Pope Francis backs same-sex civil unions

[stevevw]

Cultural and religious inclusion doesn't include denying the right of marriage to others.

No one is saying that. We are talking about the right to hold certain beliefs. The same sex vote acknowledged the right for people to vote against same sex marriage.

But my point is that if anyone is denying rights it is those who deny the right for Christians to have an opposing view on same sex marriage. Anyone who expresses this view are shot down, attacked, people demanding they be stripped of awards and their reputations destroyed.

Because anti-equality people were in charge of those countries.

I think you have misunderstood what I was saying. I am sayig that western nations allowed people to vote against same sex marriage because western nations allow people the right to their personal and religious beliefs. They allow various opinions so long as it doesnt incite violence. But the ironic thing is that people are using violence to shut down anyone who holds an opposing view on issues like same sex marriage which is exactly the type of behaviour the same people want to say is wrong.

Because those people don't actually understand what being trans means.

But its not just a case of understanding. You are asking people to take on the subjective mindset of others which is not how we measure whether a male can become a female. If we measured everything by subjective midsets we would be in a lot of trouble because its too arbitray and on shaky ground especially for important issues like gender and biological sex.

But the point is regardless of how we should measure what exactly is a male or female we should not be pinned down to the ideologies of one group of people as opposed to all other views. That is alos unhealthy and biased in a democratic and free speech society. You cannot silence others who have differing views especially when they claim that those views are based on scientific facts.

The point is those who take the view that gender should be measured by biological sex also acknowledge the influence of social and individual subjective ideas that can influence gender. They just disagree that we should solely measure things by subjective mindsets alone as this is an unreliable way to do things which can have repercussions.

Shutting down alternative views can lead to problems that may even be worse than the percieved wrong of descrimination against trans people. For example female rights being denied because a male posing as a female can enter their private spaces and dominate their sports making women feel unsafe, uncomfortable and unappreciated. Or young people being encouraged into permanate hormone therapy and sex changes when 85% grow out of any gender dysphoria thus causing permanant harm.

But what seems to be happening is more and more we are hearing about any opposing views being shut down and labelled hate speech and only one view being allowed to dominate the langauge even now influencing government policiy. Any dominant narrative is dangerous and thats why we need to hear all views.

You think it's hate speech when people say, "Hey, let gay couples get married too"?

No a person has the right to say that under freedom of speech. But what happens today is that people cannot express the opposite view that marriage is only for males and females whether that is motivated by religious beliefs or scientific views. No one can say the opposite anymore without being attacked.

Person A: Person C shouldn't have this right that I have because of their sexual orientation/religion/ethnic origin/etc.

Person B: Hey, you can't use your personal beliefs to try to control the lives of others.

Person A: That's hate speech! Why are you discriminating against me?

Once again your only seeing one view. IE Person A: Person C should 'not have the right to deny my religious belief, that is a protection under law and Human rights. Person A is not saying person C doesnt have the same rights in society to marry. Only that they should not change or deny the beliefs person A has or deny person A the right to express those beliefs.

What person B then does is conflates what person A is saying by making out that their right to express their belief is hate speech when its not. The aim of person B is to silence all opposing views by labelling it hate speech or drowing it out. This is to dominate and change the narrative to their view of the world in the name of social justice. In doing so ironically they are doing exactly what they are accusing religion of doing.

But the point is that gay marriage doesn't actually affect you. We have a bunch of people trying to stop gay marriage who will suffer in no way if that gay marriage is allowed. You want to disagree with it, fine. But the instant you try to stop it, it's trying to force your own ideology onto others, and that is wrong.

When have isaid that I want to stop gay marriage. I think you will find that after the same sex marriage vote most Christians respected the process and the voice of the people. But some on the same sex marriage pro side are not respecting the voice of those who disagreed. This was predicted by some.

You don't know history very well, do you?

So point out to me where in the Bible did Jesus say that different races are not allowed to marry.

But when they start taking action to stop it from happening, that is hateful.

Yes we all agreed that is the case. But the law now says you cannot do that. So not only is it hateful, its against the law. But most Christians dont try and stop it, they accept the law change and get on with things. But what we actually see is those on the pro same sex marriage side taking action to stop Christians even expressing their religious belief opposing same sex marriage.

Take Margaret Court for example. She is a pastor of 30 plus years. Has always had the same belief but has been attacked for expressing her belief opposing same sex marriage. She has been affected by this where she has lost reputation, invitations and invites. So if taking action to stop someone from holding and expressing their view is wrong then what has happened to Margaret Court must also be wrong.

I don't care what beliefs a person has. But no one ever has the right to use their beliefs to control what other people can and can't do.

I agree. Likewise no one has the right to attack others for merely expressing their belief either.

 

[Kylie]

No one is saying that. We are talking about the right to hold certain beliefs. The same sex vote acknowledged the right for people to vote against same sex marriage.

But the vote was not asking what people thought about gay marriage, it was asking whether it should be allowed. Any person who voted "no" was voting for their own beliefs to influence the lives of others, which is exactly what I am talking about.

But my point is that if anyone is denying rights it is those who deny the right for Christians to have an opposing view on same sex marriage. Anyone who expresses this view are shot down, attacked, people demanding they be stripped of awards and their reputations destroyed.

Where do you get that idea?

