tell me why

[hernyaccent]

Going on line to find where I could rent The Execution of Wanda Jean to answer your challenge, I came across five different reviews of the film, including an interview with the director.

Not one of them said anything about either "Wanda Jean" or the jurors being Christians.

I have to be honest with you, I would think that that would be the crux of the movie. For no one, not even the director of the film, to mention it doesn't look good.

Watch the documentary. That was not the point of the doc it was my personal observation.

I have a link to all the trial informatio but it still won't let me post links. It is very much talked about by her lawyers that she was treated unfairly because of her sexual preference. Her lawyer actually points out the fact that her being trialed in the bible belt would make it different a trial considering she was a lesbian. Located CNN + the local news clips about this case.There were tons of civil rights appeals in this case in addition of Jesse Jackson actually getting arrested for protesting on prison grounds. It wasn't about her skin color but her sexaulity.

I am in no way saying her crime was right. I was simply asking this question: How does a gay or lesbian get a far trial in a cause where your tried before people who already have prejudice against?

In my opinion it is very similar to the plot of Twelve Angry Men. If you put an African American before a jury in a county that is populated by self proclaimed KKK or Skinheads ...What would the verdict be?

 

[hernyaccent]

Dude this writing is so small!! it's hard to read!! I think I'm getting an angle where you're coming from. maybe... You're right. I really think you don't need to let this get to you so much otherwise it will just bog you down. I think so long as you're right with God in your own eyes from the scripture than no-one else has the right to judge or condemn you. Only God has the right to condemn us, and just like the prostitute mary, he doesn't because Jesus stands in our place. I've come across many many Christians who want to argue about what colours the pebbles were around the cross....

I honestly am not going to let it get to me. My goal is to be more Christ like and not turn away people. HUMANS are HUMANS. I am just saying ...You can have FAITH but FAITH will not out weigh the TRUTH. Many individuals have faith but that isn't the outcome. I don't understand why christians want to fight against everyone else when there are millions in their own camp that need help.

 

[hernyaccent]

They were treated differently based on their sexual orientation as is anyone put before a group that considers them to be different. I feel that if these trials were held outside of RED states the outcome would be different. There is no acceptance of homosexuality in these small towns.

You are the only one who had no clue. Read the rest of my responses, You are the only one building an mountain out of an ant hill.

condemn
1 : to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil usually after weighing evidence and without reservation

Christian don't find homosexuality wrong? Christians use their bible as evidence.

Scripture doesn't tell you to do it....BUT MOST Christians do. I am not talking about the people. I am talking about individuals actions.



I am simply saying theBIBLE is peoples excuse for measure homosexuality as a high sin.

My words...read them carefully...I was saying people use the bible to say homosexuality is horrible and can't be accept in society because it's equal to having sex with a dog.

Lying is a different degree of sin for MOST Christians I have spoken with. Everyone lies yet they aren't told they are going to burn in hell for it yet homosexuality which is a sin is going to cast you straight to hell?

Are you serious? I don't HATE anything or anyone. I don't believe in organized religion. Organized religion is the cause of so many deaths around the world. Everyone believes their church is right.I believe in a personal relationship with GOD. When I get to those gates what was said in church will not matter. What was said here on earth by man will not matter. What happened in CHURCH will not matter. What will matter is that I followed GOD laws to the best of my ability with a clean heart and mind and ask for forgiveness of my sins.It will matter that I had a personal relationship with God. It will also matter that I treated others the best I knew possible.



I found this on a CHRISTIAN website If it's not hatred and judgement using the bible I don't know what is

Homosexuality is a SIN

&

God Hates Sin

If you are looking, for the right to continue​

in that which is clearly called a perversion,
then you have found the wrong site!
Homosexuality is a sin period!
Not only that but it is unnatural
The same as sex with an animal is unnatural!

The Bible doesn't speak much of the sin of Homosexuality?​

It also doesn't speak of incest or bestiality much more neither?
Guess you want to make them legal and not a sin also!

What is worse then the sin of Homosexuality?

Teaching people it's ok to commit the sin of homosexuality.

As it is written,
But whoso shall cause one of these little ones
that believe on me to stumble,
it is profitable for him
that a great millstone
should be hanged about his neck,
and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea.

The word homosexuality in the dictionairy states
nothing about the person's age, just same sex!
Anybody who is attracted to the same sex is a Homosexual
or they are a Heterosexual if attracted to opposite sex,
regardless of any age differences.
So a 20 year old man
who molest a 14 year old boy is a Homosexual!

What does Jesus teach in the New Testemant about sin?​

From John 8:3-11 paraphrased​

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a man caught in homosexuality
and when they had set him in the midst,
They say unto him, "Master, this man was taken in homosexuality,
in the very act, Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned to death: but what sayest thou?"
This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.
But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground,
as though he heard them not.
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them,
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at him".
And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience,
went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last:
and Jesus was left alone, and the man standing in the midst.
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the man,
he said unto him, "Man, where are those thine accusers?
hath no man condemned thee"?
He said, "No man, Lord."
And Jesus said unto him, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more!"

Where does Jesus say to continue in ​

the sin of Adultry or Homosexuality?????



Where does he say it's not a sin?
2 Timothy 3:16 all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Three gay men named Sam, Rick, & Joe went to church. The preacher stood up and preached about the sins of fornication, adultery and homosexuality. Sam stood up and started clapping his hands in protest of the sermon. Rick stood up and followed suit with the protest and started clapping his hands also. Joe lowered his head and as a tear dropped to the ground and said "God be merciful to me a sinner!"

Tell me which of the three men went home justified that day?

Tell me which of the three men is doing the work of their father the devil?

Tell me which of the three men is the one who has the blood of Rick on his hands?

If any person who comes to Jesus Christ,
and don't love Jesus Christ over,
their father,
or their mother,
or their spouse,
or their children,
or their brothers,
or their sisters,
or even their own life,
they are not able to be a followers of Jesus Christ! </FONT>




​

The thoughts and intents ​

of your heart is the same as the sin!

Matthew 5
27. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28. But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit homosexuality:
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a man to lust after him
hath committed an abomination with him already in his heart.

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit homosexuality:
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after
her hath committed an abomination with her already in her heart.

Does God say it's ok to Lust?

Matthew 4​

1. Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
2. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
The devil always attacks you when you are the weakest!
Think about it, who does it say the temptor is? It's the devil!
The Devil is the one putting the actual thoughts into the person's head in the first place to make them think they are a homosexual!

James 1
14. But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
The temptor here is the devil also, it is the the devil who puts the thought into the man's head!
The man is then drawn away by the thought which is put into his head which causes him to be enticed to own lust and desires!
The thought that was put into the person's head is evil, you can stop it there and it is not a sin or lusting!
So since Jesus Stopped it cold by using the Scripture of the Bible he never was enticed to commit sin!

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed which leads to sin. It's his own Lust that lets him be tempted in the first place but God tells us to abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul and that we should no longer live the rest of our lifes in the flesh to the lusts of it, but to the will of God. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

The Truth is if you "lust" then you are disobeying God ​

because he tells you not to lust!
So you are then "missing the mark" or "sinning"!
Therefore to him
that knoweth to do good,
and doeth it not,
to him it is sin.

PROOF!

