S
seeking Christ
Guest
I think this debate is headed the way of interracial dating debates of the past.
People keep trying to draw that parallel. Its baseless. Skin color is not sex.
Upvote
0
I think this debate is headed the way of interracial dating debates of the past.
Violence is only 1 aspect.
People keep trying to draw that parallel. Its baseless. Skin color is not sex.
That's not hate crime; no violence is committed. You want to do away with the right to free speech now?
Maybe it is.People keep trying to draw that parallel. Its baseless. Skin color is not sex.
This is an example of one reason the two sides wont ever agree on it. One side, which I am a member of, believe people are born that way and therefor is similar to race and the other side believes it is a choice or a person turns that way. No way for the two to convince the other that I can see.
Just because a person is born that way does not equate it to skin color. The difference is still sex, or gender, or sexual preference. This is not in any way analogous to skin color.
Not at all. I don't want to prosecute those groups for the vile things they say. I don't think they should be censored either. I think what they say should be documented very well so that everyone can hear it. At this point their lunacy is so far over the top that it's actually helping the equality cause and actually driving people out of the church.
Maybe it is.
.
So recently, marriage to a different race was as taboo as gay marriage is now.
.
You cant say for sure how human morals will evolve. But the arc is clearly bending toward gay marriage.
.
I agree with all but the last line. I actually have no idea about the facts of the last line, but its horribly stupid to be "driven out of the Church" by over the top lunacy such as you've described. I think in most places you'd have to look pretty far to even find a Church as you describe, and in most places you can find an Episcopal Church, (nice people, just ask Robin Williams) a group of Lutherans, and other Churches that are quite gay friendly. We have more than a couple staunch gay advocates among our Christian ranks on this website, too.
and I see it as being similar enough to compare them.
On what basis? Solely that one is born a certain skin color, and one is also born with a certain sexual preference? (Ignoring for the moment that babies don't desire sex but that develops, and there is no consensus on how much is nurture vs how much is nature)
I agree with all but the last line. I actually have no idea about the facts of the last line, but its horribly stupid to be "driven out of the Church" by over the top lunacy such as you've described.
I think in most places you'd have to look pretty far to even find a Church as you describe,
I don't mean homosexuals are driven out. I mean people are questioning why their churches are pawns of political action committees and hate groups that use religion to raise money. They are leaving out of disgust.
This wasn't hard to find.
Poor Lil Kid Singing Ain't No Homos Going To Make It To Heaven In Church! - YouTube
Yeah I've seen that. You think this demonstrates what that's relevant to our point here, exactly?
My point is that the animus towards homosexuals in the US primarily comes from a segment of the Christian population. This segment is getting smaller and smaller the more they try to demonize the homosexual population and they are destroying Christianity's image as they do it. Rallying around hate is bound to fail and slowly, attitudes are rightly shifting towards tolerance.
Incidentally, Rhode Island House passed 51-19 and now it's off to the Senate, despite all the money raised and used by the National Organization of Marriage. Their political clout seems to be falling apart.
Yes!Human morality is an arc, and it's bending! Maybe I should adopt that as my tagline? Its a good summary of reality.
You're just getting your info from a tiny little segment that would otherwise be known as extremists. And rallying around hate never had ANYTHING to do with Christianity.
The problem is, they insist they are the true Christians(TM) and everyone else is a hell-bound progressive, liberal, fake Christian.Go ahead, find fault with that. the rest of what you've been commenting on is no part of Christianity.
Well, after pumping out millions of dollars (much of which was donated by the Catholic Church and Knights of Columbus), they failed to stop SSM in 3 states back in November. They also failed to get an amendment to ban it in a fourth state. They also failed to oust politicians who voted for SSM in NY. I also just found their Starbucks boycott "Dump Starbucks" failed because Starbucks just reported 13% increase in profits. Starbucks also publicly supported SSM.Rhode Island was a gay hotspot in the 70's, this is no indication of any such thing
Christianity's problem is that these groups are very loud, wealthy, and politically influential so they are acting as the public face of the faith.
They are so vehemently anti-gay, their reputation bleeds onto the progressive, accepting Christians.
"These six [things] doth the LORD hate: yea, seven [are] an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness [that] speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."
The problem is, they insist they are the true Christians(TM) and everyone else is a hell-bound progressive, liberal, fake Christian.
Well, after pumping out millions of dollars (much of which was donated by the Catholic Church and Knights of Columbus), they failed to stop SSM in 3 states back in November. They also failed to get an amendment to ban it in a fourth state. They also failed to oust politicians who voted for SSM in NY. I also just found their Starbucks boycott "Dump Starbucks" failed because Starbucks just reported 13% increase in profits. Starbucks also publicly supported SSM.