I'm certainly not saying that Christians must not think gay marriage is wrong. Please, feel free to think it is wrong as much as you like. I honestly don't care. But when a person says that laws based on their beliefs should be passed, and those laws will affect people who do not share those beliefs, then I am saying THAT is wrong.

I think you have misunderstood what I was saying. I am sayig that western nations allowed people to vote against same sex marriage because western nations allow people the right to their personal and religious beliefs. They allow various opinions so long as it doesnt incite violence. But the ironic thing is that people are using violence to shut down anyone who holds an opposing view on issues like same sex marriage which is exactly the type of behaviour the same people want to say is wrong.

I would say that denying a part of the population the right to get married is a form of violence.

But its not just a case of understanding. You are asking people to take on the subjective mindset of others which is not how we measure whether a male can become a female. If we measured everything by subjective midsets we would be in a lot of trouble because its too arbitray and on shaky ground especially for important issues like gender and biological sex.

Yeah, that's what you get when you try to treat things on a spectrum as though they are a simple binary.

But the point is regardless of how we should measure what exactly is a male or female we should not be pinned down to the ideologies of one group of people as opposed to all other views. That is alos unhealthy and biased in a democratic and free speech society. You cannot silence others who have differing views especially when they claim that those views are based on scientific facts.

I'm not talking about silencing anyone. There's a big difference between voicing an opinion and passing laws to limit other people.

The point is those who take the view that gender should be measured by biological sex also acknowledge the influence of social and individual subjective ideas that can influence gender. They just disagree that we should solely measure things by subjective mindsets alone as this is an unreliable way to do things which can have repercussions.

And why should they get there way instead of, I don't know, the people who are actually being talked about?

Shutting down alternative views can lead to problems that may even be worse than the percieved wrong of descrimination against trans people. For example female rights being denied because a male posing as a female can enter their private spaces and dominate their sports making women feel unsafe, uncomfortable and unappreciated. Or young people being encouraged into permanate hormone therapy and sex changes when 85% grow out of any gender dysphoria thus causing permanant harm.

I'm not aware of any cases where a man has claimed to be transgender in order to gain access to the women's toilets or anything like that. Can you provide an example?

And as for trans women dominating at sports, my understanding is that the hormone therapy that they go through dramatically reduces their strength compared to what they had before they started the therapy. After therapy, it's comparable to any other woman.

Can you cite a source that supports your claim that 85% outgrow their gender dysphoria?

But what seems to be happening is more and more we are hearing about any opposing views being shut down and labelled hate speech and only one view being allowed to dominate the langauge even now influencing government policiy. Any dominant narrative is dangerous and thats why we need to hear all views.

I think that any viewpoint that calls for the oppression of a group in society is hate speech.

No a person has the right to say that under freedom of speech. But what happens today is that people cannot express the opposite view that marriage is only for males and females whether that is motivated by religious beliefs or scientific views. No one can say the opposite anymore without being attacked.

Not so long ago, people would have been saying the exact same thing about inter-racial marriages. "No one can say that black people and white shouldn't be allowed to inter marry without being attacked!"

Once again your only seeing one view. IE Person A: Person C should 'not have the right to deny my religious belief, that is a protection under law and Human rights. Person A is not saying person C doesnt have the same rights in society to marry. Only that they should not change or deny the beliefs person A has or deny person A the right to express those beliefs.

What person B then does is conflates what person A is saying by making out that their right to express their belief is hate speech when its not. The aim of person B is to silence all opposing views by labelling it hate speech or drowing it out. In doing so ironically they are doing exactly what they are accusing religion of doing.

That's some dramatic twisting of my words. Person A is clearly stating that they believe that Person C should be denied a particular right based on some arbitrary aspect of who they are.

When have isaid that I want to stop gay marriage. I think you will find that after the same sex marriage vote most Christians respected the process and the voice of the people. But some on the same sex marriage pro side are not respecting the voice of those who disagreed. This was predicted by some.

Sorry, when I said "you," I wasn't referring to you specifically.

So point out to me where in the Bible did Jesus say that different races are not allowed to marry.

There's more to history than the Bible, and there's more to the Bible than what Jesus said. In any case, religion has been used as justification for racism for a long time. Christian Opposition to Interracial Marriage Is Still a Problem

Yes we all agreed that is the case. But the law now says you cannot do that. So not only is it hateful, its against the law. But most Christians dont try and stop it, they accept the law change and get on with things. But what we actually see is those on the pro same sex marriage side taking action to stop Christians even expressing their religious belief opposing same sex marriage.

I wish that were true, but it's not. Do you think that when gay marriage became legal in America in 2015, all Christians just said, "Ah well, we have to accept it, it's the law now"? Plenty of them still remain opposed to it, and plenty of gay people still face extreme discrimination for their sexual orientation.

Take Margaret Court for example. She is a pastor of 30 plus years. has always had the same belief but has been attacked for expressing that belief. She has been affected by this where she has lost reputation, invitations and invites. So if taking action to stop someone from holding and expressing their view is wrong then what has happened to Margaret Court must also be wrong.

You seem to think that Court should have the free speech to express her views, but those who disagree with should not be permitted the same free speech to say they think she's full of it.

I agree. Likewise no one has the right to attack others for merely expressing their belief either.

I'm glad we agree there. But do you think a person should be allowed to use their beliefs to call for discrimination against a group in society?

 

[SilverBear]

You’re still creating a false analogy. Racism and the colour of a person’s skin is not the same a same sex marriage.

the analogy is true, and the hate is the same. You just don't want it to be.

“Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. For too long, our nation has tolerated the insidious form of discrimination against this group of Americans, who have worked as hard as any other group, paid their taxes like everyone else, and yet have been denied equal protection under the law. I believe that freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience. My husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” On another occasion he said, “I have worked too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concern. Justice is indivisible.” Like Martin, I don’t believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others." Coretta Scott King

You say that racists are in the wrong but want to pretend that it is somehow different when you behave in exactly the same way as they do. It isn't

For one there is no Christian belief against race. In fact the Bible states that all people are equal IE

but not LGBT individuals

But marriage being the union between man and women is clearly stated in the Bible as a Christian belief.

the bible has 8 different forms of marriage, only one of which is one man and one woman.

But as I said disagreeing with same sex marriage is not being hateful.

it's just as hateful as disagreeing with interracial marriage.

Its a right that people have in expressing their view about their belief about what marriage is. That belief is based on the Bible and has been around for thousands of years. As a society we cannot start denying cultures and religions their right to belief otherwise we become like China a communist and totalitarian nation.

If we accept this as true then by the same token opposition to interracial marriage and things like racial equality is a belief based on the bible (whether you like or agree doesn't change that racists base their views on their biblical interpretations) and such attitudes have been around for generations. And as you say as a society we cannot start denying cultures and religions their right to beliefs about race and interracial marriage.

There is no motivation. Scientific facts have no feelings or motives. They are just facts. Its a biological fact that a man cannot magically become a women. They have different sex organs, DNA, and hormones. Its a scientific fact that a man cannot become a mother and a child needs a mother.

Kylie is right, you don't understand what transsexuality is.

So when someone takes the positio that based on the facts you cannot substitute a man for a women this is a truth according to the scientific facts and why they may be against same sex marriage. They have a right to express this as it is science and we as a society have always looked to science to tell us what reality is. But what is happening is some want to disregard the science and replace it with subjective feelings and thinking as being what creates reality. Some think this is incoherent.

your position here applies beautifully to racism

No one is talking about racism.

we are talking about hate. Hate is hate no matter who it is directed against or how those who engage in it manage to justify it.

Once again you’re introducing a red herring, something I haven’t mentioned and has nothing to do with marriage and gender. I am saying it’s legitimate in todatys society to disagree with same sex marriage and that a man cannot magically become a women. Its just aprt of the diverse views in society that people have. So long as no one incites violence there is no law against it. Otherwise like I said we risk becoming a totalitarian nation like China where we dictate to everyone what they can and cannot believe and think.

If one accepts this position than it is equally valid to say that it's legitimate to disagree with interracial marriage and racial equality as these are just a part of the diverse views in society

But they should not face any consequences as they are doing nothing wrong.

do you really think there is nothing wrong with racism? Your posts indicate that you do.

Anyone who tries to make any consequences are the ones doing something wrong. You have got things back the front. Expressing a view opposed to same sex marriage is legal and a right to do under Human Rights, freedom of speech and the right to hold and express religious belief so long as it does not incite violence.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of what you say.

You are still introding a false comparison. We are talking about people’s views and beliefs on marriage. Belief about marriage has nothing to do with civil rights. No Christian is stopping a same sex couple from having the right to marry under a civil union under secular law. They are objecting to people trying to change the meaning of traditional marriage between a man and women which has been the meaning of marriage in society for 100's of years based on Christian beliefs.

just like those nasty interracial couples tried to change the meaning of marriage

Well it is a moot point because racist cannot dictate Christian belief. Christian belief is based on the Biblical and not personal opinion. But you are right in saying that Christianity doesnt allow anyone to descriminate because it is clearly against Christian beliefs.

But people’s views on same sex marriage and gender (a man cannot become a women) are not hate speech. So they should not face any consequences. And yet they do from radical ideologues who want to silence free speech.

So therefore you agree. People have the right to their beliefs regardless of what others think so long as it doesn’t insight violence.

you keep introducing a Red Herring argument, interracial marriage has nothing to do with same sex marriage because the issue is about marriage being between a man and women which is about a belief based on Biblical scripture. There is no Biblical scripture about interracial marriage.

Racists disagree

 

[SilverBear]

Hate is hurling insults, using violence against people, denying them jobs and purchases.

Hate has many forms.

This summer the Supreme Court ruled that LBGT individuals were protected by the civil rights act so they could no long be denied jobs or housing just because thy were LGBT. Many in the Christian community were more than a little upset bu this ruling. It will be interesting to see how will the states and the federal government will enforce this ruling. Meanwhile the fight for equal access to public services continues

But loving does not mean agreeing with everything somebody does or says nor is it approving sin. Jesus loved but he did not approve sin.

most would say that is your opinion and while you are entitled to your opinion others are just as entitled to not have to hear it

I should hope no one here condones acts of violence or hatred, but saying "I disagree" or "I believe X is sinful" is not hate speech.

what do you disagree with?
that LGBT individuals are people?
that they have the same rights and responsibilities that you enjoy?
that they have families?
that they they shouldn't have to worry about discrimination every time they walk into a store?

It may be hatred of sin but it should never be hated against a person. Every person has the same worth, but every person is a sinner who needs Christ.

when you are on the receiving end it is personal.

