Should all Christians support Uganda's newest anti LGBTQ+ legislation?

[mindlight]

I do not share your beliefs in this repect. Specifically, I do not accept your view about sexuality. As for the killing of gays, that is precisely what the proposed law in Uganda is for. Killing gays. You said: 'I have to side with Uganda on this'. #13 above. Now, maybe, you can see an inconsistency.

'You talk as if you have a right to your own beliefs and that I should respect that.' Yes I do have a right to my own beliefs and opinions, just as you do. This is obvious; you have exercised that right by posting here - and so have I. This is not, clearly a thread for gays. Your view is welcome here. I hope you accept that others have the same right.

This is one of the few threads on which non-believers are allowed to post in Christian Forums, so it is to be expected that your views will not get a free pass.

I do not support Uganda's law but nor do I condemn it. It is simplistic to say it is just about killing gays. It is about deeper issues and gays are just the ones who going to pay for that deeper agenda about whether to put choice or God first.

A free culture is a better way to work through hangups, though it may take decades for some of these before we come to a balanced viewpoint. Also, I prefer to leave judgment to God and in my experience he is far more effective at that than any state or indeed myself. Those who bless us shall be blessed and those who curse us shall be cursed.

 

[mindlight]

There's that word Diversity. I knew that would come, lol.

I'm sorry Brother but there is no room in a relationship with Jesus to diversify Christian sexuality. It's wrong, you are full of crap but are free to choose your own beliefs. But you admitted to the gay agenda. Needs to be room for valid dissent? There's the sgenda right there, force us Christians to diversify and accept the gays and TBQ's or whatever they are even though we know it is an abomination to God.

Sorry! No Diversification Today!

Sorry no you are being a little self-righteous and closed-minded about this. America was founded with a conviction about religious freedom of worship and this was in part to avoid the religious wars that had decimated Europe. Gay sex is a sin but do we Christians really have to obsess about what goes on in someone else's bedroom? God will judge them, those who bless us shall be blessed and those who curse us shall be cursed. The death penalty for one sin could quite easily be the death penalty for another also. You might not be gay but still deserve to die. I prefer to live in a society that gives room for repentance and prefers mercy over judgment.

 

[Desk trauma]

But your confusion with me stems from, I agree with Uganda so I must want to kill gays myself...
Ok listen, that passing of that law to kill gays was a decision by the State. I am not the state. Murder is a Capital crime also and I don't want to go out and aprehend murderers and put them to death. Those are State issues, laws like that. I am not the State. I am the people. So there is certainly no connection between me the people and the State passing laws against unlawful activities.

If you’re advocating for a policy, in this case making homosexuality a capital crime, you don’t get to wash your hands of that policies outcome.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Homosexuals are not an "ethnic" group. They are a group of individuals who participate in the same sinful behavior. It is like awarding ethic group status to adulterers, fornicators, or gluttons. We do not have a "glutton" community, or a "fornicator" community.

Don't be a glutton.
Don't be a fornicator.
Don't be an adulterer.
Don't practice homosexual sex.

I don't want to be rude or unkind. But as Christians we have to declare the truth and let people know, otherwise we will be held accountable for their fate. We are not "hating" anyone. If we "hated" them we would just remain silent and watch them proceed to their fate. We are warning them of a lessor and greater horrible fate. One in this life and one in the next.

The lessor horrible fate = God is not mocked. "You will reap in the flesh the corruption you sow in the flesh."
The greater horrible fate = eternal fire!

Jude 1:7 ISV. Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them, which like them committed sexual sins and pursued homosexual activities, serve as an example of the punishment of eternal fire.

Of course pursuing homosexual activities is not the only sin. We all have sins that we must repent of and struggle with in this life. So we are not picking on any particular sin. And the warning is to all.

 

[grasping the after wind]

If the link provided is accurate the law also requires people to report this. Hmm, what other regimes did things like that? I'm sure the Jews remember.

One need not go back that far.