Quote: during the years in which I tried to use religion to change my gayness, I always became uncomfortable with any readings or discussions of Jn. 13. In that passage, Jesus stripped down, "girded" Himself with a towel, and washed the feet of His disciples. Then He used that towel to dry their feet, while still wearing that towel as a loincloth (13:5). Think of where that put their feet. After Jesus explained the symbolism of this act, Simon Peter told Jesus to wash his entire body; to my relief, Jesus said only the feet needed it (13:9-10). Soon after Jesus dressed, Simon Peter laid down against His chest while conversing with Him (13:25).

Sometimes we get small thoughts into our heads, when we're reading the bible or just thinking to ourselves. Thoughts that aren't right, like lust, or that we COULD take a certain passage of scripture to mean something other than it says, so that it makes those thoughts we're having ok. This is the work of Satan. What this person has done is listened to those thoughts, and expanded on them. This is very wrong. If it's not of Christ, it is of Satan, and if it is of Satan than you need to get rid of that thought immediately.

If this person had the Holy Spirit then he would recognize the voice!


Professing Christians?

​

Joe accepted a temptation from the devil,



then Joe proclaimed "I am a Homosexual".
Joe then says and beleives
"I have a homosexual orientation".
For with the heart man believeth unto un-righteousness;
and with the mouth confession is made as a homosexual.

or

Bill accepted a temptation from the devil,
then Bill proclaimed "I am an atheist".
Bill then says and beleives
"There is no God".
For with the heart man believeth unto un-righteousness;
and with the mouth confession is made as an atheist.

Both have to reject the temptation they accepted
before they are saved!



​

Jesus Christ said you cannot serve 2 masters. ​

In both of these cases the Devil is the person's master
and it is the Devil whom he or she serves.
Anybody can say "I am a Christian"
but Jesus Christ says otherwise!

For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness;
and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

​

You need to publicily denouce your homosexuality!






​

Same as Rev 13:16-18​

The Mark of the Beast!

You Disagree?



As it is written,
For the time will come
when they will not endure sound doctrine;
but after their own lusts
shall they heap to themselves teachers,
having itching ears;



​

​

THE COST!​

Who knowing the judgment of God, ​

that they which commit such things
are worthy of death,
not only do the same,
but have pleasure in them that do them!
How can ye escape the damnation of hell?

I have not yet seen a website based on the sin of lying or cheating such as this one.​

It's a metaphor because YOU say so. Other Christians wouldn't agree.​

The fact that homosexuality is a sin is also written in the OLD Covenant. Homosexuality isn't mentioned in the New Testament unless referring the condemnation of it under JEWISH LAW. If you aren't going to follow one Jewish law why follow another?​

I never claimed the Bible taught anything. I claim that the majority of Christian take things the way they want to from the bible.​

Watch the documentaries and read the court transcripts then talk to me about these trials.​

 

[hernyaccent]

[font=VERDANA, ARIAL][size=-1]
[font=VERDANA, ARIAL][size=-1]The Rev. Fred Phelps is back in the news. The picketing pastor and host of god hates faqs is proposing a public monument for Matthew Shepherd, the gay college student, murdered in 1998. The granite marker in Shepherd's hometown will read, and I quote:
"MATTHEW SHEPHERD, Entered Hell October 12, 1998, in Defiance of God's Warning: 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.' Leviticus 18:22."

Phelps, pastor of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, also hosts god hates america. Most of all he hates the idea that God loves, and again I quote, "filthy dyke dogs," "SODOMITES," "dog kennels/pig sties masquerading as churches," and pastors who are "demon-possessed Pied Pipers from Hell."



Not even the lovable "Mr. Rogers" escapes the pastor's wrath. According to Phelps, Fred Rogers "went straight to hell" because of his ordination in the Presbyterian Church and association with PBS.

Phelps also picketed in New York City three times since September 11, 2001, with signs that read "Thank God For Sept. 11" and calling the FDNY a "*** fire department." Recently he was in Hawaii, the site of the WWII attack on Pearl Harbor, with signs that read "Thank God for December 7".

He especially seems to hate anyone who disagrees with him. His website proclaims:

"Anyone believing and preaching that God loves every individual of mankind -- we say, You are going to Hell! Period! End of discussion! God's decree sending you to Hell is irreversible! Hypocrites! How can ye escape the damnation of Hell?!"



Well, at the risk of "the damnation of Hell," I've gotta ask, what does God Himself think about all this? I'll let his book speak for Him.
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). (The word translated "world" is actually "cosmos" which includes every created thing and every single person.)

Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? (Ezekiel 18:23).

"The Lord . . . is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9).

And, concerning Phelp's obsession with "hate":
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God.Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love" (1 John 4:7).

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:36-38)

Let your conversation be always full of grace (Colossians 4:6).

Yes, the Bible includes three or four passages that warn against homosexual behavior . And, yes, it contains many verses concerning a final judgement day.



But it also includes hundreds of sections that teach "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres" (1 Corinthians 13:4-7).

God loves gays and straights, America and Iraq, Fred Rogers and Fred Phelps. He's not always happy with their behavior, but He loves them unconditionally.

So should we.



- That is an example of a Christian justifying his hate with Bible verses.
[/size][/font][/size][/font]

 

[12volt_man]

Watch the documentary. That was not the point of the doc it was my personal observation.

You're doing it again.

You make a claim and then, when called on it, you back away from your statements.

I'm willing to find the videos to answer your challenge but how about saving me some time? Do the videos show that both the murderer, every member of the jury, every member of the prosecution team, the judge and, by logical extension, every lawmaker who voted to pass the law are Christians or do they not?

I have a link to all the trial informatio but it still won't let me post links.

You don't have to post a link. Just tell us the web address.

It is very much talked about by her lawyers that she was treated unfairly because of her sexual preference. Her lawyer actually points out the fact that her being trialed in the bible belt would make it different a trial considering she was a lesbian.

But that's not the same as your previous claim that every jury member was a Christian.

Do you really think that her lawyer would say, "well, I'd sure like to congratulate the prosecution for mounting a fair and well fought case"? What kind of lawyer would he be?

He's trying to get his client off on a murder rap where the evidence is insurmountable. Of course he's going to claim this in order to build an appeal.

The problem is that he hasn't proven his claims any more than you have.

Located CNN + the local news clips about this case.

How about being a sport and showing us where we can locate these clips?

There were tons of civil rights appeals in this case in addition of Jesse Jackson actually getting arrested for protesting on prison grounds. It wasn't about her skin color but her sexaulity.

Jesse Jackson, the man who never met a shakedown he didn't like protested? Well, that certainly lends credence to your argument.

How does a gay or lesbian get a far trial in a cause where your tried before people who already have prejudice against?

Actually, you're not asking a question. This entire thread is premised on the fact that you have declared that these people were unfairly condemned because of their homosexuality and the persecution they faced at the hands of Christians.

You have failed to back up that statement.

They were treated differently based on their sexual orientation as is anyone put before a group that considers them to be different.

You keep saying this but, so far, you haven't lifted a finger to try to back this up.

You still haven't shown that they were treated differently than they would have been, had they been hetrosexual. You also haven't shown that "the group", presumably the jury, considered them to be "different".

You keep saying this but simply saying something doesn't make it so.

I feel that if these trials were held outside of RED states the outcome would be different. There is no acceptance of homosexuality in these small towns.

And how do you know these things?

One more claim on your part that you will not try to back up.

Christian don't find homosexuality wrong? Christians use their bible as evidence.

