gay rights within the template of religion proves flaws in "religion"

[FatAndFaithless]

Yeah, the fact that Jesus didn't comment on a topic does not mean you get to insert your own morals and then say that's what Jesus said.

[Mystic]

Hehe, Mystic...an ugly curse, one man can be gay but if the whole town's gay then its time for condemning? Heterosexual men chose to dick down men rather than an ugly woman(really....really)? Makes you wonder how the ugly women of the world seem to get laid so easily in any town -other than- this pretend one.

I'd say that trumps the bibles line on ridiculous and complicatory (wewt...if webster can do it so can I) bullshit alone, and doesn't make the job of justifying whatever action or position is to be taken any easier. The bible handles it pretty simply- they offend god, fuck em up. Both are absurd, mind you, I just can't honestly decide between the two which I should point and laugh at the hardest. I think that maybe your opinion of which narrative is easier to justify hinges on your upbringing and familiarity., rather than any sort of dry appraisal of each relative to each other. Christians probably think that the bible is easier to justify than the quran. I'd also add that many christians seem to approach the OT alot like muslims seem to approach the hadiths, from a practical standpoint. The NT is their quran, the OT is sideline literature, full of "good ideas" but not the final word.

The story might not make sense, but the Quran can't be used as a definite condemnation of homosexuals. For that you would need hadiths.

[DramaQueen]

True, even the verses that get quoted all the time don't follow (and are grammatically weird)

[Losty]

I'd disagree Sir,
What's to say that's real Christianity? I say its corrupted Christianity used to keep citizens in line during the dark ages.
It's called CHRIST-ianity. Based on the ideas of CHRIST, not the early hebrews. We follow CHRIST. I know he said law won't be erased, but he was talking about ten commandments, because he DID break laws like the sabbath law.

Let's imagine for a moment Jesus really existed and came back in modern times. Would he hold the confederate flag for slavery? Would he stone gays? Did he not stop the woman from being killed by stoning? Do you think he would beat his wife if he had one? Do you think he would scold/ deny her permission if she wanted to . . . Become a scholar, wanted a degree, get a job. Would he beat her.

NO! He wouldn't do any of that. THAT'S what we are to live by. THAT'S what real Christianity is! The Christianity of the middle ages was nothing more than a way of control

What are your standards for deciding what real Christianity is?
How do you know what Christ is like?

The only thing I know for certain is that if he existed it was a long time ago. So when I imagine him showing up now, I always picture him being so caught up and amazed by the food and technology that he wouldn't even notice how people were living. I imagine him walking around like a large child with a confused and excited look on his face being amazed and surprised by everything he sees. I also imagine he'd have a pretty bad case of diarrhea due to the food being so different from what he is used to.

[AceBoogie]

This shows that the separation between church and state is not so clear as people say. To what extent are one's personal views allowed to affect political policy? Or should everyone act in the interests of the greater good? Even then what is the greater good?

All I know is that it's ridiculous to discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation. I have no problem with gay people and nobody should. People should not be weirded out by gay people, shouldn't feel uncomfortable around them or anything like that let alone be concerned about their right to marry. Religious conservatives claim that allowing gay people to marry will destroy the sanctity of marriage... because heterosexual marriage is so special considering how many married couples get divorced here in the US.

This is another one of those things that should be a non-issue but ignorance keeps society from progressing.

More so it not only shows the flaws of religious people but it shows their complete and utter ignorance to basic human rights as well. It's dangerous.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

Could you imagine the world with "christian values" still in place.

We'd still still have slaves to do our bidding (or be the slaves).

We'd stone those terrible sinner that are gay still.

We'd continure to understand that women have no rights beyond being beat by their husbands.

Etc.

Man the bible is just a constant compass of morality.

---

I'd disagree Sir,
What's to say that's real Christianity? I say its corrupted Christianity used to keep citizens in line during the dark ages.
It's called CHRIST-ianity. Based on the ideas of CHRIST, not the early hebrews. We follow CHRIST. I know he said law won't be erased, but he was talking about ten commandments, because he DID break laws like the sabbath law.

Let's imagine for a moment Jesus really existed and came back in modern times. Would he hold the confederate flag for slavery? Would he stone gays? Did he not stop the woman from being killed by stoning? Do you think he would beat his wife if he had one? Do you think he would scold/ deny her permission if she wanted to . . . Become a scholar, wanted a degree, get a job. Would he beat her.

NO! He wouldn't do any of that. THAT'S what we are to live by. THAT'S what real Christianity is! The Christianity of the middle ages was nothing more than a way of control

---

That being said, my heart goes out to the homosexuals who were persecuted in the past and continue to be persecuted now

Jesus said that his disciples should hate their families and leave them. If he had had a wife he must have been a lousy husband because he didn't have a home. He was always going on fishing trips with his buddies. And he hung out with hookers, who gave him expensive gifts.

[Vivalarevolution]

I'd disagree Sir,
What's to say that's real Christianity? I say its corrupted Christianity used to keep citizens in line during the dark ages.
It's called CHRIST-ianity. Based on the ideas of CHRIST, not the early hebrews. We follow CHRIST. I know he said law won't be erased, but he was talking about ten commandments, because he DID break laws like the sabbath law.

Let's imagine for a moment Jesus really existed and came back in modern times. Would he hold the confederate flag for slavery? Would he stone gays? Did he not stop the woman from being killed by stoning? Do you think he would beat his wife if he had one? Do you think he would scold/ deny her permission if she wanted to . . . Become a scholar, wanted a degree, get a job. Would he beat her.

