Same sex marraige resumes in California

[Retro Rob]

76% of all statistics are made up. Seriously Rob you just pulled this shit out of your ass.

Actually, I heard this on a news program, and they showed some stats... I just can't recall what they were.

I agree with you, but there are still a lot of people who have gay family members who come around AFTER they found out about them. This is fact!

I am calling out these so-called "equal rights" people. I mean, look at the sheer numbers of hard-core anti-gay conservative politicians that "evolved" after their careers and future elections have been threatened because of them being against gay marriage.

It's all a front, and I think you know that.

 

[Craig234]

You won't accept any reason for homosexuality as being immoral. It starts with you and ends with you.

So, if he won't accept your position homosexuality is immoral, that proves he's wrong?

It can't be that you're wrong and can't provide a valid reason it's immoral?

Heck, you don't even try. You just play the victim and don't even offer an argument.

If you've already got your mind set, the conversation normally ends. But this isn't "you have to show me WHY XXXX" or you're a bigot -- this is the mentality you all are hopelessly stuck in.

It's a bit more than that, but ya, that's sort of how it goes. If you don't support equal rights for a group, and can't provide a reasonable justification, bigotry is a strong suspect.

You automatically assume it's fear, hate, ignorance... nope. I know being gay isn't simply a choice, so nope... it ain't ignorance. I've never, EVER hurt or disrespected a gay person, nor denied them rights... so nope, it aint hate. Thirdly, I've roomed with a gay guy, and we got along fine -- and if you've been following our discussions here in these threads, I have a gay nephew, and we've hung out together, so it ain't fear.

Got anything else, or are you gonna make up some more reasons why I disagree with homosexuality...

No reason to make up reasons - it's up to you to provide them, which you have failed to do for a long time, which you have been called on for a long time.

What we have is your refusal to support equality, and you have failed to provide any reasonable justification for the discrimination, and your comments implly bigotry.

Nothing in your 'some of my best friends' defense contradicts bigotry, either. If you refuse to supportequality on gay marriage, you're wrongly discriminating.

That raises a question about a politician who previously opposed gay marriage, like Barack Obama.

In his case, either he was bigoted, or it was a political calculation that it would cost him more politically than he was willing to risk to stand up for his views.

Similarly with Bill Clinton - Republicans with DOMA forced him to either side with gays and be hurt politically, or support the discriminatory law; he chose to support discrimination.

I wouldn't call that bigotry, if he didn't really support the law - I'd call it doing something wrong that politics pressured him to do.

You might be shocked to know a lot of politicians do that, the ones who get elected anyway.

Pat Brown largely lost re-election as governor of California by opposing capital punishment; that gave the world Ronald Reagan. Was stanidng for that principle worth that disaster?

 

[Craig234]

Actually, I heard this on a news program, and they showed some stats... I just can't recall what they were.

I agree with you, but there are still a lot of people who have gay family members who come around AFTER they found out about them. This is fact!

I am calling out these so-called "equal rights" people. I mean, look at the sheer numbers of hard-core anti-gay conservative politicians that "evolved" after their careers and future elections have been threatened because of them being against gay marriage.

It's all a front, and I think you know that.

So some politicians on both sides base ther positions on politics and not principle? Of course. That has little to do with the issue, though.

Of course politicians are going to argue for whatever position they took as if it was a position of principle.

You need to look no further than Mitt Romney at different times speaking on issues.

 

[randomrogue]

Actually, I heard this on a news program, and they showed some stats... I just can't recall what they were.

I agree with you, but there are still a lot of people who have gay family members who come around AFTER they found out about them. This is fact!

I am calling out these so-called "equal rights" people. I mean, look at the sheer numbers of hard-core anti-gay conservative politicians that "evolved" after their careers and future elections have been threatened because of them being against gay marriage.

It's all a front, and I think you know that.

So now it's a conspiracy? You're using a couple politicians who flip flopped as your reasoning?

Your facts are flimsy at best. Your reasoning is ignorant. You can lean on the religious crutch but it doesn't excuse discrimination.

 

[Retro Rob]

It's a bit more than that, but ya, that's sort of how it goes. If you don't support equal rights for a group, and can't provide a reasonable justification, bigotry is a strong suspect.

What's "reasonable justification"? You think there isn't any, discussion done, right?