I've addressed this for you already.

Scripture doesn't tell you to do it....BUT MOST Christians do. I am not talking about the people. I am talking about individuals actions.

So then why did you say more than once that the Bible said to do it?

I am simply saying theBIBLE is peoples excuse for measure homosexuality as a high sin.

So then, in your above statement, you say that scripture doesn't teach this but now, again, you say it does.

You've gone back and forth on this at least ten times.

Please pick one and stick with it.

My words...read them carefully...I was saying people use the bible to say homosexuality is horrible and can't be accept in society because it's equal to having sex with a dog.

I know. This is why it's confusing when you go back, after having said this, and claim that the Bible doesn't say this.

Either it does or it doesn't.

I found this on a CHRISTIAN website If it's not hatred and judgement using the bible I don't know what is

What website? How about giving us the web address?

*********************************************************
I'm sorry, I had to throw a big part of your post out. You were rambling and very hard to follow.
*********************************************************

It's a metaphor because YOU say so.

No, it's a metaphor because the context of the passage says it is.

The fact that homosexuality is a sin is also written in the OLD Covenant. Homosexuality isn't mentioned in the New Testament unless referring the condemnation of it under JEWISH LAW. If you aren't going to follow one Jewish law why follow another?

Really? I thought you said you were familiar with the Bible.

Homosexuality is condemned in 1 Co 6:9, which has nothing to do with Jewish law.

Likewise, Paul tells us in Romans 1 that God takes a pretty dim view of it.

Watch the documentaries and read the court transcripts then talk to me about these trials.

I will. It will most likely take me a couple of days to get my hands on them, but I will. So far, from what you've said here and from what I've read about them, it looks an awful lot like you're just making a lot of things about the movies up.

The Rev. Fred Phelps is back in the news.

But, surely, you must know that Fred Phelps is a pariah in the Christian community and has been roundly condemned by the church, at large.

How about giving us an example from the mainstream?

Yes, the Bible includes three or four passages that warn against homosexual behavior.

But you just said that it didn't. Now you're saying it does?

But it also includes hundreds of sections that teach "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres" (1 Corinthians 13:4-7).

The Bible teaches a lot about love and we should strive to love others, especially those who are disenfranchised or shut out of mainstream society, such as gays, but never in scripture are we told to overlook sin in the name of love.

To the contrary, to overlook sin is to enable the sinner to sin and that is the most unloving thing one can do to another.

That is an example of a Christian justifying his hate with Bible verses.

Again, you have given us an example of someone on the fringe of the fringe. How about giving us an example from the mainstream?

I have to be honest, Phelps denies several core, orthodox teachings of Christianity, that I have to wonder by what criteria he's considered a Christian in the first place.

 

[Blessed-one]

*MOD HAT ON*

This thread is in the wrong forum.

4.2 You will restrict any posts relating to the following controversial topics to the Philosophy & Morality, Liberal Theology or General Theology forums (this site uses the legal definition of marriage which is a union between a man and a woman):
a. drug use.
b. gambling.
c. polygamy.
d. extramarital sexual activity.
e. abortion.
f. homosexuality.
g. transsexuality.

I'm now moving this to Philosophy and Morality forum.

*MOD HAT OFF*

 

[12volt_man]

Just to recap:

I just notice that the penalty for gays, lesbians and transgender in all RED state is harass because your BIBLE says so.

I am not saying you bible says to harass someone.

I said Christian justify their discrimination by using God's Word.

Scripture doesn't tell you to do it....

I am simply saying the BIBLE is peoples excuse for measure homosexuality as a high sin.

I never claimed the Bible taught anything

Are we all dizzy yet?

 

[GodAtWorkToday]

Hernyaccent, I have to ask what would you have us believe. The word of a 20 year old, that sin is OK and acceptable, and that we should not make judgement about its practice within our midst, or the Bible which is the declared revelation of God unto mankind. The Bible has stood the test of time and withstood the attacks of 1000's and 10,000's of unbelievers, skeptics, and critics.

Believing Christians have proven over and over again the trustworthiness of the Bible, its teachings, its restrictions and its promises. I have over 25 years experience as a practicing Christian, and over that time have always found the Bible trustworthy in its teaching, admonitions, promises, and warnings.

The Bible in layman's terms is our roadmap for life. I do not impose the Bible on others, but simply conform my own thinking to its teachings. When I was a new Christian, there were many things I disagreed with in the Bible. Over time, I have needed to change MY thinking, because I was WRONG.

When one comes from the world into the family of God, there is growth, learning and change required to be conformed into the person that God wants us to be. When we refuse to make those changes we 'sin' and fall short of God's standard.

What Christians are saying on this site, and other sites, and from pulpits that respect the authority of the Bible, is that this is what the Bible teaches about SIN. (That includes all types of sins, which also includes homosexuality AND adultery AND lying AND stealing and a whole long list of human evils).

It also teaches us that we should avoid people who want to stand against God and His Word;

2Ti 3:2-5 ESV
(2) For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy,
(3) heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good,
(4) treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
(5) having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.

.

What people do in the privacy of their homes is their own business, and not really subject to our comment. God however is aware of all that they do, and HE WILL JUDGE.

Where it gets different, is when people get into the public arena and demand that SIN should be an acceptable practice and protected by law. When they do that Bible believing Christians will oppose them with the truth of Scripture.

Can you imagine the absurdity of a group complaining because they are being persecuted because they are practicing and professing 'liars'. Their employers are not treating them the same as others and this prejudice and vilification must stop. We must have laws that make it acceptable to be a 'liar'. An employer cannot show prejudice against you when you apply for a job, simply because you are a 'liar'.

Christians are terrible because they constantly offend the sensibilities of this group because they call their 'lying' a SIN, and point out constantly the hellfires awaiting this group because of their lifestyle choice to be a 'liar'. We desperately need the protection of government legislation so that our 'lying' might be acceptable within our society.

I sincerely hope you can see the absolute absurdity of the above. Try changing 'liar' and 'lying', to 'thief' and 'stealing'.
Try changing it to 'murderer' and 'murdering'.
Try changing it to 'child molester' and 'molesting'.
Try changing it to 'adulterer' and 'adultery'.
Now try changing it 'homosexual' and 'homosexuality'.

Truly homosexuality is no worse than lying as a sin. It is however also no better than lying. Why should it be any more acceptable in society than lying.

The Bible does NOT TEACH that there are high sins. It does however have warnings about 'sexual immorality', which would include homosexuality, adultery, and fornication.

1Co 6:18 ESV
(18) Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.

This does not say that the sin of 'sexual immorality' is worse, but rather that it has worse consequences against the body of the person committing it. This is a warning to protect us, not a teaching on a heirachy of sins.

 

[hernyaccent]

Just to recap:













Are we all dizzy yet?

You are pull statements out of context and posting them. BRAVO!

 

[hernyaccent]

You may never have heard of Calvin Burdine, but his case should be familiar. Burdine is the Texas death-row inmate whose lawyer allegedly fell asleep during his trial. (The lawyer claimed he was merely concentrating.) The story surfaced during last year's presidential campaign as a stunning reminder of why Texas is known as the execution capital of the free world. The fact that Burdine's trial took only 13 hours did not seem unusual. But a federal court found the evidence of his attorney's naps disturbing enough to grant Burdine a stay of execution so his case could be reviewed. It is still pending.

