Canadian SC: Christian law school can't forbid students from gay sex

[TLK Valentine]

I didn't forget, the very reason I ask questions.

The problem I have with your post is something I've seen happen here all too often, and very often on this subject. Most here have seen the arguments and how people go into complete denial when it comes to defending homosexuality, something that is clearly hated by God,

Well, obviously, as a non-Christian, what God hates or doesn't hate means nothing to me -- I'm more interested in what His fan club hates. But as long as we're on that subject, the list of things He hates is quite long and detailed, and yet, far too many Christians seem to fixate on that one which, in all honesty, doesn't get nearly as much ink in the Bible as many of God's other big hates, many of which are either overlooked by today's Christians, or even embraced.

a pet peeve, so to speak, and when they get backed into a corner with the truth, they then play the "Jesus is love, you aren't being loving, you're just mean, and you should feel guilty for treating us/them like that, it's not the Christian way" card.

Well, it's a bit puzzling -- all the fire and brimstone regarding homosexuality comes from one of two sources:

1: the old covenant (OT) which Jesus allegedly fulfilled. Now, certainly, by Biblical standards, engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more so than any other premarital sexual shenanigans, the rest of which many Christians (including the law school in the OP) give a free pass on.

2: a few comments in Paul's letters, where, again, homosexuality is mentioned, but no more so than any other carnal misadventures. Furthermore, a pet peeve of mine, so to speak, is when Christians ignore, forget, or are unaware of when Paul's statements directly contradict Jesus' own words -- for example, does everyone who calls on God get saved? Jesus explicitly says no (Matthew 7:21), while Paul explicitly says yes (Romans 10:13)...


... but I digress. My point is that it's odd enough that a too many Christians seem to take the word of Paul over the word of Jesus, especially seemingly without knowing a lot of the details about the drama between Paul and the early Church (short version -- Jesus' apostles thought Paul was out of line preaching to the gentiles and setting up what they saw as his churches, as they believed that "Christianity" was meant to be a sect of Judaism. They wanted to keep Jesus in Jerusalem, where they believed his return was imminent, and called Paul back to the head office, as it were, more than once to explain himself. Of course Paul disagreed with them, but when the Romans came in AD 70 and stomped Jerusalem flat, Paul won the argument pretty much by default)

...but I digress again. So when you asked if I was "suddenly" a believer, I legitimately wanted to know what you thought specifically I "suddenly" believed in:

• Do I believe Jesus of Nazareth was a real person? Always have; nothing "sudden" about that.
• Do I believe he was the Son of God? Still no; that hasn't changed.
• Do I believe he is someone worth studying and listening to? Yes; that hasn't changed either... but of course, like everyone else worth studying and listening to, a grain of salt is never uncalled for.

Of course we listen, that's what were doing here, making clear Gods word and not letting people get away with their twists and turns of the gospel.

Well, if that's what you're doing here -- I'd hate to break it to you, but it doesn't look like you're doing a bang-up job. Plenty of twists and turns coming from actual believers to be addressed before taking the message to the masses...

...but I digress yet again.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Rather, it is your argument that is fallacious, a false dilemma, based on a false premise, for it presumes my argument is restricted to MSM or HIV simply because that is the only one of many aspects that I mentioned as regards defining negative consequences. I did not mention lesbians, but since you brought that up, studies also have for a long time testified to deleterious conditions among them, as compared to a Scripturally moral lifestyle, which is the standard.

• 42% of gay men; 43% of lesbians; 49% of bisexual men and women planned or actually and deliberately engaged in self-harm, and showed high levels of psychiatric morbidity. Homosexual men and bisexual men were more likely than heterosexual men to be diagnosed with at least one of five mental health disorders and 20% of gay-bisexual men had two or more disorders. 24% of the lesbian-bisexual women had two or more mental disorders in the previous year. The British Journal Of Psychiatry. 2004; 185: 479-485. Journal Of Consulting And Clinical Psychology, (Vol. 71, No. 1, 53-61). http://www.narth.com/docs/britjournal.html

Lesbians appear to be at greater risk for alcohol abuse than are heterosexual women (Cassidy and Hughes, 1997; Eliason, 1996; Haas, 1994; O'Hanlan, 1995; Rosser, 1993)

Lesbian teens are nearly five times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexual girls, according to a 2003 survey presented at a national conference of public health experts in Vancouver Monday.