That's my point...

Don't ask for reasons if you've already set in your mind that there aren't any.

In his case, either he was bigoted, or it was a political calculation that it would cost him more politically than he was willing to risk to stand up for his views.

Similarly with Bill Clinton - Republicans with DOMA forced him to either side with gays and be hurt politically, or support the discriminatory law; he chose to support discrimination.

I wouldn't call that bigotry, if he didn't really support the law - I'd call it doing something wrong that politics pressured him to do.

You might be shocked to know a lot of politicians do that, the ones who get elected anyway.

Pat Brown largely lost re-election as governor of California by opposing capital punishment; that gave the world Ronald Reagan. Was stanidng for that principle worth that disaster?

So we don't really know if someone supports something because of political correctness. Thanks for making my point.

Yep, white politicians were in bed with the KKK at one point in time, but now they aren't... NOT because they aren't racists, but because of political expediency.

Yep, you guys can have that -- I prefer someone who's real, and won't stab me in the back come election time.

 

[LegSWAT]

By sudden flush do you mean the past few decades where information, and in turn education, has been spread at a rate faster than any in history? Perhaps, it is not so much of a conspiracy and more so of a world population becoming educated on the oppression of themselves and others, and taking action against it?

Nope, I'm sure that couldn't be it. Gotta be Google or Wal-Mart behind it. Trying to sell us something.

By a sudden flush I mean this no-brainer could have been addressed and closed years ago. Several European countries headed the same way, or are about to, just right now. Why the sudden move, I ask. Why has this topic slipped to the top of the priority list?
In some way, the process of intensified individualisation, increased mobilization and in effect breaking up of family values can be approached with this legal reinvention of this inconspicuous element of social structure. In another way, this does indeed raise potential for both dorming and novel markets. With reference to Huxley this could be anywhere between in vitro fertilization, human genetic design ("designer babies") and birth control based on tradeable certificates. Add in man-made infertility, and voilà, the recipe is starting to assume taste. Let's not forget catalyzing aspects such as the prematuring of kids within the current "porn generation", with children having sex at even younger ages (yes, children), an increasing dependence on social media and the acid taste of human social desintegration comes up. Admittedly, I can't quite fit the pieces of the jigsaw yet, but as noble as the undertaking of institutionalizing same sex marriage sounds, it's stench on a comprehensive level won't relent.
Looking further, it's more than interesting to see how the theme of promiscuity and genetic design is ever so often picked up, not to say promoted with contemporary sci-fi literature. Even Arthur C. Clarke silently promoted this theme up in his novels, but let's close with Huxley:

Orgy-porgy, Ford and fun,
Kiss the girls and make them One.
Boys at one with girls at peace;
Orgy-porgy gives release.

 

[Craig234]

Yes, it is popular opinion. Who determines what's right or wrong?

You're missing the point. Yes, it's the people who decide right and wrong - but that doesn't mean they're right.

When majorities have support slavery, or the persecution of Jews, or any number of other wrongs, that didn't mean the majority wasn't wrong.

While the people determine what's considered right and wrong, the issue is to discuss is on the basis of what's right and wrong, not to claim popular opinion 'proves' it.

Have you not read that most people only agree with gay marriage "because they know someone who's gay"? If that had not known any gay person, they'd still be against it, probably.

It says a lot about people who hated gays until their friends were gays, but that's not because they agree with gay marriage, or "equal rights", they only care about those friends. How is that progressive? What if that had not known a gay person?

We will never know, but I think its safe to say that they'd still be against it. Same thing with religion, they'll be dead-set against religious influence if they didn't have a personal stake, or a dad or brother who was a religious politician.

Ya, you'd need to provide more source thant 'you heard it somewhere', but let's say you're correct. So what?

That would simply show that too many people are too prone to bigotry when they don't know homosexuals - and the importance of homosexuals 'coming out'.

How many people in the past who supported discrimination didn't know they knew homosexuals because the discrimination forced people to hide it?

That's why it's an important act often needing courage for gays to 'come out'.

Especially earlier on, when the attitudes of hostility were more common and stronger, it used to be about like admitting you were a child molestor it seems.

 

[randomrogue]

I heard this and I heard that. I think Rob needs to find new sources for information. It might help enlighten him and make him more tolerant.