Now I am not saying that people have not faced hatred and discrimination but it should not be from Christians

in western society its Christians who are pretty much doing all of the hating and the discrimination

and if it is then those people need to go and examine themselves because they themselves are in sin.

So it's their fault

But the woman caught in adultery is the example that Jesus showed and we are to be like Jesus. Jesus would never have approved of sin and just like that woman he would have said "Go sin no more" Would Jesus now be accused of hate speech?

what did Jesus tell the man she was supposedly committing adultery with?

Because the world is corrupt and full of sin.

that's why minorities in this country have to fight in the courts against discrimination?

If they are going into a cake shop and being denied a cake on display for sale then that is discrimination.
If someone runs a business they should have the right to politely decline anyone's business if they fundamentally disagree with what the customer wants. Be it a Tshirt with hate speech, selling mice to a science lab, a sexually explicit poster or something against their faith. That is different to denying someone something you already have for sale.

the difference here is the baker you are alluding to did provide a service to everyone else but denied it to a minority because of his choice to hate.
and according to your definition of hate written at the beginning of this post that baker was engaging in hate.
And your defense of that baker means that you are condoning that act of hate.
and it shows you, in your view not all people "has the same worth"

 

[SilverBear]

No one is saying that. We are talking about the right to hold certain beliefs. The same sex vote acknowledged the right for people to vote against same sex marriage.

But my point is that if anyone is denying rights it is those who deny the right for Christians to have an opposing view on same sex marriage. Anyone who expresses this view are shot down, attacked, people demanding they be stripped of awards and their reputations destroyed.

just like if they said the same things about any other minority or tried to claim it was their right to vote away the legal protections of black people or Jews or any other minority.

what people say has consequences.

I think you have misunderstood what I was saying. I am sayig that western nations allowed people to vote against same sex marriage because western nations allow people the right to their personal and religious beliefs.

and those votes turned out to be unconstitutional.

Someone's religion doesn't give them the right to discriminate and it doesn't give the right to try and vote away the rights of others.

They allow various opinions so long as it doesnt incite violence. But the ironic thing is that people are using violence to shut down anyone who holds an opposing view on issues like same sex marriage which is exactly the type of behaviour the same people want to say is wrong.

Who exactly has been killed because they disagree with same sex marriage?

But its not just a case of understanding. You are asking people to take on the subjective mindset of others which is not how we measure whether a male can become a female. If we measured everything by subjective midsets we would be in a lot of trouble because its too arbitray and on shaky ground especially for important issues like gender and biological sex.

But the point is regardless of how we should measure what exactly is a male or female we should not be pinned down to the ideologies of one group of people as opposed to all other views. That is alos unhealthy and biased in a democratic and free speech society. You cannot silence others who have differing views especially when they claim that those views are based on scientific facts.

this is exactly what you are doing

Shutting down alternative views can lead to problems that may even be worse than the percieved wrong of descrimination against trans people.

the alternative view is that discrimination is OK so how is discrimination worse than discrimination?

For example female rights being denied because a male posing as a female can enter their private spaces and dominate their sports making women feel unsafe, uncomfortable and unappreciated.

wow total bull

Or young people being encouraged into permanate hormone therapy and sex changes when 85% grow out of any gender dysphoria thus causing permanant harm.

of this bit of fake science again? really?
the study you are using was written by an anti-gay activist, They took a group of children prescribed puberty blockers years earlier and claimed that 85 % of "outgrew" gender dysphoria but left out the simple fact that 85% of the kids receiving the puberty blockers were receiving them for precocious puberty (puberty starting as early as age 6)

But what seems to be happening is more and more we are hearing about any opposing views being shut down and labelled hate speech and only one view being allowed to dominate the langauge even now influencing government policiy. Any dominant narrative is dangerous and thats why we need to hear all views.

actually we aren't seeing that at all.

No a person has the right to say that under freedom of speech. But what happens today is that people cannot express the opposite view that marriage is only for males and females whether that is motivated by religious beliefs or scientific views. No one can say the opposite anymore without being attacked.

there is no science backing up marriage discrimination

Once again your only seeing one view. IE Person A: Person C should 'not have the right to deny my religious belief, that is a protection under law and Human rights. Person A is not saying person C doesnt have the same rights in society to marry. Only that they should not change or deny the beliefs person A has or deny person A the right to express those beliefs.

What person B then does is conflates what person A is saying by making out that their right to express their belief is hate speech when its not.

people have the right to express their views against interracial marriage. They may have to face consequences for that but no one is denying them the right to say it. Just as no one is denying your right to express your views about same sex marriage.

Take Margaret Court for example. She is a pastor of 30 plus years. Has always had the same belief but has been attacked for expressing her belief opposing same sex marriage. She has been affected by this where she has lost reputation, invitations and invites. So if taking action to stop someone from holding and expressing their view is wrong then what has happened to Margaret Court must also be wrong.

"You know, even that LGBT in the schools, it's the devil, it's not of God," Margaret Court

"the devil controls these people's (transsexuals) minds and mouths."Margaret Court

"homosexuals are after our young ones, that’s what they are after” Margaret Court

“tennis is full of lesbians” Margaret Court

“The gay lobby is trying to get [into] the minds of children through Australia’s Safe Schools anti-bullying program." Margaret Court

“We know that homosexuality is a lust of the flesh, they too know this, this is why they want marriage, because it’s self-satisfying." Margaret Court

 

[coffee4u]

Hate has many forms.

