Political support of LGBTQ+ despite not-so-positive religious views. (Open to discussion.)

[ChristIsSovereign]

In my opinion, I believe that the Church should oppose the LGBTQ+ in a religious sense while campaigning for their rights in a political one, so that it won't be illegal to be part of the LGBTQ+ and actually gain more opportunities for change; in fact, making being LGBTQ+ illegal again would defeat the purpose of communicating the message of love and change.

People should have equal rights. Nowhere in the New Testament does it call for LGBTQ+ to be banned politically. It simply states that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. I agree with the Christian definition of marriage; I don't believe the government should be involved with the institution of marriage; it'd ease a lot of issues involving the government forcing churches to accept gay marriage; it'd give the rights to the churches to not do that.

I'd love to discuss the matter.

 

[visionary]

And what about the addition of Pedophile being added to this "legality" issue? Where do you draw your line?

 

[Curtis.Hilliker]

What rights do I have now that they don’t?

 

[Shiloh Raven]

As a liberal Christian myself, I fully support LGBTQ rights from a political, legal, historical and civil rights point of view. I have for almost three decades as a social justice and political activist.

 

[joymercy]

I support free will

so does God

 

[crossnote]

Define 'rights'.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Define 'rights'.

Gay rights in the US, state by state

The ongoing struggle for LGBT rights has been under attack during the Trump presidency.

Here Are the Worst Anti-LGBT Bills to Watch for in 2019

Donald Trump Is the Most Anti-LGBT President in History

Trump Attacked LGBT Rights in 2018, and He’s Far From Done

First 100 Days: How President Trump Has Impacted LGBTQ Rights

Trump administration rolls back protections for transgender students

How Trump Made 2017 a Horrific Year for LGBT Rights—and Worse Is to Come

​

 

[Shiloh Raven]

In my opinion, I believe that the Church should oppose the LGBTQ+ in a religious sense while campaigning for their rights in a political one, so that it won't be illegal to be part of the LGBTQ+ and actually gain more opportunities for change; in fact, making being LGBTQ+ illegal again would defeat the purpose of communicating the message of love and change.

People should have equal rights. Nowhere in the New Testament does it call for LGBTQ+ to be banned politically. It simply states that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. I agree with the Christian definition of marriage; I don't believe the government should be involved with the institution of marriage; it'd ease a lot of issues involving the government forcing churches to accept gay marriage; it'd give the rights to the churches to not do that.

I'd love to discuss the matter.

Out of curiosity, did you start this thread today because today is the beginning of Gay Pride Month?

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

And what about the addition of Pedophile being added to this "legality" issue? Where do you draw your line?

Draw the line at consent. If there's consent, it should be legal.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

Out of curiosity, did you start this thread today because today is the beginning of Gay Pride Month?

I originally didn't but I realized it was soon after.

 

[visionary]

Draw the line at consent. If there's consent, it should be legal.

infant or 7 years old gives consent.. like they know... or even 11 year olds.. what do they really understand?

 

[crossnote]

Gay rights in the US, state by state

The ongoing struggle for LGBT rights has been under attack during the Trump presidency.

Here Are the Worst Anti-LGBT Bills to Watch for in 2019

Donald Trump Is the Most Anti-LGBT President in History

Trump Attacked LGBT Rights in 2018, and He’s Far From Done

First 100 Days: How President Trump Has Impacted LGBTQ Rights

Trump administration rolls back protections for transgender students

How Trump Made 2017 a Horrific Year for LGBT Rights—and Worse Is to Come

​

I was hoping for a definition of the word 'rights' not it's alleged occurrences or lack.

Reason: What may be a 'right' of one individual may trample on the 'rights' of another.

Who establishes this thing called 'rights'?

 

[Curtis.Hilliker]

I must confess and testify that I have done and struggled with sexual sins in my life (including things that made me bi-sexual). When God came into my life I dealt with serious convictions and even punishment when I refused to repent from my sexual sins. But with God’s help I was able to learn and do what was right (not perfectly I may add). I’m a new creation in Christ Jesus, and I believe that ANYONE who struggles with sexual immorality or even just identity can and will find what is right with God’s help.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

It does make a difference when the state is proactive about the support and application of those rights. By awarding rights to this group the state assumes the reality of this group and the principles that define the group. In this case, the principles are purely subjective and would better fit the definition of "preferences." There was a time when it was often said that "rights are protected, preferences are not."
Long story short... now we have children in state schools. It is being suggested to them that they may not be the gender that they were born. I am talking about impressionable grade school children here. Children who have no idea what sexuality is. So now we are seeing young children coming home from schools telling their families that they are not the gender that they were born. Teacher said they might be something else.
So, no. Not the state's role to do this.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I believe that the Church should oppose the LGBTQ+ in a religious sense while campaigning for their rights in a political one

For the LGBT community, that's simply not enough. I think they find that attitude patronizing, in fact.