 

[Craig234]

What's "reasonable justification"? You think there isn't any, discussion done, right?

That's my point...

Don't ask for reasons if you've already set in your mind that there aren't any.

That's a cop-pout dodge.

You haven't presented any - that's the relevant fact. If you try, I'd consider if I think it's reasonable. That's all you can ask.

But you're just playing the victim - commiting discrimination with no justification.

And so the default assumption from that and your comments is that you're a bigot.

So we don't really know if someone supports something because of political correctness. Thanks for making my point.

I didn't make your point, I made my point, and political correctness isn't quite the same thing as political pressure.

When Bill Clinton signed DOMA, IIRC 20% to 30% of people supported gay marriage - that's a huge hit for him to take on politically.

Hence why it's so hard, taking decades and centuries, to graudally shift opinions.

Yep, white politicians were in bed with the KKK at one point in time, but now they aren't... NOT because they aren't racists, but because of political expediency.

No, that's not the only reason. In fact most people's views on race have shifted. Thing is, now the politically convenient thing happens to be the right thing on that issue.

But I'm sure you're partly right that if racism WERE supported by 80% of the people, you'd see a hell of a lot more politicians supporting it, whether they think it's right or not.

Many politicians base their actions more on the politics than the 'principles' on many issues. That's why you see them so self righteously use issues like religion, to gain power.

Yep, you guys can have that -- I prefer someone who's real, and won't stab me in the back come election time.

How can you tell if they're 'real' or not? And who really cares more about if they're 'real' than if they take the position you agree with?

 

[Retro Rob]

That's a cop-pout dodge.

You haven't presented any - that's the relevant fact. If you try, I'd consider if I think it's reasonable. That's all you can ask.

But you're just playing the victim - commiting discrimination with no justification.

I just gave you a reason -- I believe God is real, and that the Bible condemns it, so that's how I decide to see the issue.

"That isn't a valid reason", you may say? Who determines what's valid to me?

You? Society?

Get my point? So, if "we" get to arbitrarily decide what's no longer right or wrong, then I'm free to establish my own morality, but since it doesn't match up with your ideology, I'm wrong by default....

I didn't make your point, I made my point, and political correctness isn't quite the same thing as political pressure.

When Bill Clinton signed DOMA, IIRC 20% to 30% of people supported gay marriage - that's a huge hit for him to take on politically.

Hence why it's so hard, taking decades and centuries, to graudally shift opinions.




No, that's not the only reason. In fact most people's views on race have shifted. Thing is, now the politically convenient thing happens to be the right thing on that issue.

But I'm sure you're partly right that if racism WERE supported by 80% of the people, you'd see a hell of a lot more politicians supporting it, whether they think it's right or not.

Many politicians base their actions more on the politics than the 'principles' on many issues. That's why you see them so self righteously use issues like religion, to gain power.



How can you tell if they're 'real' or not? And who really cares more about if they're 'real' than if they take the position you agree with?

All I am saying is that there is a strong probability that we only change out of fear... fear of being left out, on the "wrong side of history" or on the wrong side of a vote...

People naturally want acceptance, so when "we" decide XYZ is no longer immoral/wrong, people fall all over it well knowing that under any other circumstance, they'd not go for it.

 

[woolfe9998]

I just gave you a reason -- I believe God is real, and that the Bible condemns it, so that's how I decide to see the issue.

Doesn't Leviticus require the death penalty for homosexual acts? Based on your prior comments, I think you disagree with this.

Also, aren't there all kinds of things which are prohibited in Leviticus and other parts of the bible which no-one really cares about any more?

How do you decide what you're going to follow and take seriously versus what you'll discard or ignore as out-dated?

 

[randomrogue]

I just gave you a reason -- I believe God is real, and that the Bible condemns it, so that's how I decide to see the issue.

"That isn't a valid reason", you may say? Who determines what's valid to me?

You? Society?

Get my point? So, if "we" get to arbitrarily decide what's no longer right or wrong, then I'm free to establish my own morality, but since it doesn't match up with your ideology, I'm wrong by default.

You can't use the "My mom said it was ok" or "The Bible says it's ok" excuse. Once again there is no majority rules or someone excuses your behavior excuse.

You are discriminating against a group of individuals due to their sexual orientation. I don't care what your reason is. You're wrong. Skin color, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, disability, ethnicity, etc. If you feel that someone deserves less rights than you because of the above then you are discriminating against them and are a bigot.