Yet, another aspect of Burdine's appeal has gone unaddressed. His gayness was used by the state in ways that may have marked him for death. Jurors—several of whom admitted animus toward gays—heard the prosecutor say during closing arguments that "sending a homosexual to the penitentiary certainly isn't a very bad punishment for a homosexual." Burdine's lawyer did not object, but then, he had no problem calling the codefendant in the case a "tush hog." He didn't object when the prosecutor described Burdine's "homosexual life" as "voluntary." Making that point was an effective way to counter any sympathy that might arise from testimony that Burdine had been raped as a child by his father, a truck driver who took him along on runs.

Burdine's victim, too, had been a dark father figure. He took Burdine in only on the condition that he turn over his salary. Burdine testified that when his earnings didn't cover his rent, the benefactor insisted he hustle. When he refused, Burdine contends, he was beaten by the victim's friends. The result was murder in the commission of a robbery—a capital crime in many states, but one that doesn't necessarily lead to death row. Indeed, only 1.2 percent of murder cases end in death sentences. Executing someone requires a separate proceeding in which aggravating factors are weighed against mitigating ones. When the defendant is gay, sexuality can become one of those aggravating factors—with fatal consequences.

In Burdine's case, the jurors were urged to order his execution by a prosecutor who told them that sending this man to prison would be like setting a kid loose in a candy store.





Calvin Burdine is not the only queer on death row. In the past few years, five capital cases involving gay or lesbian defendants have raised charges that homophobia played a role in sentencing. But no one knows how many queers await execution in America. Though extensive data exist on the race, age, and gender of such inmates, there are few statistics about their sexuality. No one knows how often gayness is raised by prosecutors as a snide implication, an unfounded assertion, or a fact that may or may not be relevant to the case. But it comes up with such frequency and in such predictable ways that the allegations of antigay bias cannot be dismissed.

There are high barriers against injecting race into a trial, and rape-shield laws that prohibit introducing a victim's prior sexual history. But no such restrictions exist when it comes to homosexuality. "The courts are not there yet, especially in capital cases," says Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. As Burdine's trial illustrates, the rules against statements that might inflame a jury are not necessarily enforced when the defendant is gay. Ambitious prosecutors are often free to play to stereotypical beliefs about homosexuals. And they have reason to single out gay defendants when deciding which cases might convince a jury to opt for execution.

After all, a death sentence is never mandatory. No matter how heinous the crime, a jury can choose to spare the murderer's life. "It's all about emotion," says Dieter. "There's no legal formula for who gets the death penalty, and anyone who seems outside the bounds of what's acceptable is more likely to end up being executed." Race, class, and reduced mental capacity all play a major role in capital punishment. The queer defendants in the following cases also fit into one or more of those categories. Their sexuality was hardly the only factor in their fate. But in each case, it was used in ways that played to the most negative assumptions about gay people. And in the God-fearing counties where these trials took place, it may have doomed them.





Sometimes, the mere mention of homosexuality is enough to spell death. That's what activists say happened to Stanley Lingar, who was executed in Missouri last month for the murder of a young man he and a friend had picked up. According to the friend, who pled guilty to second-degree murder (and served six years), they forced their victim to undress and demanded that he touch. When he failed to perform, Lingar shot him, beat him, and ran him over twice. The friend was the only witness to the crime, but the jury bought his testimony, and in the penalty phase, they sentenced Lingar to die.

This second verdict followed a startling piece of evidence that the prosecutor had abruptly introduced. It was something even the defense was unaware of. Lingar and his friend had been lovers. But what did that have to do with the case? The prosecutor maintained it would help explain Lingar's motive—though he never made that point to the jury. No matter. The prosecutor had convinced the judge that Lingar's sexuality spoke to his character—and in Missouri a "depraved mind" is an aggravating factor.

Lingar's appeal was partly successful. The court ruled that discussing his homosexuality would have been unconstitutional if it had influenced the jury. But the court also concluded that it had not. Missouri's attorney general called the charge of bias "absurd."

In fact, 12 percent of jurors say they could not be fair to a gay defendant, according to a survey by the National Law Journal. This suggests that homophobia will likely be present on any jury, not to mention one in rural Missouri. Yet because the prosecution chose to keep Lingar's sexuality a secret until the last minute, the defense had no way to deal with it, or even to poll the jury about homophobia. Situations like this are why activists urge defense lawyers to be proactive when their clients are gay. Yet in places like Missouri, attorneys will often pretend the issue isn't there—until it's too late.





Wanda Jean Allen's sexuality was never far from the surface of her case. She had killed her female lover in front of a police station; there was no disputing that. The issue was motive, and the defense demonstrated that Allen and her lover had a tumultuous, violent relationship requiring frequent interventions by the police. At her arrest, Allen bore scratches on her face, allegedly from being assaulted by her lover with a rake. This was a crime of passion, the defense argued, and in such cases the death penalty is rarely invoked.

But Allen had several strikes against her. For one thing, she was black and poor. (Her lawyer was paid only $800.) For another, she had killed before, albeit in a case so ambiguous that she was allowed to plead guilty to manslaughter and received the minimum sentence of four years. A prior homicide can be grounds for death. But according to the Death Penalty Information Center, only 8.4 percent of inmates awaiting execution have previous murder convictions. What made Allen's crime so shocking that she became the first woman put to death in the state of Oklahoma?

Possibly it was the prosecution's assertion that Allen "wore the pants in the family." Spurred on by testimony from the victim's mother, the state claimed that Allen was the man in the relationship, noting that she even liked to spell her middle name G-E-N-E, in the masculine way. The implication that Allen dominated her lover overwhelmed the evidence that both women had abused each other. And it raised the specter of the killer dyke that often haunts female defendants in murder cases. In the documentary Perverted Justice, CUNY law professor Ruthann Robson estimates that 40 percent of women accused of murder must contend with "some implication of lesbianism."

In capital cases, the prosecution aims to convince the jury that the defendant is inhuman. It's harder to do that when a woman is in the dock. "Before we can dehumanize her, we have to defeminize her," says Victor Streib, who has studied lesbians on death row. It's easier to condemn a masculine woman to death, especially if she is what Streib calls "a tough customer." In several recent murder cases involving lesbian couples, the state labeled one woman the dominant member of the pair and charged her with capital murder, while allowing her more “feminine” companion to plead guilty to a lesser charge.

But sometimes not even femininity is enough to spare a lesbian’s life. Ana Cardona claimed it was her domineering female lover who had killed her child. But the strategy backfired: Her lover got 40 years while Cardona got sentenced to death. After all, she was the child's mother—or "lesbian mother," as she was called. She was also accused of being sadistic enough to have beaten and starved the child. But the image of the killer dyke gave her culpability added weight. As Streib notes: "The death penalty is fairly rare for mothers who kill their children." Susan Smith's life was spared, though she had watched her children drown in the car she rolled into a lake. But Smith was not a "lesbian mother."





Gay male defendants, too, must deal with the image of the predatory queer, especially when the accomplice is a younger man. Even Calvin Burdine's dozing lawyer knew enough to base his defense on allegations that the victim was a "middle aged, king homosexual" who had victimized young boys.