This summer the Supreme Court ruled that LBGT individuals were protected by the civil rights act so they could no long be denied jobs or housing just because thy were LGBT. Many in the Christian community were more than a little upset bu this ruling. It will be interesting to see how will the states and the federal government will enforce this ruling. Meanwhile the fight for equal access to public services continues


most would say that is your opinion and while you are entitled to your opinion others are just as entitled to not have to hear it


what do you disagree with?
that LGBT individuals are people?
that they have the same rights and responsibilities that you enjoy?
that they have families?
that they they shouldn't have to worry about discrimination every time they walk into a store?

when you are on the receiving end it is personal.


in western society its Christians who are pretty much doing all of the hating and the discrimination

So it's their fault

what did Jesus tell the man she was supposedly committing adultery with?


that's why minorities in this country have to fight in the courts against discrimination?



the difference here is the baker you are alluding to did provide a service to everyone else but denied it to a minority because of his choice to hate.
and according to your definition of hate written at the beginning of this post that baker was engaging in hate.
And your defense of that baker means that you are condoning that act of hate.
and it shows you, in your view not all people "has the same worth"

I think you are very confused over my post.

what do you disagree with?
that LGBT individuals are people?
Did I ever say that people that struggle with sexual sin are not individuals? Its the very fact that everyone is so focused on the LGBT as a label is what is making them appear as 'only that label' and less of an individual.

that they have the same rights and responsibilities that you enjoy?
What exactly are you referring to here? To hold a job and go into a shop and buy items? Yes. The same way that those who gossip, are greedy or who watch pornography do. No person is exempt from sin, it is simply that the sin is different.
Generally though the adulterer doesn't proudly announce what they are doing so nobody knows. If they got together and had a parade and wore a shirt proclaiming that they were adulterers they may find themselves facing discrimination too.
There is no difference between homosexual practices and drunkenness-swindling-greed-watching pornography.
1 Corinthians 6
Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
They are all sins and sin is nothing any of us should be proud about. We are to repent from sin and turn away from it.
1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
A christian person struggling with sexual sin needs to confess their sin to God and be cleansed. They should aim to live in purity.

That they have families?
Creating a child requires a man and a women. That is how God designed it, not I.

that they they shouldn't have to worry about discrimination every time they walk into a store?

Well of course not. Does the gossip worry about discrimination every time they walk into a shop? Every person ever born sins. The only person to not sin was Jesus.
There is nothing special about the sin of homosexuality. It is just one more sin, no different from any other.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

It's possible by looking at the NT and Christian experience to see that many things in the OT don't apply to us. Acts 15 and Paul both make the kind of distinction. But breaking the OT law into moral, ceremonial, and municipal suggests that there's an actual distinction in the OT law. I don't think you can decide what applies to us by any distinction that's present in the OT itself. In Lev the whole Holiness Code is moral. It describes the purity that God requires in order to accept worship. But parts of that are (correctly) not accepted by Christians, even though it was clearly the original authors thought that anyone who didn't follow it was rejected by God.

No disagreement here. It's a context thing, as well as understanding what Jesus did for us at the Cross.

 

[SilverBear]

I think you are very confused over my post.

no your defense of prejudice is clear

what do you disagree with?
that LGBT individuals are people?
Did I ever say that people that struggle with sexual sin are not individuals? Its the very fact that everyone is so focused on the LGBT as a label is what is making them appear as 'only that label' and less of an individual.

so what are you disagreeing with?

that they have the same rights and responsibilities that you enjoy?
What exactly are you referring to here? To hold a job and go into a shop and buy items? Yes. The same way that those who gossip, are greedy or who watch pornography do. No person is exempt from sin, it is simply that the sin is different.

well until this summer that wasn't a right LGBT individuals had.

But still wondering what you are disagreeing with

Generally though the adulterer doesn't proudly announce what they are doing so nobody knows. If they got together and had a parade and wore a shirt proclaiming that they were adulterers they may find themselves facing discrimination too.

Ah so you are disagreeing that LGBT individuals don't have the right to live openly and honestly. If homosexuals would just hide and live in fear of discrimination and violence they wouldn't have to worry so much about hate and violence.

There is no difference between homosexual practices and drunkenness-swindling-greed-watching pornography.

i would like to say there is no difference between your position and those of racism but that is not entirely true - Racists, as a rule, avoid directing hate and violence towards children. Those who hate LGBT individuals often target children with rhetoric and violence like how so many evangelicals oppose anti-bullying programs.

That they have families?
Creating a child requires a man and a women. That is how God designed it, not I.

well they do have families and your choice to hate doesn't make their families go away. And it is your choice, don't blame God for your bigotry.

Well of course not. Does the gossip worry about discrimination every time they walk into a shop?

are gossips refused the same goods and services everyone else gets at that shop?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

So is Exodus 22:2-3 ceremonial or are we still expected to follow it?

Context is everything. This was under the law at the time, and is not afoul of the law today, actually. Restitution is the requirement, as indicated in verse 1. However, if perp is hurt while committing the felony, there is no blood guilt on the part of one defending his home and curtilage. However, victim who struck him is required to try to help or get help or report it - not just let the body lie there. The entire chapter is about restitution though. But if you get hurt committing these crimes, there is an presumption of the assumption of risk. First few verses in Modern English version:

22 If a man steals an ox or a sheep and kills it or sells it, then he shall repay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.