Yes the bible promotes bigotry. You can't use the bible as some kind of excuse and get away with it. You are a bigot based on everything you have posted here.

Using the bible for your morality is risky business since there's some nasty stuff in there. New testament or old testament you should look at what it says about slavery.

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.

 

[Retro Rob]

Doesn't Leviticus require the death penalty for homosexual acts? Based on your prior comments, I think you disagree with this.

Also, aren't there all kinds of things which are prohibited in Leviticus and other parts of the bible which no-one really cares about any more?

How do you decide what you're going to follow and take seriously versus what you'll discard or ignore as out-dated?

That's a good thought and would go way off the topic. No ones ignoring anything, and I never quote Leviticus -- you did.

Nice try, though.

 

[Retro Rob]

You can't use the "My mom said it was ok" or "The Bible says it's ok" excuse. Once again there is no majority rules or someone excuses your behavior excuse.

You are discriminating against a group of individuals due to their sexual orientation. I don't care what your reason is. You're wrong. Skin color, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, disability, ethnicity, etc. If you feel that someone deserves less rights than you because of the above then you are discriminating against them and are a bigot.

Yes the bible promotes bigotry. You can't use the bible as some kind of excuse and get away with it. You are a bigot based on everything you have posted here.

Using the bible for your morality is risky business since there's some nasty stuff in there. New testament or old testament you should look at what it says about slavery.

"You hungry? I have bread, fish, chicken, and pasta. You can eat anything you want EXCEPT for the bread, fish, chicken, or pasta".

Translation: give me a valid reason to disagree with gay marriage, EXCEPT "XYZ".

Libs don't know how dumb this sounds. You can't dictate personal objections -- no matter how hard you want, you can't.

 

[WelshBloke]

... Libs don't know how dumb this sounds. You can't dictate personal objections -- no matter how hard you want, you can't.

Personal objections should be reasons that you don't want to do something not reasons why you want to stop others doing something.

 

[Phanuel]

Libs don't know how dumb this sounds. You can't dictate personal objections -- no matter how hard you want, you can't.

Can you read what you just wrote back to yourself?

 

[Retro Rob]

Can you read what you just wrote back to yourself?

Ah, others people's objections.

Nice catch...

 

[shadow9d9]

I just gave you a reason -- I believe God is real, and that the Bible condemns it, so that's how I decide to see the issue.

"That isn't a valid reason", you may say? Who determines what's valid to me?

You? Society?

Get my point? So, if "we" get to arbitrarily decide what's no longer right or wrong, then I'm free to establish my own morality, but since it doesn't match up with your ideology, I'm wrong by default....







All I am saying is that there is a strong probability that we only change out of fear... fear of being left out, on the "wrong side of history" or on the wrong side of a vote...

People naturally want acceptance, so when "we" decide XYZ is no longer immoral/wrong, people fall all over it well knowing that under any other circumstance, they'd not go for it.

And I say that people change because of human compassion. It is easy to fear and hate the "others" as long as you could demonize them from afar. When you are around them and they are just as human as you, it is much harder to hate them.

You don't have morals anyhow. You are simply repeating what 2000 year old relative neanderthals have told you what to think!

 

[busydude]

The fact is, gay people "come out" and tell it to the world, so in essence, we're being invited into their "bedrooms", as it were.

That is no fact - that is a leap of faith on your part.

 

[busydude]

That's a good thought and would go way off the topic. No ones ignoring anything, and I never quote Leviticus -- you did.

Nice try, though.

Can you quote the verse which explicitly state that homosexuality is wrong?

 

[Whiskey16]

Rob M. it is expected to see support for positions, and when incapable of doing so, to concede the position rather than argue into frustrating ad nauseum...

I just gave you a reason -- I believe God is real, and that the Bible condemns it, so that's how I decide to see the issue.

What entity have you chose to be a part of? Evidently, you are quite ignorant of your own religion, as here to declare the Christian religion to be homogenously intolerant against homosexuals. It is not.

"That isn't a valid reason", you may say? Who determines what's valid to me?

It is your free choice to accept and be part of a bigoted Church or congregation or not. It is your free will to marginalise and be bigoted towards homosexuals, and you may pass fault away and upon the society you choose to be part and aware of.