Gregory Scott Dickens was 26 when he was charged with killing a couple outside Yuma, Arizona. He had been traveling with a 16-year-old who, according to Dickens's current attorney, was the most important person in his life. The youth admitted to firing the gun, but he testified that Dickens had given him the weapon and put him up to the crime. When the defense moved to present evidence that this teen fit the profile of a violent and impulsive liar, Judge Tom Cole intervened. If the defense took that route, said the judge, he might allow the prosecutor to raise an issue that had been kept from the jury: Dickens and his young friend were lovers. Then the nature of Dickens's two previous convictions—for fondling minors—might also come out. "The state could say that in this homosexual relationship, the older partner had control over the kid," says Dickens's current attorney. So the defense backed down.

This time it wasn't the prosecutor's tactics but the judge's behavior that figured in the appeal. Court papers filed on Dickens's behalf claim that Judge Cole had reacted with rage to his own son's homosexuality. He had written a letter expressing the hope that his son would "die in prison like all the rest of your ****** friends." Cole denies writing the letter, but he would not comment on the allegation that he believes his son was turned gay by unscrupulous friends. "It's insignificant," Cole says.

But the defense contends that such an attitude could have induced Cole to allow homosexuality into the trial—especially when the accused might appear to be a sexual predator. In Arizona, the judge decides when a killer should be sentenced to death, and though Dickens was acquitted of premeditated murder, Cole found other grounds to condemn him. Dickens had committed a multiple murder that resulted in pecuniary gain. But so had his young friend, whose life was spared.





Assume that all these defendants are guilty. Grant that their sexuality may have had some relevance to the case. The question, then, is not whether the subject should have come up but how it was used. Homosexuality was seen as a marker of perversion or pathology, the sign of a murderous bent. In these cases, the pretense of tolerance is ripped away, and one can see monsters from the homophobic id. But one can also recognize the biases that underlie ordinary life.

"Anyone can end up in court," notes Ruth E. Harlow, legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. "And any time a gay man or lesbian goes into court, they have to be afraid that sexual orientation may play a role in their case." It might come up in family court, when the judge assumes a gay parent would expose a child to sexual activity. It could influence a prosecutor's decision about who gets to plea bargain and who must stand trial. It could even determine who is charged with a crime in the first place. "We tend to think of gay people as crime victims, not prisoners," says Bill Dobbs of Queer Watch. "But in fact, the criminal justice system touches us in many ways."

In New York, court clerks are required for monitoring purposes to list the sexual orientation of each defendant in a capital case. But the law does not address the way homosexuality can be used at trial. "I don't think there is any particular protection," says Pauline Toole, spokesperson for New York's Capital Defender Office. But at least homosexuality is not a crime in this state. In the South and West, where sodomy laws are common, the presumption of innocence for gay people is compromised to begin with. And when they are charged with murder, their sexuality is "like a powder keg," says Dobbs. "It can easily cause a jury to light the match."

Calvin Burdine knows how homophobia was used against him: from the jurors' pretrial comments to the prosecutor's closing remarks. "I did hear it," Burdine told the Voice from his cell on death row. "But it just kind of went over my head. I was scared to death."
The Village Voice
In Murder Cases, Being Gay Can Seal a Defendant’s Fate
Queer on Death Row
by Richard Goldstein


March 13th, 2001 12:00 PM
I will address the rest of your statements later.

 

[hernyaccent]

You're doing it again.

You make a claim and then, when called on it, you back away from your statements.

I'm willing to find the videos to answer your challenge but how about saving me some time? Do the videos show that both the murderer, every member of the jury, every member of the prosecution team, the judge and, by logical extension, every lawmaker who voted to pass the law are Christians or do they not?



You don't have to post a link. Just tell us the web address.



But that's not the same as your previous claim that every jury member was a Christian.

Do you really think that her lawyer would say, "well, I'd sure like to congratulate the prosecution for mounting a fair and well fought case"? What kind of lawyer would he be?

He's trying to get his client off on a murder rap where the evidence is insurmountable. Of course he's going to claim this in order to build an appeal.

The problem is that he hasn't proven his claims any more than you have.



How about being a sport and showing us where we can locate these clips?



Jesse Jackson, the man who never met a shakedown he didn't like protested? Well, that certainly lends credence to your argument.



Actually, you're not asking a question. This entire thread is premised on the fact that you have declared that these people were unfairly condemned because of their homosexuality and the persecution they faced at the hands of Christians.

You have failed to back up that statement.



You keep saying this but, so far, you haven't lifted a finger to try to back this up.

You still haven't shown that they were treated differently than they would have been, had they been hetrosexual. You also haven't shown that "the group", presumably the jury, considered them to be "different".

You keep saying this but simply saying something doesn't make it so.



And how do you know these things?

One more claim on your part that you will not try to back up.



I've addressed this for you already.



So then why did you say more than once that the Bible said to do it?



So then, in your above statement, you say that scripture doesn't teach this but now, again, you say it does.

You've gone back and forth on this at least ten times.

Please pick one and stick with it.



I know. This is why it's confusing when you go back, after having said this, and claim that the Bible doesn't say this.

Either it does or it doesn't.



What website? How about giving us the web address?

*********************************************************
I'm sorry, I had to throw a big part of your post out. You were rambling and very hard to follow.
*********************************************************


No, it's a metaphor because the context of the passage says it is.



Really? I thought you said you were familiar with the Bible.

Homosexuality is condemned in 1 Co 6:9, which has nothing to do with Jewish law.

Likewise, Paul tells us in Romans 1 that God takes a pretty dim view of it.



I will. It will most likely take me a couple of days to get my hands on them, but I will. So far, from what you've said here and from what I've read about them, it looks an awful lot like you're just making a lot of things about the movies up.



But, surely, you must know that Fred Phelps is a pariah in the Christian community and has been roundly condemned by the church, at large.

How about giving us an example from the mainstream?



But you just said that it didn't. Now you're saying it does?



The Bible teaches a lot about love and we should strive to love others, especially those who are disenfranchised or shut out of mainstream society, such as gays, but never in scripture are we told to overlook sin in the name of love.

To the contrary, to overlook sin is to enable the sinner to sin and that is the most unloving thing one can do to another.



Again, you have given us an example of someone on the fringe of the fringe. How about giving us an example from the mainstream?

I have to be honest, Phelps denies several core, orthodox teachings of Christianity, that I have to wonder by what criteria he's considered a Christian in the first place.

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]"Religious right" vs "radical right"[/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]These are two terms for the group of people who oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians. In this section, I have used the term "radical right" because "religious right" is innacurate. There are many devout and religious people who are in favor of equal rights, and who accept gays and lesbians fully into their churches and society. To imply that those who oppose equal rights do so because they are "religious" demans all people of faith who do not share those views.

The term "radical right" on the other hand is more accurate. These groups are certainly on the right side of the political spectrum, and many of their views are radically different from those of most Americans. Thus, the term "radical right" is what I am going to use here. [/font]

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]Christian Coalition[/font]
1-800-325-4746
http://www.cc.org
Founded by Pat Robertson after his unsuccessful 1988 Presidential Campaign, the Christian Coalition has become Americas most powerful special interest group. It contributes millions to candidates, and its less than evenhanded voters guides, distributed at friendly churches days before elections have swayed many major races. This is the public (read: mainstream) face of the Radical Right. The CC generally tones its rhetoric and says "all the right things" when covered in the media.