Again, this is another popular misuse of statistics that anti-LGBT folks love to trot out as "evidence of issues with the lifestyle"

The glaring logic flaw with this one...you're assuming that this is due to the behavior or preference itself. When, in fact, all evidence points to this being byproduct of the way they're treated by society.

This simple map of LGBT suicide attempt rates by region illustrates that very well.

If the suicide rates and attempt rates were purely just tied to the lifestyle itself, then we wouldn't see this disparity by region and it'd be a little more uniform across the board.

It's especially no surprise that in the south, where LGBT are marginalized the most (and treated the worst) the suicide attempt rate is nearly double what it is in the Northeast, where they have much more acceptance. ...and I'm betting dollars to donuts that if you removed rural PA from the "Northeast" section of the map, that 19% would drop even further.

It's no surprise that when people are treated poorly by society, and have limited or no support systems at their disposal, that suicide attempt rates are higher.

There are a number of reputable studies, both from European and US psychiatric organizations (that we can cover if you'd like), that have concluded that:

Mental disorders constitute the most important risk factor for suicidal behaviour. Studies have found that LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) individuals are at increased risk for mental health problems, as a consequence of a hostile stressful environment.
(as well as a simple look at the data for LGBT suicide rate by nation, showing that nations that have more tolerant attitudes towards it have lower suicide rates among that community)


Basically, many conservative evangelicals are creating a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. They take the stance "Behavior XYZ is wrong", then subject people engaging in that behavior to the sorts of things that would give anyone mental issues. And when the people, undoubtedly, do end up with mental health issues as a result of the way they're treated, those same evangelicals use that broken mental state as evidence of how "see, we were right all along, that's bad for you!!!"



I'll use an analogy to illustrate it.

If every time you ate carrots, someone punched you in the nose, would you view it as a valid conclusion that "Carrots increase the risk of broken nose"? Or would you take the logical stance of "Carrots don't cause you to have broken noses...carrots aren't harmful in that way...people just need to stop punching me in the nose"

The prevalence of bacterial vaginosis (BV) among lesbians has been reported to be 18 to 36% (Berger et al., 1995; Edwards and Thin, 1990; Marrazzo et al., 1996a, b), higher than the 16% prevalence seen in 10,397 pregnant women evaluated in the Vaginal Infections in Pregnancy study (Hillier et al., 1995). A study of 101 lesbians, none of whom had had sexual relations with men during the preceding year, found BV prevalence to be 29%. A study conducted in a London genitourinary medicine clinic compared 241 lesbians and 241 matched heterosexual controls and found higher rates of BV in lesbians. Lesbian Health Status and Health Risks - Lesbian Health - NCBI Bookshelf

...again, another glaring logic flaw. There's no way you, or anyone else on this planet, is applying this standard evenhandedly. The "increased rates of this negative health concern is proof that it's evil and nobody should do it" seems to be a favorite for people to cherry pick when wanting to take an anti-LGBT stance, but is rarely invoked in any other conversation.

Ringworm is more prevalent among high school athletes
Heart disease is more prevalent among those who consume animal products
Tooth decay is more prevalent among those who consume more sugary and acidic foods

...yet, I'd highly doubt you hold the same level of animus toward high school sports, eating meat & eggs, and drinking orange juice. Nor would I imagine you thinking that these byproducts of those activities are evidence that they should never be engaged in.


Basically, I think the anti-LGBT community knows that there is no reason to oppose it that meets 1st Amendment standards (serving a compelling an secular purpose, per the Lemon Test), so they attempt to grasp at straws to find non-religious reasons to oppose it. The issue is that all of their reasons are A) not actually caused by the behavior itself, but with the way the people are being treated... or B) based on an inconsistent standard that they're literally not applying to any other behavior.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Well, obviously, as a non-Christian, what God hates or doesn't hate means nothing to me -- I'm more interested in what His fan club hates. But as long as we're on that subject, the list of things He hates is quite long and detailed, and yet, far too many Christians seem to fixate on that one which, in all honesty, doesn't get nearly as much ink in the Bible as many of God's other big hates, many of which are either overlooked by today's Christians, or even embraced.