To help you out, Rob, here is an easily found list of current Christian denominations, congregations, and individual Churches that recognise and oppose the intolerance while affirming lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgendered people:

LGBT-affirming Christian denominations - Wikipedia

Denominations

North America

• Community of Christ
• Reconciling Pentecostals International
• Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
• Ecumenical Catholic Church
• Ecumenical Catholic Communion
• Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
• Evangelical Anglican Church In America
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
• Episcopal Church (United States)
• Friends General Conference
• Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals
• Inclusive Orthodox Church
• International Christian Community Churches
• Metropolitan Community Church
• Old Catholic Church
• Presbyterian Church (USA)
• Reformed Anglican Catholic Church
• Restoration Church of Jesus Christ (Salt Lake City, Utah, USA) — a Latter Day Saint denomination
• United Church of Christ
• United Church of Canada
• Unity Church
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada
• Mexico - Affirming Pentecostal Church International

Europe

• German Lutheran, reformed and united churches in Evangelical Church in Germany
• German, Swiss, Austrian and Dutch Old Catholic Church
• Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, Poland, Ecumenical Catholic Communion
• Swiss reformed churches in Swiss Reformed Church
• Protestant Church in the Netherlands
• Church of Denmark
• Church of Norway
• Church of Sweden
• Church of Iceland
• United Protestant Church in Belgium
• Portugal - Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• British Quakers
• Wales - Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• Albania - Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in Italy (CELI)[4]
• Poland - Christian United Church in Poland
• United Kingdom - United Ecumenical Catholic Church

Central and South America

• Brazil - Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• Colombia - Affirming Pentecostal Church International

Individual congregations

• Bethlehem Community, Faithful Companions of St. Francis – religious community within Ecumenical Catholic Church (Liverpool, England)
• Broadway United Methodist Church (Indianapolis, IN)
• Cathedral of Hope (Dallas, Texas, USA)
• Christ Chapel of the Valley (North Hollywood (Los Angeles), CA) - a member of the evangelical Christ Chapel Association of Churches
• Church of St. Luke and The Epiphany, Episcopal (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA)
• Church of the Valley (Van Nuys, CA) - Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
• Community Parish of St Bernadette Liverpool – congregation of Ecumenical Catholic Church (Liverpool, England)
• Glide Memorial Church (San Francisco, California, USA)
• SafeHouse Church (Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA)
• Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church (San Francisco, California, USA)
• Grace Gospel Chapel (Seattle, Washington, USA)
• Seattle First Baptist Church (Seattle, Washington, USA)
• Light of Love Fellowship (St. Louis, Missouri, USA)
• Pullen Memorial Baptist Church (Raleigh, North Carolina, USA)
• Spirit of Joy Christian Church (Lakeville, Minnesota, USA) - Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
• St. Mark's Anglican Church - a bilingual congregation (Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico)
• Tong-Kwang Light House Presbyterian Church (Taipei, Taiwan)
• University Baptist Church (Austin, Texas, USA)
• St. Paul's Anglican Church (Vancouver, BC)
• Wake Forest Baptist Church (Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA)
• Walnut Creek United Methodist Church (Walnut Creek, California, USA)
• Living Spirit United Methodist Church (Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA)
• Greenland Hills United Methodist Church (Dallas, TX, USA)
• Ekklesia Tou Theou (Church of God), (Cavite, Philippines)
• [1] Olivet-Schwenkfelder United Church of Christ, (East Norriton, Pennsylvania, USA)
• Remain Ministries Southwest Florida - Non-Denominational/Pentecostal Church (Cape Coral/Fort Myers, Florida, USA)

Denomination-sanctioned programmes






The following denominations have LGBT-welcoming or affirming programmes, though not all churches within the denomination are necessarily members of the LGBT programme.