2 If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, then there will be no blood guilt for him. 3 If the sun has risen on him, then there is blood guilt for him.

He must make full restitution. If he has nothing, then he will be sold for his theft. 4 If the stolen item is in fact found alive in his possession, whether it be an ox, or donkey, or sheep, then he shall repay double.

5 If a man causes a field or vineyard to be eaten and puts out his beast so that it feeds in another man’s field, he must make restitution of the best of his own field and of the best of his own vineyard.

6 If fire breaks out and catches in thorn bushes, so that stacked grain or the standing grain or the field are consumed, then he who started the fire must surely make restitution.

7 If a man gives his neighbor money or items to be kept for him, and it is stolen from the man’s house, if the thief is caught, he must repay double. 8 If the thief is not caught, then the owner of the house will be brought before the judges to determine if he has laid his hand on his neighbor’s goods. 9 For any kind of trespass, whether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for clothing, or for any type of lost thing, where another says it is his, the case of both parties shall come before the judges. And whoever the judges find guilty will pay double to his neighbor.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

A wonderful vague non-answer which means little more than, "If you decide it is ceremonial, then it's ceremonial. If you decide that it's not, then it isn't."

No, that is not at all what I said. I don't decide. The Word has already laid it out. Jesus said, "IT is finished" when He accomplished His mission - and they no longer sacrifice animals, do they? The ceremonial stuff is over for the Church. But the moral law - 10 commandments (obeying the law), sexual purity, Marriage, honor, sowing and reaping, etc - remain as is clearly indicated throughout the NT. But you have to know what it says or anyone can tell you and convince you of anything.

 

[Kylie]

No, that is not at all what I said. I don't decide. The Word has already laid it out. Jesus said, "IT is finished" when He accomplished His mission - and they no longer sacrifice animals, do they? The ceremonial stuff is over for the Church. But the moral law - 10 commandments (obeying the law), sexual purity, Marriage, honor, sowing and reaping, etc - remain as is clearly indicated throughout the NT. But you have to know what it says or anyone can tell you and convince you of anything.

Ah, so Christians only have to follow the laws from the New Testament, because any laws which were in the OT but not in the NT were just ceremonial and thus no longer apply, is that it?

Tell me, do you complain about women who pray in church without head coverings (as instructed in 1 Corinthians 11:6) as much as you do about same sex couples?

 

[SilverBear]

Context is everything. This was under the law at the time, and is not afoul of the law today, actually. Restitution is the requirement, as indicated in verse 1. However, if perp is hurt while committing the felony, there is no blood guilt on the part of one defending his home and curtilage. However, victim who struck him is required to try to help or get help or report it - not just let the body lie there. The entire chapter is about restitution though. But if you get hurt committing these crimes, there is an presumption of the assumption of risk. First few verses in Modern English version:

22 If a man steals an ox or a sheep and kills it or sells it, then he shall repay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.

2 If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, then there will be no blood guilt for him. 3 If the sun has risen on him, then there is blood guilt for him.

He must make full restitution. If he has nothing, then he will be sold for his theft. 4 If the stolen item is in fact found alive in his possession, whether it be an ox, or donkey, or sheep, then he shall repay double.

5 If a man causes a field or vineyard to be eaten and puts out his beast so that it feeds in another man’s field, he must make restitution of the best of his own field and of the best of his own vineyard.

6 If fire breaks out and catches in thorn bushes, so that stacked grain or the standing grain or the field are consumed, then he who started the fire must surely make restitution.

7 If a man gives his neighbor money or items to be kept for him, and it is stolen from the man’s house, if the thief is caught, he must repay double. 8 If the thief is not caught, then the owner of the house will be brought before the judges to determine if he has laid his hand on his neighbor’s goods. 9 For any kind of trespass, whether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for clothing, or for any type of lost thing, where another says it is his, the case of both parties shall come before the judges. And whoever the judges find guilty will pay double to his neighbor.

I'm still waiting to find out is Exodus 22:2-3 is ceremonial or not

 

[coffee4u]

no your defense of prejudice is clear

so what are you disagreeing with?

well until this summer that wasn't a right LGBT individuals had.

But still wondering what you are disagreeing with

Ah so you are disagreeing that LGBT individuals don't have the right to live openly and honestly. If homosexuals would just hide and live in fear of discrimination and violence they wouldn't have to worry so much about hate and violence.

i would like to say there is no difference between your position and those of racism but that is not entirely true - Racists, as a rule, avoid directing hate and violence towards children. Those who hate LGBT individuals often target children with rhetoric and violence like how so many evangelicals oppose anti-bullying programs.


well they do have families and your choice to hate doesn't make their families go away. And it is your choice, don't blame God for your bigotry.


are gossips refused the same goods and services everyone else gets at that shop?

You do not understand my position because you do not understand what Jesus called us to do. You refuse to acknowledge that homosexual practices are sin, no you deem them to be good. If God says something is sin, then it is sin. Doesn't matter if we wished it wasn't sin, doesn't matter if the world at large says that isn't sin, it is sin. I don't get to set down what is sin or not only God does.

I have never directed hate and violence towards anybody. I would never deny goods or service to anybody. Jesus says that I am to love my neighbour as myself and I strive to do that. All people have the same worth no matter if they are unborn, a different race or struggling with different sins.
I would stand next to any christian struggling with this issue and support them and pray for them. I did on another thread on here.
Unmarried Christians are called to celibacy.