We fixate because they insist on defending it as if it's no big deal. If someone came in here telling us murder/theft and so on were ok and started offering similar nonsense as they do for defense of Homosexuality, and showed that they were in a complete state of denial, don't you know the same exact thing would happen?

My point is that it's odd enough that a too many Christians seem to take the word of Paul over the word of Jesus,

What does Jesus say exactly that makes Homosexuality acceptable or whatever your saying he does?

Well, if that's what you're doing here -- I'd hate to break it to you, but it doesn't look like you're doing a bang-up job.

Meh

 

[JackRT]

What does Jesus say exactly that makes Homosexuality acceptable or whatever your saying he does?

Do you realize that Jesus says absolutely nothing about homosexuality?

 

[TLK Valentine]

We fixate because they insist on defending it as if it's no big deal. If someone came in here telling us murder/theft and so on were ok and started offering similar nonsense as they do for defense of Homosexuality, and showed that they were in a complete state of denial, don't you know the same exact thing would happen?

How about permarital heterosexual sex? Seems to me the war on that one is long over -- you surrendered. Why?

What does Jesus say exactly that makes Homosexuality acceptable or whatever your saying he does?

No more or less than any other sin -- some of which, as I pointed out, too many Christians either ignore or embrace.

Meh

Just trying to help -- or else your crusade against homosexuality will fail like all the others.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Do you realize that Jesus says absolutely nothing about homosexuality?

Yes.

Did he mention anything about pedophilia?

 

[JackRT]

Yes.

Did he mention anything about pedophilia?

Actually he did but in an indirect manner.

Luke 17:2 It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.

What does this have to do with a discussion of homosexuality?

 

[Kenny'sID]

How about permarital heterosexual sex? Seems to me the war on that one is long over -- you surrendered. Why?

I surrendered?

No more or less than any other sin

And?

Looks like you're saying you made some pointless points in the prior post.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Actually he did but in an indirect manner.

How so? Lets see if he mentioned homosexuality in an indirect manner as well.

What does this have to do with a discussion of homosexuality?

It has everything to do with your comment in that just because Christ didn't mention something, does that make it OK?

 

[essentialsaltes]

It has everything to do with your comment in that just because Christ didn't mention something, does that make it OK?

It's not necessarily that it's okay, but that homosexuality was just not that important to him. Unlike topics he had more to say about, e.g. the sin of divorce or the merits of treating others like you would like to be treated.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

How about permarital heterosexual sex? Seems to me the war on that one is long over -- you surrendered. Why?

...because, like many other cases, they seem to want to disproportionately stigmatize the the "sins" that they, themselves, find it easy to 100% abstain from.

Thus the reason why you have Christian bakers who want to refuse service to gays as a means of spiritual protest for the purposes of "I don't want to support a lifestyle choice the bible speaks against"...yet, I'm not aware of a single case where a Christian baker has refused to sell pastries to an overweight person (gluttony is also a "sin") for the same reasons. Even though one could make a valid argument that not only does a baker encounter way more overweight people than gay people, but selling cupcakes to an overweight person is having way more of a directly contributing and enabling effect on a glutton's life choices than simply denying a cake to a gay person (whose homosexuality is not in anyway impacted by the availability of baked goods for a single, solitary social event)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

We fixate because they insist on defending it as if it's no big deal. If someone came in here telling us murder/theft and so on were ok and started offering similar nonsense as they do for defense of Homosexuality, and showed that they were in a complete state of denial, don't you know the same exact thing would happen?

I'll ask, what rights of others does their behavior, itself, violate? (note: there's no such thing as "my right to not have to see things that I, personally, don't think are good") If you're going to attempt to draw an equivalency between homosexuality and murder/theft, then you need to demonstrate that the "sins" have equal impact on the lives of other people.

Are you claiming that two gay people down the street, being married and not bothering anyone else, is of equal impact to you as if someone came up to you in the street with a gun, and demanded that you hand over your wallet, or worse, shot you?