• Integrity and the OASIS are parachurch ministries, but operate under the official roof of the Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada. There are also official programmes identifying parishes in some dioceses.
• Supportive Communities Network — Church of the Brethren, Mennonite Church USA, and Mennonite Church Canada
• Open and Affirming — Christian Church (Disciples of Christ): Open and Affirming.
• Welcoming Community Network (WCN). — Community of Christ
• Reconciling in Christ — Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada
• More Light — Presbyterian Church (USA)
• Open & Affirming, All are Welcome — Reformed Catholic Church (USA) (International):
• Room for All — Reformed Church in America
• Affirm United/S'affirmer Ensemble — United Church of Canada
• Open and Affirming (ONA) — United Church of Christ
• Friends for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns

Unofficial programmes

• Axios - an unofficial Orthodox-Christian association for LGBT Orthodox-Christians and same-sex-marriage activists working to promote recognition of same-sex marriage in the Church.
• Affirmation: Gay & Lesbian Mormons — Latter-day Saints
• Changing Attitude (UK) – group working for Gay, lesbian, bisexual & transgender affirmation within the Church of England – conduct worship, training and workshops
• Changing Attitude[5] (International) – group working for Gay, lesbian, bisexual & transgender affirmation within the Anglican Communion – conduct worship, training and workshops
• DignityUSA works for inclusiveness in the Roman Catholic Church, but is not associated with particular congregations, nor is supported by the Church hierarchy. There is also an organization called Courage International which promotes chastity for gay and lesbian Catholics, which it is supported by the Church hierarchy as it submits totally to the Church's teaching on homosexuality.
• Inclusive Church (Church of England / Anglican) – working for a range of inclusion within Anglican Communion, including LGBT – conduct worship, training and workshops
• Nazarene Ally - Church of the Nazarene - seeks to promote dialogue between the Nazarene Church and the LGBT community, address policy language, and promote inclusion of LGBT members in rhythms and life of the Church.[6]
• Reconciling Ministries Network — United Methodist Church
• Welcoming and Affirming — Baptist
• Pink Menno Campaign — Mennonite Church USA

Programmes not affiliated with any particular denomination

• Gay Christian Network (GCN) is a "nonprofit ministry supporting Christians worldwide who happen to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT)". GCN is an ecumenical ministry, welcoming Christians from a wide variety of backgrounds. GCN was founded in 2001 by Justin Lee, and has sought to "build a supportive community to support fellow gay Christians in their Christian walks."
• Institute for Welcoming Resources (a programme of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force)
• Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (UK)
• Accepting Evangelicals – Evangelical parishes accepting LGBT people www.acceptingevangelicals.org
• Evangelical Fellowship for Lesbian and Gay Christians (UK)
• European Forum of LGBT Christian Groups
• Evangelicals Concerned: Gay and Transgender Christians
• Sybils: UK group for transgender Christians
• Nuntiare et Recreare: Russian multi-denominational organization
• LGBT Christians (Russian: ЛГБТ-христиане Украин&#1099😉: Ukrainian multi-denominational organization
• Believe Out Loud - an online network that empowers Christians to work for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) equality.

See also

• List of LGBT-related organizations, including religious organizations

Christian

• Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• Beyond Ex-Gay Group for survivors of Ex-Gay ministries
• Changing Attitude (International)
• Changing Attitude (UK) – group working for Gay, lesbian, bisexual & transgender affirmation within the Anglican Communion
• Christ Chapel of the Valley (Los Angeles) - a evangelical church welcoming Gay, Straight, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgendered Christians
• Christian Gays
• ChristianLesbians.com
• Evangelical Fellowship for Lesbian and Gay Christians (UK)
• Evangelicals Concerned: Gay and Transgender Christians
• European Forum of LGBT Christian Groups
• Gay Christian Europe Largest welcoming Christian church directory in Europe, multilingual
• The Gay Christian Network Interdenominational organization providing online support, community, and resources for LGBT Christians
• GayChristianSurvivors - Refuting anti-gay doctrines & traditions with the Word of God.
• gaychurch.org Largest welcoming Christian church directory in the world and much more
• Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals Gay Apostolic Pentecostals
• Homosexuals and Church (German Ecumenical Group)
• Inclusive Church (Anglican)
• Integrity (US Episcopal)
• Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (UK)
• SoulForce — non-denominational organization which promotes LGBT-inclusion in churches
• Whosoever: An Online Magazine for GLBT Christians
• Christians Gay
• King of Peace Church St. Petersburg (FL)

There are likely plenty more Christians who follow the same religious text as yourself. Out of prejudicial hatred/marginalisation, is someone making something up, and in doing so violating some core tenants of their faith?

Just what type of Christian are you, and do you denounce the above fellow Christians as heretics? In caring love, condemn them all equally to hell, as homosexuals?

Fair questions.