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]Promise Keepers[/font]
1-800-888-7595
http://www.promisekeepers.org
Bill McCartney, former football coach for the University of Colorado founded this men's ministry in 1992. It has grown into an impressive force, and recently brought nearly 1 million men to Washington for a rally. The Promise Keepers eschew harsh rhetoric, and rather call for men to atone for their sins and treat their families well. Additionally, PK has a strong multi-ethnic flavor to it. PK is still a force to be concerned about, because its leader, McCartney, is one of the US's leading homophobes.

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]Focus on the Family[/font]
1-719-531-3400
http://www.fotf.org
James Dobson's ministry has turned into a business empire which takes in hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Dobson's radio programs and his folksy advice are heard on thousands of radio stations. FOTF is perhaps the most influential but least well known of the radical right groups. Dobson himself is virulently homophobic and has used his large audience as a bully pulpit to pass along his anti-gay views to millions who listen to him for child-rearing and family tips.

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]Family Research Council[/font]
1-202-393-2100
http://www.frc.org
Led by Gary Bauer, the FRC was a division of Focus on the Family until it split off for tax reasons. Today is is a major think tank and lobbying organization, always ready with an "expert witness" for Congressional testimony, or a quick press release condemning an advance in equal rights.

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]Concerned Women for America[/font]
1-800-458-8797
http://www.cwfa.org
CWA is the nation's largest conservative Christian women's organization with chapters in 50 states. Led by Beverly LaHaye, this group is virulently anti-gay. Its web site features numerous attacks on "the gay teen suicide myth" same-sex marriage, and other issues of concern to gays and lesbians.

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]American Family Association[/font]
1-601-844-5036
http://www.afa.net
Led by Donald Wildmon, the AFA specializes in leading corporate boycotts. The AFA's main interests are fighting pornography, depictions of sexuality, and positive portrayals of gays in art and in the media. They have led the attack on ABC for showing "Ellen" as well as any other company which dares acknowledge gay customers, such as American Airlines.

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]Exodus International (and associates)[/font]
1-206-784-7799
http://www.stonewallrevisted.com
Located ironically enough in very gay-friendly Seattle, Exodus bills itself as the largest "gay reclamation" ministry. Exodus promotes the conversion of gay men and lesbians to heterosexuals through therapy and submission to Jesus Christ. Proving that turnabout is fair play, the founders of Exodus have since denounced their creation as a mistake and something which hurts thousands of very vulnerable people.

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality[/font]
1-818-789-4440
http://www.narth.com
NARTH is the leading pseudo-scientific group claiming to be able to "cure" gays and lesbians. Their mission statement reads: "A Non-Profit Psychoanalytic, Educational Organization Dedicated to Research, Therapy and Prevention of Homosexuality." They are led by disbarred former psychiatrist Charles W. Socarides.

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]The Eagle Forum[/font]
1-618-462-5415
http://www.basenet.net/~eagle/eagle.html
Founded and led by Phyllis Schlafly, its best known campaign was against the ERA. It is active across a wide variety of conservative causes, including opposition to equal rights for gays.

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]Traditional Values Coalition[/font]
1-714-520-0300
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/
Lou Sheldon leads this organization. It places opposition to equal rights for gays high on its agenda.

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]American Center for Law and Justice[/font]
1-804-579-2489
http://www.aclj.org/
The ACLJ is the conservative version of the ACLU. Founded by Pat Robertson, the ACLJ files nuisance suits against gay rights laws, and generally does as much as it can through the legal system to hold up the cause of equal rights. For example, in the Hawaii marriage case, it has files several "friend of the court" briefs against same-sex marriages, and has filed suit against San Francisco's gay rights ordinance.

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]Heritage Foundation[/font]
1-202-546-4400
http://www.heritage.org/
The Heritage Foundation is the right's primary think tank. It boasts an enormous budget, and a ready supply of guest commentators on nearly every issue for America's opinion pages. Opposing equal rights for gays is one topic they are actively promoting.

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]The Report[/font]
1-800-462-4700 and 1-800-452-NEWS
http://www.americansfortruth.com/ plus opposing views at http://qrd.rdrop.com/qrd/religion/anti/the.lambda.report
Peter LaBarbera leads this small but influential publishing house. They have produced the infamous "Gay Agenda" video, and put out a monthly magazine called "The Lambda Report" which is singularly vicious in how low it stoops with its attacks. For more on the Lambda Report's tactics, follow the second URL above.

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]Westboro Baptist Church[/font]
1-785-273-0325
http://www.godhates****.com and http://revwhite.bestsites.net
Far from being a real church, Westoboro Baptist is actually a small cult consisting of the extended family of Fred Phelps, and are located in a compound in Topeka, KS. They are perhaps best known for flying around the country picketing the funerals of AIDS victims and gay pride parades holding signs saying "God Hates ****" and other assorted witticisms. While it may be tempting to dismiss Phelps as a buffoon, he actually has considerable influence in the shadowy militia/reconstructionist underground.

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]Rutherford Institute[/font]
1-804-978-3888
http://www.rutherford.org/
This is the primary institution behind a form of Christianity known as Reconstuctionism. The primary tenet of this faith is a belief that America must be remade as a pure white "Christian" nation with old-testament Biblical law as the law of the land. Reconstructionism is very influential amongst the milita movement. John Rushdooney is their patriarch. State-mandated executions of gays is amongst the Biblical law they wish to implement.

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]Operation Rescue[/font]
1-407-259-9557
http://www.operationrescue.org/
Led by Randall Terry, Operation Rescue is perhaps best known for blockading abortion clinics; however, with the decline of abortion as a major issue, they are branching out into anti-gay activities as well. They advocate the use of force against gays and lesbians, including imprisonment and execution, and have considerable influence amongst the far, far right. [font=verdana,arial,helvetica]American Life League[/font]
1-540-659-4171
http://hebron.ee.gannon.edu/~frezza/plae/contents.html
Another violent anti-abortion group that has added homosexuality to its list. Follow the link above to visit the Pro Life Encyclopedia, a guide to their complete beliefs system. It contains some very violently anti-gay material.

Yes, all christians aren't against the rights of gays but a lot of christian organzations are along with Phelp.

 

[GodAtWorkToday]

You are pull statements out of context and posting them. BRAVO!

Maybe they did, but it is pretty strong evidence of your double-speak. If that was your evidence in a court of law, the opposing side would tear you apart. The judge would describe you as a 'not credible witness'.

This has nothing to do with your opinion or position, but rather the illogical way that you present it. You can't make claims from both extremes and expect either to be taken seriously.

Take a stand on one opinion, and then support it with evidence and logical argument.

 

[hernyaccent]

Hernyaccent, I have to ask what would you have us believe. The word of a 20 year old, that sin is OK and acceptable, and that we should not make judgement about its practice within our midst, or the Bible which is the declared revelation of God unto mankind. The Bible has stood the test of time and withstood the attacks of 1000's and 10,000's of unbelievers, skeptics, and critics.

Believing Christians have proven over and over again the trustworthiness of the Bible, its teachings, its restrictions and its promises. I have over 25 years experience as a practicing Christian, and over that time have always found the Bible trustworthy in its teaching, admonitions, promises, and warnings.

The Bible in layman's terms is our roadmap for life. I do not impose the Bible on others, but simply conform my own thinking to its teachings. When I was a new Christian, there were many things I disagreed with in the Bible. Over time, I have needed to change MY thinking, because I was WRONG.

When one comes from the world into the family of God, there is growth, learning and change required to be conformed into the person that God wants us to be. When we refuse to make those changes we 'sin' and fall short of God's standard.