If not, then your rebuttal is just emotionally charged fluff with absolutely zero substance.

The reason why people say "it's not a big deal" is precisely the reason why people say other "sins" like overeating, using profane language, etc... are no big deal. It's because in terms of how it impacts other people's rights, there's virtually no effect. The same can't be said of actual problematic things like murder/theft/rape/arson/etc...

 

[Kenny'sID]

It's not necessarily that it's okay, but that homosexuality was just not that important to him.

It was important enough to call an abomination, and to destroy a city for. So yes, it was important to God, at least until you can back your comment up.

 

[hedrick]

Furthermore, a pet peeve of mine, so to speak, is when Christians ignore, forget, or are unaware of when Paul's statements directly contradict Jesus' own words -- for example, does everyone who calls on God get saved? Jesus explicitly says no (Matthew 7:21), while Paul explicitly says yes (Romans 10:13)...

This is a legitimate concern. However if you look at all of Paul's writings, and not just a few places from Romans and Galatians, most Pauline scholars think Paul teaches justification by faith and judgement by works. (Just how those fit together isn't easy to say; while most people agree on the statement, there are a number of ideas about how to make sense of it.) Jesus doesn't use those terms, but I believe you can find both in Jesus as well. You're taking a passage from Matthew that talks about judgement by works and comparing it with a passage from Paul about justification by faith. You need to look at the whole picture for both Jesus and Paul. I don't think they are identical, but they're much closer than suggested by this. Also, of the 4 gospels, Matthew emphasizes judgement by works the most, so you should also be careful about citing Matthew on this topic.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It was important enough to call an abomination, and to destroy a city for. So yes, it was important to God, at least until you can back your comment up.

Note: It was also important enough to God that if you wore clothing of mixed fabrics, there were consequences.

I assume you still hold strict dominionist policies against all that stuff at Macy's that's 50% cotton/50% polyester, right???

Same goes for mixing meat & butter at the same meal, having tattoos, etc...?

 

[hedrick]

I'll ask, what rights of others does their behavior, itself, violate? (note: there's no such thing as "my right to not have to see things that I, personally, don't think are good") If you're going to attempt to draw an equivalency between homosexuality and murder/theft, then you need to demonstrate that the "sins" have equal impact on the lives of other people.

Are you claiming that two gay people down the street, being married and not bothering anyone else, is of equal impact to you as if someone came up to you in the street with a gun, and demanded that you hand over your wallet, or worse, shot you?

If not, then your rebuttal is just emotionally charged fluff with absolutely zero substance.

The reason why people say "it's not a big deal" is precisely the reason why people say other "sins" like overeating, using profane language, etc... are no big deal. It's because in terms of how it impacts other people's rights, there's virtually no effect. The same can't be said of actual problematic things like murder/theft/rape/arson/etc...

Nowhere is it said that Sodom was destroyed specifically for homosexuality. Indeed Jer 23:14, Ezek 16:49 don't mention it and cite other sins, and Gen 19 is about rape.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'll ask, what rights of others does their behavior, itself violate?

And I'll ask why are you asking, were you not paying attention?

My comment was concerning them coming to such places as a Christian forum arguing it's ok with God, or trying to minimize it as a lesser, if any sin at all..

If they want to keep it in the closet down the street from me, then I won't even know about it and in that case you would be right, no problem, but I never claimed there was a problem with that scenario.

Like Puddy once said: I'm not the one going to Hell..

 

[Kenny'sID]

Note: It was also important enough to God that if you wore clothing of mixed fabrics, there were consequences.

I assume you still hold strict dominionist policies against all that stuff at Macy's that's 50% cotton/50% polyester, right???

Same goes for mixing meat & butter at the same meal, having tattoos, etc...?

Please, I thought they gave up on that argument long ago.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It was important enough to call an abomination, and to destroy a city for. So yes, it was important to God, at least until you can back your comment up.

We were discussing Jesus, the moral philosopher, as recorded in the NT.

 

[Kenny'sID]

We were discussing Jesus, the moral philosopher, as recorded in the NT.

We were discussing "importance" but if that's what it takes for you, have at it.

That's mild compared to some things I've seen on this thread.