[edit] I'll add this reference of over 7,100 'Affirming Christian Church Directory of Gay & Lesbian Welcoming Christian Churches Throughout the World.'

I do expect Rob M. to dismiss them all as being untrue to his faith, and therefore pseudo Christians. Or, Rob, you may surprise us all with your respectful tolerance.

 

[randomrogue]

"You hungry? I have bread, fish, chicken, and pasta. You can eat anything you want EXCEPT for the bread, fish, chicken, or pasta".

Translation: give me a valid reason to disagree with gay marriage, EXCEPT "XYZ".

Libs don't know how dumb this sounds. You can't dictate personal objections -- no matter how hard you want, you can't.

What kind of response is that Rob? Do you not understand that there simply is NO excuse for discrimination? That's why I used the Japanese internment camp example above. No matter how good we thought our intentions were it was wrong.

You have a personal objection. It is wrong. If I was against black people I can't just waive my hands in the air and scream "IT'S MY PERSONAL OBJECTION THEREFORE IT'S OK!". You can't hold this position, ever, and be on the winning side of the argument. We're trying to make you see that. You're advocating the limiting of ones civil rights due to sexual orientation.

You're being a bigot and we're holding your feet to the coals. The sooner you admit you have a problem the sooner you can fix it.

This idea that once you have a position it's fixed needs to change Rob. I know change is scary but you can do it. I'm sure you've changed your position on other things before like maybe being for the Iraq war and then being against it.

 

[woolfe9998]

That's a good thought and would go way off the topic. No ones ignoring anything, and I never quote Leviticus -- you did.

Nice try, though.

I'm not playing games here. I'm asking legitimate, non-rhetorical questions.

So you're relying on other references such as Romans I take it? That's fine, but do you disagree with Leviticus regarding the death penalty or not?

 

[woolfe9998]

Can you quote the verse which explicitly state that homosexuality is wrong?

Try Romans 1:26-27.

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [g]unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing [h]indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

 

[Craig234]

Can you quote the verse which explicitly state that homosexuality is wrong?

There are some verses that say that some gay sex is wrong.

But it's a lot more complicated than that.

For one thing, if a huge percent of men behave as gay, if men 'switch' their orientation to gay in some situation, that can be a different issue that normal homosexuality.

You could argue that for a heterosexual man to perform homosexual acts is wrong.

Thing is, like so many issues, on this the bible doens't completely address the topic. I've used the example before, what should an impotent person do about 'go forth and multiply'?

Clearly, the religion does not make a large issue of the general issue of homosexuality - in fact, it doesnt really even mention the general issue, just some anecdotes of straight men.

Lesbianism I don't recall any mention, either. Just as things like impotent people are not addressed specifically.

Another issue is how many things the bible does have rules for that people think are obsolete now. Lebiticus is famous for it, and there are many others.

Ive also mentioned the example of the law that if a man rapes a woman in the field, the punishment shall be that he marry her and pay her family 50 silver, IIRC.

So, let's follow that rule today! Really cute girl you're stalking? Rape her and she has to marry you for some silver. Not bad!

Again and again, Jesus taught to apply the laws with some common sense and love.

He was attacked over and over for not respecting them while He actually was following the real spirit of the law by violating the literal.

And homosexuality seems to fall squarely into that category. The bible doesn't acknowledge some people have a different orientation and state specific rules for them. It does not mention homosexuality in the ten commandments, and Jesus spent a lot more time on heterosexual issues while barely mentioning homosexuality (like one sentence, indirectly).

Meanwhile all these millions of gay bigots are happy to ignore His very specific teachings on things like divorce being wrong. Who cares about that? Stop the gays!

In fact, the bible also teaches that it's not really right to even get married - it says the best thing is for man to not get married, but if he is too weak to do that, it's tolerated.

Don't hear a lot about that from the bible bigot crowd, either.

Admittedly, it takes some thinking on their part to correctly interpret the bible, as it does on many topics - slavery used to be justified with the bible also (it calls for it, in fact).

So, the topic is more complicated than 'the bible is against it', and IMO, it actually supports it. Just don't have heterosexual men go around having gay sex - not usually a problem.

Wonder how the bible bigots would explain the golden rule as it applies to homosexual equal rights? They violate it, not treating gays how they would like to be treated if gay.