My guess is you also think there is nothing sinful about heterosexual couples living together without marriage either. Am I right? I notice you say nothing when I mention them, all your focus is on homosexual couples as if they were special, they are not. They are no different to a male and female couple living together without marriage.

are gossips refused the same goods and services everyone else gets at that shop?
Gossips are not which is was my point. The world views gossiping as nothing, but God puts gossiping in the same sentence as homosexual practices. Meaning Christians should view it the same way. I believe in sola scriptura and my aim is to live by the Bible. This is why I make nothing special about the sin of homosexuality since God says it is the same as gossip. Now many Christians do make out homosexual practices to be worse which is wrong, but I am not their guide.
The world may view homosexuals with hate I do not, I view them as having something go wrong in their lives which sent them down a very distinctive path. As I said before Gods rules are not there to make life less fun, he made them because he knows practicing these things is ultimately very harmful to the people themselves. It's easy to see the harm in something like heroin but far less easy to see the harm in sexual sins, but it causes harm non the less and the harm is to those practicing it not to me.
1 Corinthians 6:18 ►
Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.
This isn't only homosexuals but ALL sexual sin.

 

[stevevw]

the analogy is true, and the hate is the same. You just don't want it to be.

The analogy cannot be true. I will tell you why. If you equate people disagreeing with same sex marriage being racism then by your logic means the government is promoting racism by allowing people to vote no on same sex marriage. The government is breaking the anti-discrimination laws. Yet no one has ever charge the government with this illegal act.

“Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. For too long, our nation has tolerated the insidious form of discrimination against this group of Americans, who have worked as hard as any other group, paid their taxes like everyone else, and yet have been denied equal protection under the law. I believe that freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience. My husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” On another occasion he said, “I have worked too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concern. Justice is indivisible.” Like Martin, I don’t believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others." Coretta Scott King

Your injecting a lot of stuff that isn’t even there. No one has said that gays and lesbians cannot marry and have the same rights under secular laws. Christians are just saying that traditional marriage, which is the type held in a church and performed by a priest should only be between a man and women. Are you saying that Christians don’t have the right to hold this view and to practice it in society and should be forced to perform same sex weddings under the Christian meaning in churches.

You say that racists are in the wrong but want to pretend that it is somehow different when you behave in exactly the same way as they do.

Like I said a few times now how can it be the same as racism when the government approved it. That makes the government the biggest racist of all. But obviously being able to vote no against same sex marriage is not a hateful or racist view as its a legal right and the government recognises this, hense the vote on same sex marriage. Otherwise there would have been no vote.

but not LGBT individuals

No when the bible says all are equal that includes LGBTI people and even Donald Trump lol. Though that may bring him down a peg or two.

the bible has 8 different forms of marriage, only one of which is one man and one woman.

Thats irrelevant as this may cover pagan marriage ect. Anyway where talking about a Christian belief of Marriage which is between man and women.

But let’s go along with your logic. In making a case that there are many different forms of marriage that all should be accepted all you are doing is creating an argument for subjective morality. Therefore everyones view of marriage should be accepted and tolerated including polygamy, object philia (attraction and marrying to objects), animal-human marriage, child marriages and all other sorts of marriages including traditional marriage and same sex marriage.

So you have just made a case for traditional marriage being OK. Under relative morality you can't then pick and choose which view of marriage is acceptable, they all have to be. Otherwise your claiming to know the absolute truth of which is right and wrong.

If we accept this as true then by the same token opposition to interracial marriage and things like racial equality is a belief based on the bible (whether you like or agree doesn't change that racists base their views on their biblical interpretations) and such attitudes have been around for generations. And as you say as a society we cannot start denying cultures and religions their right to beliefs about race and interracial marriage.

Yes as a secular society they cant as they would be hypocrites as they are always proclaiming the importance of cultural inclusion which also includes their religious beliefs. They pride themselves on how inclusive they are and parade all the different cultures on stage. Speakers virtue signal about the importance of cultural inclusion. How can they on the one hand go on about this and on the other say oh we include you except for this and this. Thats hypocritical.

But you keep making a straw man argument in equating Christian beliefs on marriage with racism. The Bible doesnt support racism but it doesn traditional marriage. Christ is clear about a man and a women becoming one in marriage. But he has never said anything about racism being OK. Jusst because you want to claim someone has said racism is OK based on the Bible doesnt mean it is so. Thats another logical fallacy. I have already addressed this.

Kylie is right, you don't understand what transsexuality is.

I am not sure you do either as its not transsexuality but rather transgenderism. I fully understand transgenderism. It is about a person’s self-identified gender not matching the sex they were born with. Transgender ideology tries to separate gender from sex but the evidence shows they are intertwined.

That’s transgender ideology runs into conflicts because in only viewing gender as a construction of the mind and ignoring sex people may think they are the opposite sex but when we apply this to practical situations problems occur because sex needs to be considered for things like health (different reproductive systems), hormones etc. that influence treatment. Or for privacy and safety matters.

your position here applies beautifully to racism

So your saying that if someone said according to biology a man cannot be a women that is being racist.

we are talking about hate. Hate is hate no matter who it is directed against or how those who engage in it manage to justify it.