NO! He wouldn't do any of that. THAT'S what we are to live by. THAT'S what real Christianity is! The Christianity of the middle ages was nothing more than a way of control

What are your standards for deciding what real Christianity is?
How do you know what Christ is like?

The only thing I know for certain is that if he existed it was a long time ago. So when I imagine him showing up now, I always picture him being so caught up and amazed by the food and technology that he wouldn't even notice how people were living. I imagine him walking around like a large child with a confused and excited look on his face being amazed and surprised by everything he sees. I also imagine he'd have a pretty bad case of diarrhea due to the food being so different from what he is used to.

What are my standards for deciding? Okay
1) look at the most devoted Christian you know. Perhaps a priest or a layman?
Does he/ would he- defend rape, throw stones at a prostitute, beat his wife, EVEN if there was no law against it?
if Christians don't do all that, they're not faithful. Because they're not following Christian law. But that's not the case. Would you say they aren't Christians? There is nothing wrong about any faith. It's the people on top who guide the people below them to do bad things in the name of religion.

Now why do I believe in gospel accounts and letters 2000 years old? Because they not only showed what he did but also what others did for their belief in him. Who would die for something false? (note I'm writing about before the new testament) they did die, and many Jews were Christian even before Paul went to Rome. You can't say that Acts didn't happen (Christianity had to have SOME beginning)
The letters and gospels and acts may have come later simply because they felt writing it down would allow more people to learn. (It us explicitly said that the gospel of luke was written for that reason alone)

Ps- and seriously, connecting present day christians to murderous christians in middle ages is like comparing modern romans to ancient romans who gathered to watch lions eat people up

[psychoslice]

Hi Vivalarevolution , the murdering Christians from the past got all their ideas from the bible, its all in there if you read it.

[robvalue]

A lot in this topic has baffled me, so I wanted to throw in my 2 small coins.

I don't agree that being heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual is a choice. By those terms, I would mean your natural disposition and preference, your sexuality, which I would have though by now was pretty much unanimously settled as genetic.

What you can choose is who to have sex with, and who to have a relationship with. And neither of those things define or change what I would call your sexuality. I am heterosexual, and I could have consensual sex with every man in the world and I would still be heterosexual. I could marry a table lamp and I'm still heterosexual. I only become homosexual if I somehow actually change the way by brain works to alter my base preferences. I imagine that this may be possible through a psyche-breaking amount of relentless conditioning/programming, although I'm not sure it is possible at all, but even if this is the case it's hardly a simple matter of choice. I know such programs have been attempted in the past, but as far as I know they haven't been successful.

I would have thought this is all quite obvious at this relatively enlightened stage of history, but we have all heard so many stories of people trying very hard to be straight. No matter how long they are in a relationship with a partner of the other sex, or have sex with them, they end up unable to deny who they are. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone changing their sexuality by choice.

And of course, it's all totally irrelevant to whether or not gay people should have rights. Which to any reasonable person the answer is yes. The idea that they should have the right to be gay doesn't even make sense to me, I don't understand that question. They are gay, rights has nothing to do with it.

I think the word "homophobia" sums things up very well, it's an irrational fear of gay people. Homophobes are scared that gays will (a) turn them gay (b) try and have sex with them © take over, and they worry that if they aren't seen to oppose them, then they are gay as well. It boggles my mind how anyone can be scared about someone's sexuality. Of course, homophobes will not admit they are scared. Instead they cite nonsense reasons like, like.. what was that book called?

[Esquilax]

What are my standards for deciding? Okay
1) look at the most devoted Christian you know. Perhaps a priest or a layman?
Does he/ would he- defend rape, throw stones at a prostitute, beat his wife, EVEN if there was no law against it?

Whoa, whoa! Hold the phone!

So, your method for deciding what is and isn't christian behavior... is that you find a person who most exemplifies christian behavior, and see if they act in ways that are in keeping with christian behavior?

... And at no point in writing that sentence did you read back over it and see how completely circular that definition is?

if Christians don't do all that, they're not faithful. Because they're not following Christian law. But that's not the case. Would you say they aren't Christians? There is nothing wrong about any faith. It's the people on top who guide the people below them to do bad things in the name of religion.

Bull. Like I pointed out, you have no basis for deciding that any of the scriptural christian teachings actually come from Jesus; they're all anonymously written years after his death, so it's equally possible that those same "people on top" were the authors there, and in fact that's literally true, given that church leaders at one time voted to decide what was canonical scripture and what isn't. What you read in the bible today is solely the product of those "people on top" and not your messiah at all.

Beyond which, again, those scriptures are full of evil stuff too, like the repeated endorsements of slavery.

Now why do I believe in gospel accounts and letters 2000 years old? Because they not only showed what he did but also what others did for their belief in him. Who would die for something false?

Who would die for something false? Every martyr of every other religion in the world, in your view. That was easy.

(note I'm writing about before the new testament) they did die, and many Jews were Christian even before Paul went to Rome. You can't say that Acts didn't happen (Christianity had to have SOME beginning)

How do you know that the beginning of christianity is accurately represented in Acts? Oh, what's that? You don't?

Ps- and seriously, connecting present day christians to murderous christians in middle ages is like comparing modern romans to ancient romans who gathered to watch lions eat people up

So you're saying that christianity's objective, never changing morality, written by god... changed over time?