The LGBT people I know pretty much believe that other people are either with them or against them. If you oppose anything they do, they consider you an enemy. They don't want moderates; they want people to wholeheartedly, unreservedly support them. Woe is anybody who doesn't comply.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

For the LGBT community, that's simply not enough. I think they find that attitude patronizing, in fact.

The LGBT people I know pretty much believe that other people are either with them or against them. If you oppose anything they do, they consider you an enemy. They don't want moderates; they want people to wholeheartedly, unreservedly support them. Woe is anybody who doesn't comply.

Most certainly true about those on the surface with the highest level of vocal prowess. I can't speak for those who are underneath the crust though.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Most certainly true about those on the surface with the highest level of vocal prowess. I can't speak for those who are underneath the crust though.

Growing up, we had a family friend. And, ahem, it was pretty obvious from the get-go which team he would ultimately play for.

Talking to him recently, he said words to the effect of "I'm fed up with patronizing [insert swear word here] like Christians 'supporting' my right to exist but denying me my right to get married and be happy. I'd rather they spit in my face and call for judgment on me than mealy-mouthed [insert same swear word here] like that!"

He says his attitude is fairly common among the gay men he knows. The level of hatred a lot of the LGBT community has for Christians should not be underestimated.

 

[Hank77]

I don't believe the government should be involved with the institution of marriage; it'd ease a lot of issues involving the government forcing churches to accept gay marriage; it'd give the rights to the churches to not do that.

I agree.
So what do you think can be done about that? In states where common law marriage is still legal marriage, it's not a problem.

 

[Albion]

In my opinion, I believe that the Church should oppose the LGBTQ+ in a religious sense while campaigning for their rights in a political one, so that it won't be illegal to be part of the LGBTQ+ and actually gain more opportunities for change; in fact, making being LGBTQ+ illegal again would defeat the purpose of communicating the message of love and change.

People should have equal rights. Nowhere in the New Testament does it call for LGBTQ+ to be banned politically.

There isn't really much support for politically banning/making illegal LGBT.

 

[Wrangler]

In my opinion, I believe that the Church should oppose the LGBTQ+ in a religious sense while campaigning for their rights in a political one, so that it won't be illegal to be part of the LGBTQ+ and actually gain more opportunities for change.

FALSE DICHOTOMY: "Gay rights" is a misnomer for it makes it seem like if you oppose the agenda, you depriving one of their rights.

More opportunities for change is not necessarily good. Not all change is for the better.

The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution ensures "the people" (including gay people) the freedom to assemble. So, there is no action necessary to make it legal to be part of the sexual deviancy club - and make no mistake that the agenda is to normalize sexual deviancy. That is what the "+" sign means in your list of other sexually deviant behavior.

"Gay rights" is an abomination for it establishes special government entitlements, abusing language in calling these "special government entitlements" rights. Someone asked about rights. Rights are what no one can take from you, not what government gives you. Take gay marriage. It is an excellent example of what I call THE PERVERSION OF EQUALITY.

Since the time of Augustus Caesar 2,000 years ago, government has recognized its survival depends on people to produce children. To motivate people to act to produce the next generation of citizens, they created entitlements in the form of tax breaks and other incentives. Sexual deviant behavior does NOT produce this equal benefit to government.

So, in the name of "equality" the sexual deviancy club is advancing unequal benefit-for-benefit schemes. In response, all manner of twisted logic and moral duplicity will emerge. An example is the false dichotomy of the OP, supporting sexual deviancy politically but not in an irrelevant religious sense.

The reason to oppose the sexual deviancy club is that it violates THE ULTIMATE MORAL STANDARD, life. Only murder, abortion and suicide are as bad. The test is what if everyone does it? These 3 take away life. The sexual deviancy club fails to create life. All 4 lead to the extinction of the species when everyone does it. Life and death are NOT morally equivalent.

From a political perspective free health care is the banner. From a moral perspective, sexual deviancy is the banner. The banner is Satan's march for our destruction. The ultimate aim with all this is to create a generation that lacks the intellectual fire power to discern right from right. Easy picking for Satan. May God's freedom loving people oppose evil in all its forms. Amen.