What Christians are saying on this site, and other sites, and from pulpits that respect the authority of the Bible, is that this is what the Bible teaches about SIN. (That includes all types of sins, which also includes homosexuality AND adultery AND lying AND stealing and a whole long list of human evils).

It also teaches us that we should avoid people who want to stand against God and His Word;
.

What people do in the privacy of their homes is their own business, and not really subject to our comment. God however is aware of all that they do, and HE WILL JUDGE.

Where it gets different, is when people get into the public arena and demand that SIN should be an acceptable practice and protected by law. When they do that Bible believing Christians will oppose them with the truth of Scripture.

Can you imagine the absurdity of a group complaining because they are being persecuted because they are practicing and professing 'liars'. Their employers are not treating them the same as others and this prejudice and vilification must stop. We must have laws that make it acceptable to be a 'liar'. An employer cannot show prejudice against you when you apply for a job, simply because you are a 'liar'.

Christians are terrible because they constantly offend the sensibilities of this group because they call their 'lying' a SIN, and point out constantly the hellfires awaiting this group because of their lifestyle choice to be a 'liar'. We desperately need the protection of government legislation so that our 'lying' might be acceptable within our society.

I sincerely hope you can see the absolute absurdity of the above. Try changing 'liar' and 'lying', to 'thief' and 'stealing'.
Try changing it to 'murderer' and 'murdering'.
Try changing it to 'child molester' and 'molesting'.
Try changing it to 'adulterer' and 'adultery'.
Now try changing it 'homosexual' and 'homosexuality'.

Truly homosexuality is no worse than lying as a sin. It is however also no better than lying. Why should it be any more acceptable in society than lying.

The Bible does NOT TEACH that there are high sins. It does however have warnings about 'sexual immorality', which would include homosexuality, adultery, and fornication.

This does not say that the sin of 'sexual immorality' is worse, but rather that it has worse consequences against the body of the person committing it. This is a warning to protect us, not a teaching on a heirachy of sins.

Egyptian holy hieroglyphics and ancient Rome's stories have lasted the test of time as well...do you believe them? I believe in the Agnostic way of viewing the bible the same I would reading an ancient writing. I am not saying SIN is okay. I am stating if ( which I don't feel they should) Christian choose to judge they should judge all sin equally. A Christian isn't going to treat their child's stealing a candy bar from a store as if their child were homosexual yet according to YOUR bible both these actions lead you to hell.

Christian points mean nothing to me when they use the BIBLE to justify their hate. During the days of slavery the Bible was used to justify what was done to African Americans, Neo-Nazi separatists use the BIBLE to justify their hate. Rev. Phelp ( whose standing as a Christian I am semi- confused about) uses the BIBLE. Mormons use the BIBLE yet is viewed by many Christians as a cult. Jehovah's-Witnesses also viewed by many Christians as a cult uses the BIBLE.

I don't ever plan on coming into the " family of God" so this doesn't bother me in one bit. I feel my walk with GOD is just fine.

"What Christians are saying on this site, and other sites, and from pulpits that respect the authority of the Bible, is that this is what the Bible teaches about SIN. (That includes all types of sins, which also includes homosexuality AND adultery AND lying AND stealing and a whole long list of human evils)."

Liars ( which we all do) and thieves aren't discriminated against and an even smaller amount is murdered for these actions.


How do you teach people Gods word if you avoid them?

Arrogance is accepted, money lovers are accepted,parental disobediance is accepted, even slander is accepted according to your scripture by the " world" and by many christians yet because christians have power as of right now what offends them isn't accepted.

"An employer cannot show prejudice against you when you apply for a job, simply because you are a 'liar'."

They can however show prejudice based on who you sleep next to at night and what is in between their legs? Wouldn't a liar affect their business more then a homosexual? Maybe not because there is so much PREJUDICE against homosexuals outside of large city areas You won't know a homosexual from anyone else.

"Truly homosexuality is no worse than lying as a sin. It is however also no better than lying. Why should it be any more acceptable in society than lying."

Lying is more acceptable. They should be condemned equally but they aren'ts. You can't how ever apply these views to non believe because you fail to see they dont believe what you do.

"The Bible does NOT TEACH that there are high sins. It does however have warnings about 'sexual immorality', which would include homosexuality, adultery, and fornication."

No uninvolved party murdered a guy because they caught him cheating on his wife.

 

[12volt_man]

You are pull statements out of context and posting them. BRAVO!

No, I am not "pull[ing] statements out of context".

They are as you said them.

 

[12volt_man]

Calvin Burdine knows how homophobia was used against him: from the jurors' pretrial comments to the prosecutor's closing remarks. "I did hear it," Burdine told the Voice from his cell on death row. "But it just kind of went over my head. I was scared to death."
The Village Voice
In Murder Cases, Being Gay Can Seal a Defendant’s Fate
Queer on Death Row
by Richard Goldstein


March 13th, 2001 12:00 PM
I will address the rest of your statements later.

How convenient that you forget to mention that Burdine's appeal was thrown out by the 5th Curcuit CoA because he could not produce any evidence that he recieved an unfair trial.

Again, simply saying that he did not recieve a fair trial does not make it so.

 

[hernyaccent]

How convenient that you forget to mention that Burdine's appeal was thrown out by the 5th Curcuit CoA because he could not produce any evidence that he recieved an unfair trial.

Again, simply saying that he did not recieve a fair trial does not make it so.

At the time of the article it wasn't.

My question is simple( perhaps I explained myself wrong prior to this) ..Most christians ( not all) discrimate against homosexuality more then they do other sinful actions. Why is that?

 

[12volt_man]

The term "radical right" on the other hand is more accurate. These groups are certainly on the right side of the political spectrum, and many of their views are radically different from those of most Americans. Thus, the term "radical right" is what I am going to use here.

While you don't cite your source, we can assume from the good grammar that this is not original.

First of all, America is split on gay marriage, leaning against it.

Second, is what you're doing by trying to demonize anyone who you believe goes against the status quo morally different than what you claim Christians are doing to gays when they allegedly try to demonize them?

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]Christian Coalition[/font]
1-800-325-4746
http://www.cc.org
Founded by Pat Robertson after his unsuccessful 1988 Presidential Campaign, the Christian Coalition has become Americas most powerful special interest group. It contributes millions to candidates, and its less than evenhanded voters guides, distributed at friendly churches days before elections have swayed many major races. This is the public (read: mainstream) face of the Radical Right. The CC generally tones its rhetoric and says "all the right things" when covered in the media.

OK. What's your point? The description you cut and pasted doesn't say anything at all about homosexuality, let alone show that Christians are somehow persecuting them.

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]Promise Keepers[/font]
1-800-888-7595
http://www.promisekeepers.org
Bill McCartney, former football coach for the University of Colorado founded this men's ministry in 1992. It has grown into an impressive force, and recently brought nearly 1 million men to Washington for a rally. The Promise Keepers eschew harsh rhetoric, and rather call for men to atone for their sins and treat their families well. Additionally, PK has a strong multi-ethnic flavor to it. PK is still a force to be concerned about, because its leader, McCartney, is one of the US's leading homophobes.

All this says is that Bill McCartney (who long ago left the leadership of PK, by the way) is a homophobe. That's great. Just call names and don't even attempt to back it up.