 

[Divide]

Sorry no you are being a little self-righteous and closed-minded about this. America was founded with a conviction about religious freedom of worship and this was in part to avoid the religious wars that had decimated Europe. Gay sex is a sin but do we Christians really have to obsess about what goes on in someone else's bedroom? God will judge them, those who bless us shall be blessed and those who curse us shall be cursed. The death penalty for one sin could quite easily be the death penalty for another also. You might not be gay but still deserve to die. I prefer to live in a society that gives room for repentance and prefers mercy over judgment.

Who's obsessing? I didn't start the thread, I just chimed in. If a thread was started about murderers I might chime in on that too? SO exactly who is obsessing here to be speaking that hey why don't all christians accept gays...Uh, this is a Christian website and all sins are against our doctrine of the Creator God, and His word. It doesn't take a Christian to know that being gay is wrong. Are the gays in this thread seeing being gay as their God? If they are, wrong website. If they aren't then why bring up religious freedom?

 

[Divide]

If you’re advocating for a policy, in this case making homosexuality a capital crime, you don’t get to wash your hands of that policies outcome.

So? WHo cares what you think? I don't make the laws. I only vote as one of the people. Do you have a problem with that too?

Why are you insisting that I be accepting to gay people? Gay people that don't want to talk about God. Gay people that want to talk about being gay. And how you all wish that I would see an obligation here to uh, I dunno, be extra merciful to them? Sorry pal, wrong website. That's probably YayGay.com or something.

Are you guys not interested in the Christian God? Wow. It's not a thing about me being merciful or tolerant. I am not here judging anyone. That is between you all and God.

 

[Desk trauma]

I don't make the laws. I only vote as one of the people. Do you have a problem with that too?

I certainly disagree with your choice.

Why are you insisting that I be accepting to gay people?

I haven’t.

Gay people that don't want to talk about God. Gay people that want to talk about being gay. And how you all wish that I would see an obligation here to uh, I dunno, be extra merciful to them? Sorry pal, wrong website. That's probably YayGay.com or something.

Nope, correct website. This section is open to all.

Are you guys not interested in the Christian God? Wow. It's not a thing about me being merciful or tolerant. I am not here judging anyone. That is between you all and God.

You’re the one advocating for their execution.

 

[Desk trauma]

It doesn't take a Christian to know that being gay is wrong.

What’s the non-religious basis for knowing that?

 

[grasping the after wind]

What’s the non-religious basis for knowing that?

I would say at least one non-religious answer is one of practicality. Gay sexuality is counterproductive to the welfare of society in general. Relationships that produce nothing of value to anyone outside that relationship do not increase the general welfare of society as a whole and are therefore to be seen as less valuable than relationships that by their productive nature add to the general welfare. Then there is the argument that form follows function. Human beings, like all other animals, are fashioned in such a way by our natural genetic components to produce offspring by heterosexual intercourse in order to ensure the survival of the species. Anything that stands in the way of that is counterproductive to that goal.

What is the non-religious basis for considering homosexual sexual relationships to be as legitimate as heterosexual sexual relationships in view of the difference between fecundity and sterility as it relates to the overall well-being of society?

 

[Desk trauma]

I would say at least one non-religious answer is one of practicality. Gay sexuality is counterproductive to the welfare of society in general. Relationships that produce nothing of value to anyone outside that relationship do not increase the general welfare of society as a whole and are therefore to be seen as less valuable than relationships that by their productive nature add to the general welfare. Then there is the argument that form follows function. Human beings, like all other animals, are fashioned in such a way by our natural genetic components to produce offspring by heterosexual intercourse in order to ensure the survival of the species. Anything that stands in the way of that is counterproductive to that goal.

This hinges on production of children being the only worthwhile thing people in a relationship can do, something I’m not persuaded is the case.

Does this standard apply to those who could have children but choose not to or those who could have more children but choose not to?

 

[Desk trauma]

What is the non-religious basis for considering homosexual sexual relationships to be as legitimate as heterosexual sexual relationships in view of the difference between fecundity and sterility as it relates to the overall well-being of society?