But this is your opinion of what is hate. Who said you are right. remember personal opinions can be wrong and biased. But if the science stated that a male cannot become a female biologically how can that be hateful when its just a scientific fact. Its no more hateful than saying the earth is round to someone who believes in a flat earth.

If one accepts this position than it is equally valid to say that it's legitimate to disagree with interracial marriage and racial equality as these are just a part of the diverse views in society

The ironic thing is according to the same society that wants to promote same sex marriage they support relative morality. Under relative morality all beliefs and views have to be included because there is no basis for determining if any view or belief is morally wrong. So condemning other cultures for their religious beliefs is hypocritical. So technically yes if a culture did believe that interracial marriage is wrong then western society should not condemn this.

But like I said that doesn’t relate to Christian beliefs because they don’t believe that interracial marriage is wrong.

do you really think there is nothing wrong with racism? Your posts indicate that you do.

Let’s try something different to make the point. Let’s go down the relative moral road on this. You’re making some pretty big moral truth claims about racism. On what basis do you think it is wrong? On what basis are you judging the Christian belief to be wrong?

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of what you say.

Of course not but having consequences does not necessarily mean a person has done something wrong in expressing their free speech. For example people can condemn someone for speaking the truth. Someone may say some people on welfare need to get a job or being overweight increases the risk of health problems and some will condemn them for saying this and want them to face consequences. Is this the type of consequence you are talking about?

 

[SilverBear]

I have never directed hate and violence towards anybody.

you just said LGBT individual's families are not families
you just said that LGBT people should hide
you just said that discrimination against LGBT individuals is their own fault.

This is hate.

 

[SilverBear]

The analogy cannot be true. I will tell you why. If you equate people disagreeing with same sex marriage being racism then by your logic means the government is promoting racism by allowing people to vote no on same sex marriage. The government is breaking the anti-discrimination laws. Yet no one has ever charge the government with this illegal act.

Many did and the courts found such votes to be unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges.

Your injecting a lot of stuff that isn’t even there. No one has said that gays and lesbians cannot marry and have the same rights under secular laws. Christians are just saying that traditional marriage, which is the type held in a church and performed by a priest should only be between a man and women. Are you saying that Christians don’t have the right to hold this view and to practice it in society and should be forced to perform same sex weddings under the Christian meaning in churches.

no church or minister is or can be compelled to perform any marriage. The First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs in Mississippi refused to marry a black couple and it was perfectly legal for them to do so.

Like I said a few times now how can it be the same as racism when the government approved it. That makes the government the biggest racist of all. But obviously being able to vote no against same sex marriage is not a hateful or racist view as its a legal right and the government recognises this, hense the vote on same sex marriage. Otherwise there would have been no vote.

the votes were unconstitutional

[/quote] No when the bible says all are equal that includes LGBTI people and even Donald Trump lol. Though that may bring him down a peg or two.[/quote] the Constitution does however say that everyone is equal.

Thats irrelevant as this may cover pagan marriage ect. Anyway where talking about a Christian belief of Marriage which is between man and women.

you should read your bible, it and God list 8 different forms of marriage only one of which is between one man and one woman

But let’s go along with your logic. In making a case that there are many different forms of marriage that all should be accepted all you are doing is creating an argument for subjective morality. Therefore everyones view of marriage should be accepted and tolerated including polygamy, object philia (attraction and marrying to objects), animal-human marriage, child marriages and all other sorts of marriages including traditional marriage and same sex marriage.

Can an object, an animal or a child consent to be married? NO they can't

So you have just made a case for traditional marriage being OK. Under relative morality you can't then pick and choose which view of marriage is acceptable, they all have to be. Otherwise your claiming to know the absolute truth of which is right and wrong.

you should educate yourself on relative ethics

But you keep making a straw man argument in equating Christian beliefs on marriage with racism. The Bible doesnt support racism but it doesn traditional marriage. Christ is clear about a man and a women becoming one in marriage. But he has never said anything about racism being OK. Jusst because you want to claim someone has said racism is OK based on the Bible doesnt mean it is so.

the same applies to your interpretations of the bible

I fully understand transgenderism.

your posts say otherwise

 

[Strathos]

May I just point out that civil unions are not the same thing as marriage? Many people on this thread seem to have forgotten that.

 

[SkyWriting]

Since I'm no longer a Christian, there's quite a bit in the bible, including things Paul says, that I disagree with. This isn't really noteworthy.
-

Paul never met Jesus. And he had this experience of being blinded, which oddly is not something Jesus does, strike people blind.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Ah, so Christians only have to follow the laws from the New Testament, because any laws which were in the OT but not in the NT were just ceremonial and thus no longer apply, is that it?

Tell me, do you complain about women who pray in church without head coverings (as instructed in 1 Corinthians 11:6) as much as you do about same sex couples?

My original statement stands, and is well confirmed and verified by the Word of God. Ceremonial laws (literal means "customs of a culture") are no longer relevant. We don't have to wash cups a certain way, observe all Jewish feasts and customs, and stand in a certain place, and only say certain words to worship God. Women are not unclean during their periods or after birth. No animals are sacrificed. The ceremonial customs have been fulfilled in Christ.

Moral law remains, that which is based on God's Holy nature. Sin is sin and does not change. Sexual immorality (and murder, theft, lying, unbelief, coveting etc) were sin then and are sin now.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I'm still waiting to find out is Exodus 22:2-3 is ceremonial or not

Perhaps you ought to reread post 509 in which your question was specifically answered.