I actually was a member of PK for a while and, in my experience, gay men who wanted to bring their sexuality into subjection to Christ were welcome. We had a gay man in our little group who was treated very well.

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]Focus on the Family[/font]
1-719-531-3400
http://www.fotf.org
James Dobson's ministry has turned into a business empire which takes in hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Dobson's radio programs and his folksy advice are heard on thousands of radio stations. FOTF is perhaps the most influential but least well known of the radical right groups. Dobson himself is virulently homophobic and has used his large audience as a bully pulpit to pass along his anti-gay views to millions who listen to him for child-rearing and family tips.

Again, you accuse someone of being "anti-gay" but don't give an example or attempt to back up your claims.

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]Family Research Council[/font]
1-202-393-2100
http://www.frc.org
Led by Gary Bauer, the FRC was a division of Focus on the Family until it split off for tax reasons. Today is is a major think tank and lobbying organization, always ready with an "expert witness" for Congressional testimony, or a quick press release condemning an advance in equal rights.

Once again, what's your point? This description doesn't mention homosexuality one way or the other.

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]Concerned Women for America[/font]
1-800-458-8797
http://www.cwfa.org
CWA is the nation's largest conservative Christian women's organization with chapters in 50 states. Led by Beverly LaHaye, this group is virulently anti-gay. Its web site features numerous attacks on "the gay teen suicide myth" same-sex marriage, and other issues of concern to gays and lesbians.

How are you defining "attack"?

I went to their website and they seem to be rather civil and well thought out, at least moreso than we can say for you.

How is it that simply disagreeing constitutes an attack?

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]American Family Association[/font]
1-601-844-5036
http://www.afa.net
Led by Donald Wildmon, the AFA specializes in leading corporate boycotts. The AFA's main interests are fighting pornography, depictions of sexuality, and positive portrayals of gays in art and in the media. They have led the attack on ABC for showing "Ellen" as well as any other company which dares acknowledge gay customers, such as American Airlines.

Again, how have they "attacked" anyone?

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality[/font]
1-818-789-4440
http://www.narth.com
NARTH is the leading pseudo-scientific group claiming to be able to "cure" gays and lesbians. Their mission statement reads: "A Non-Profit Psychoanalytic, Educational Organization Dedicated to Research, Therapy and Prevention of Homosexuality." They are led by disbarred former psychiatrist Charles W. Socarides.

I went to their website and couldn't find anything that would indicate that this is a Christian group.

There is nothing in their statement that mentions any connection to Christianity and all of their sources seem to be secular sources.

Explain, please.

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]The Eagle Forum[/font]
1-618-462-5415
http://www.basenet.net/~eagle/eagle.html
Founded and led by Phyllis Schlafly, its best known campaign was against the ERA. It is active across a wide variety of conservative causes, including opposition to equal rights for gays.

Really? How have they opposed equal rights for gays?

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]Traditional Values Coalition[/font]
1-714-520-0300
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/
Lou Sheldon leads this organization. It places opposition to equal rights for gays high on its agenda.

Again, how have they opposed equal rights for gays?

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]American Center for Law and Justice[/font]
1-804-579-2489
http://www.aclj.org/
The ACLJ is the conservative version of the ACLU. Founded by Pat Robertson, the ACLJ files nuisance suits against gay rights laws, and generally does as much as it can through the legal system to hold up the cause of equal rights. For example, in the Hawaii marriage case, it has files several "friend of the court" briefs against same-sex marriages, and has filed suit against San Francisco's gay rights ordinance.

But these briefs were based on legal reasons, not religious or moral convictions.

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]Heritage Foundation[/font]
1-202-546-4400
http://www.heritage.org/
The Heritage Foundation is the right's primary think tank. It boasts an enormous budget, and a ready supply of guest commentators on nearly every issue for America's opinion pages. Opposing equal rights for gays is one topic they are actively promoting.

Once again, how have they opposed equal rights for gays?

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]The Report[/font]
1-800-462-4700 and 1-800-452-NEWS
http://www.americansfortruth.com/ plus opposing views at http://qrd.rdrop.com/qrd/religion/anti/the.lambda.report
Peter LaBarbera leads this small but influential publishing house. They have produced the infamous "Gay Agenda" video, and put out a monthly magazine called "The Lambda Report" which is singularly vicious in how low it stoops with its attacks. For more on the Lambda Report's tactics, follow the second URL above.

Again, I went to this website and couldn't find anything to identify this group as being Christian in nature.

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]Westboro Baptist Church[/font]
1-785-273-0325
http://www.godhates****.com and http://revwhite.bestsites.net
Far from being a real church, Westoboro Baptist is actually a small cult consisting of the extended family of Fred Phelps, and are located in a compound in Topeka, KS. They are perhaps best known for flying around the country picketing the funerals of AIDS victims and gay pride parades holding signs saying "God Hates ****" and other assorted witticisms. While it may be tempting to dismiss Phelps as a buffoon, he actually has considerable influence in the shadowy militia/reconstructionist underground.

Again, Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist are pariahs in the Christian community. They are so far outside the mainstream of Christian culture that it is unfair and, frankly, deceptive to claim that they represent the mainstream of Christian thought in America.

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]Rutherford Institute[/font]
1-804-978-3888
http://www.rutherford.org/
This is the primary institution behind a form of Christianity known as Reconstuctionism. The primary tenet of this faith is a belief that America must be remade as a pure white "Christian" nation with old-testament Biblical law as the law of the land. Reconstructionism is very influential amongst the milita movement. John Rushdooney is their patriarch. State-mandated executions of gays is amongst the Biblical law they wish to implement.

I happen to be familiar with this group and am sure, in my experience, that they have never advocated the execution of gays.

Since this is such a serious charge, I think it's incumbent upon you to provide an example of their having done this.

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]Operation Rescue[/font]
1-407-259-9557
http://www.operationrescue.org/
Led by Randall Terry, Operation Rescue is perhaps best known for blockading abortion clinics; however, with the decline of abortion as a major issue, they are branching out into anti-gay activities as well. They advocate the use of force against gays and lesbians, including imprisonment and execution, and have considerable influence amongst the far, far right.

First of all, Randy Terry hasn't been the leader of (or even involved with!) OR for many years. Since you're not aware of such an elementary fact, I wonder how much credibility you have to speak on their policies and beliefs.

Again, please give an example of their having advocated executing gays.

Yes, all christians aren't against the rights of gays but a lot of christian organzations are along with Phelp.

You haven't shown that any of these groups, with the exception of Westboro Baptist, of course, are affiliated with Phelps or that they share his rhetoric or distasteful and dispicable beliefs.

 

[12volt_man]

At the time of the article it wasn't.

Actually, the appeal was thrown out on Oct. 27, 2000. The article is dated March 13th, 2001.

The article was written five months after the appeal was thrown out.

My question is simple( perhaps I explained myself wrong prior to this) ..Most christians ( not all) discrimate against homosexuality more then they do other sinful actions. Why is that?

You've asked enough questions. Now it's time to provide some answers to my questions.

 

[hernyaccent]

Actually, the appeal was thrown out on Oct. 27, 2000. The article is dated March 13th, 2001.

The article was written five months after the appeal was thrown out.



You've asked enough questions. Now it's time to provide some answers to my questions.

I answered you to the best of my ability. We will never agree. I am a non christian asking a question to christians and your use to the bible means nothing to me.

 

[CrownCaster]

Manson also did not actually kill anyone.