The terms of use prohibit arguing that homosexuality is moral.

 

[grasping the after wind]

The terms of use prohibit arguing that homosexuality is moral.

Why would you need to argue that homosexuality has anything to do with morality to make a non-religious argument that homosexual relationships are as legitimate as homosexual relationships in light of the differences between fecundity and sterility? I made no moral argument about the morality or relationships when I expressed the nonreligious argument against seeing the two as not equally helpful to society.

 

[Desk trauma]

Why would you need to argue that homosexuality has anything to do with morality to make a non-religious argument that homosexual relationships are as legitimate as homosexual relationships in light of the differences between fecundity and sterility? I made no moral argument about the morality or relationships when I expressed the nonreligious argument against seeing the two as not equally helpful to society.

arguing it’s on par with heterosexual would run afoul of the terms of service.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It used to be a capital crime in the US. Not sure what happened there but not my fault, I'll tell you that, lol.

[citation needed]

Please provide the name of a state (any state) and the time period when homosexuality was punished by execution and a reference to back that claim.

 

[PloverWing]

It used to be a capital crime in the US. Not sure what happened there but not my fault, I'll tell you that, lol.

The biggest thing that happened was the Supreme Court case Lawrence v Texas, although a number of states had already been repealing their sodomy laws.

[citation needed]

Please provide the name of a state (any state) and the time period when homosexuality was punished by execution and a reference to back that claim.

The Wikipedia page on sodomy laws (Sodomy laws in the United States - Wikipedia) says that in a few places, anti-sodomy laws carried the death penalty for enslaved people. Is this what you had in mind, @Divide ? Much more commonly, the penalty was prison time. The Wikipedia page does not list any states in which these laws carried the death penalty for non-enslaved people.

EDIT: Whoops, I skimmed too quickly. Apparently, according to the Wikipedia page, the maximum penalty for sodomy in colonial Virginia was death. The law included acts between consenting, married, opposite-sex couples. It was, however, not often enforced.

 

[Whyayeman]

After reading through these contributions it has occurred to me that homosexuality is being equated with sodomy by some posters. That explains a little about the near-hysteria over the principle of putting homosexuals to death.

Is it the act of sodomy which is upsetting? If so bear in mind that heterosexual sodomy is part of the lives of some husbands and wives. Should they be included? The husband only? The wife too?

Then again, not all gay men are sodomists. Is it the performance of that particular act which qualifies for execution?

Finally, why is it assumed that only gay people would defend the rights of gay people?

 

[Divide]

The biggest thing that happened was the Supreme Court case Lawrence v Texas, although a number of states had already been repealing their sodomy laws.



The Wikipedia page on sodomy laws (Sodomy laws in the United States - Wikipedia) says that in a few places, anti-sodomy laws carried the death penalty for enslaved people. Is this what you had in mind, @Divide ? Much more commonly, the penalty was prison time. The Wikipedia page does not list any states in which these laws carried the death penalty for non-enslaved people.

EDIT: Whoops, I skimmed too quickly. Apparently, according to the Wikipedia page, the maximum penalty for sodomy in colonial Virginia was death. The law included acts between consenting, married, opposite-sex couples. It was, however, not often enforced.

You found what I know. My source was different but the info is about the same.

 

[Divide]

After reading through these contributions it has occurred to me that homosexuality is being equated with sodomy by some posters. That explains a little about the near-hysteria over the principle of putting homosexuals to death.

Is it the act of sodomy which is upsetting? If so bear in mind that heterosexual sodomy is part of the lives of some husbands and wives. Should they be included? The husband only? The wife too?

Then again, not all gay men are sodomists. Is it the performance of that particular act which qualifies for execution?

Finally, why is it assumed that only gay people would defend the rights of gay people?

Surely you jest with us! Sodomy is not being gay? When gay guys have sex, oh that isn't sodomy! That is hilarious my friend!

What would you call it then?!

 

[Divide]

You might not be gay but still deserve to die. I prefer to live in a society that gives room for repentance and prefers mercy over judgment.