Treating People With Dignity and Respect.

[OllieFranz]

Why do some people insist that standing up for what you believe in and calling a spade a spade equals maligning and discrimination?

Simply to believe that the Bible tells you and your co-religionists that you should strive to avoid certain activities is not maligning or discriminating against anyone else.

Using such a belief to deprive other people of basic human dignity, of human rights and in some cases, even their lives is beyond maligning and discriminating.

Most Christians fall in the gray area between these two extremes. Where you draw the cut-off line for what defines malignining and discriminating within this gray area varies from person to person, but those feeling the oppression usually draw it closer to the one pole than those who are doing the oppressing.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Why do some people insist that standing up for what you believe in and calling a spade a spade equals maligning and discrimination?

So when racists stand up for what they believe. When racists quote the bible to justify their position on the social inferiority of non-whites. When racists call for discriminatory laws…are they not maligning and discriminating?

 

[Ohioprof]

Unfortunately anyone can make the claim that they are a Christian. But Paul does give us a way to test ourselves by examining the fruit in our lives. Obviously, Phelps' fruit is very bitter indeed. The guy has been called out for the fraud that he is, but unfortunately, THAT never seems to get the airtime. *sigh*

Actually, I think Phelps has been discredited very widely, and the opposition of most Christians to what Phelps represents has been given air time. This has been especially true since he started picketing the funerals of troops who have been killed.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

Why do certain groups of people believe it is okay to malign the Bible for a political agenda ?



It is not called discrimination when the Bible itself calls the lifetyle or activities a sin.

Question One: For the same reason televangelists, preachers and pretty much every open Christian does it: to forward what THEY think. What's in the Bible has nothing to do with it most of the time.

It is called discrimination. So it's in the Bible. You tell people. Then you leave them alone, nothing added, nothing exaggerated, most reasonable people will listen and think either "okay, I'll take that to mind" or "okay, but I still disagree with you". But when it's pushed and pushed and made a big fat issue and actually harasses, demeans and defames an entire group of people (which is the case with the gigantic anti-homosexual debate going on) it's discrimination, and the Bible is being maligned.

 

[mattlock73]

So when racists stand up for what they believe. When racists quote the bible to justify their position on the social inferiority of non-whites. When racists call for discriminatory laws…are they not maligning and discriminating?

And what how exactly are Christians who stand up and say I believe that your actions are sinful and here is the reason why maligning or discriminating. Your comparison of white-supremacists to all Christians is like me saying all homosexuals want to rape children by citing NAMBLA. Yes, there are extremists in every group, yes they represent the minority not the majority.

We have the first amendment which guarantees sickos on either side get to say what they wish, and that is a good thing. Would you have it any other way?

 

[mattlock73]

Question One: For the same reason televangelists, preachers and pretty much every open Christian does it: to forward what THEY think. What's in the Bible has nothing to do with it most of the time.

It is called discrimination. So it's in the Bible. You tell people. Then you leave them alone, nothing added, nothing exaggerated, most reasonable people will listen and think either "okay, I'll take that to mind" or "okay, but I still disagree with you". But when it's pushed and pushed and made a big fat issue and actually harasses, demeans and defames an entire group of people (which is the case with the gigantic anti-homosexual debate going on) it's discrimination, and the Bible is being maligned.

I think if you are being intellectually honest, you will see that the agenda is being pushed from both sides. It takes two to tango as the the saying goes. Didn't Jesus say something about a log in ones own eye while looking for the mote in your neighbors?

 

[artybloke]

Your comparison of white-supremacists to all Christians is like me saying

It's not all Christians though. Just the fundamentalists who read the Bible in a way that discriminates against people. Those who don't read the Bible in that way don't need to be compared to white supremacists, because they don't have a problem with homosexuality.

 

[Ohioprof]

I think if you are being intellectually honest, you will see that the agenda is being pushed from both sides. It takes two to tango as the the saying goes. Didn't Jesus say something about a log in ones own eye while looking for the mote in your neighbors?

I think the agenda of some of us gay Christians is to promote acceptance of us as we are, as gay people, within our churches. Since my church already accepts gay people as we are, my personal agenda is to win equal and fair treatment under the law in the civil society. I don't seek personally to change what anyone else's church does or promotes as doctrine; that's up to them. I do seek to promote equal treatment under the law in the wider civil society, including the equal right for gay people to marry legally our beloved spouses. I do not want to see any churches forced to perform or to recognize our marriages if they don't want to. And there is no reason why they would be forced to recognize them. In Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal, no church has been forced to perform same-sex marriages. That's freedom of religion.

 

[Ohioprof]

And what how exactly are Christians who stand up and say I believe that your actions are sinful and here is the reason why maligning or discriminating. Your comparison of white-supremacists to all Christians is like me saying all homosexuals want to rape children by citing NAMBLA. Yes, there are extremists in every group, yes they represent the minority not the majority.

We have the first amendment which guarantees sickos on either side get to say what they wish, and that is a good thing. Would you have it any other way?

Of course all Christians were not white supremacists. But the major white supremacist groups declared themselves Christian. And many Christian churches and individuals long accepted white supremacy, passively usually, but they still accepted it. White supremacy was the norm in society for most of American history. Similarly, not all Christians today are anti-gay extremists like Fred Phelps. But most of the major anti-gay groups in the United States have declared themselves Christian. Many, probably most, Christian churches have long refused to accept gay people as we are, passively usually, but they still refused. Anti-gay thinking has been the norm in our society for most of American history. It's also true that many of the champions of equality and fair treatment for African Americans, for women, for immigrants, for Jews, for gay people, have been Christians. Not all Christians have been champions of equality and fairness for all, but the major groups and movements championing equality have often been led by Christians.My point to you is that passive acceptance of inequality and unfairness still contributes to inequality and unfairness. The churches and individual Christians need to step up and support fair and equal treatment for gay people in the wider society. Otherwise, they are simply permitting inequality and unfairness to continue, and they are contributing to the inequality and unfairness with their silence and their refusal to speak against it. When people of faith step forward and speak out for fairness and justice for all, we are a powerful voice.

 

[mattlock73]

It's not all Christians though. Just the fundamentalists who read the Bible in a way that discriminates against people. Those who don't read the Bible in that way don't need to be compared to white supremacists, because they don't have a problem with homosexuality.

OK, I can accept that. Give some examples then and we can discuss them. What exactly is it that equates to discrimination?

 

[Ohioprof]

OK, I can accept that. Give some examples then and we can discuss them. What exactly is it that equates to discrimination?

When groups that self-identify as Christians, such as Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, and others, promote a constitutional amendment that effectively bans same-sex marriage, that's a religiously motivated effort to write discrimination into the U.S. constitution. Fortunately, their efforts so far have failed.

 

[mattlock73]

I think the agenda of some of us gay Christians is to promote acceptance of us as we are, as gay people, within our churches. Since my church already accepts gay people as we are, my personal agenda is to win equal and fair treatment under the law in the civil society. I don't seek personally to change what anyone else's church does or promotes as doctrine; that's up to them.

In some of the churches I have attended, you would be treated much the same with one exception. You would be welcome to attend, but could not be a member because of the view that you are leading a sinful life. We have had several gay attendees over the years, and although they were treated with warmth and friendship, they decided to go elsewhere. The exact same would be true if you were hetero and living with a girlfriend outside of marriage or you were an unbeliever. We have also had several situations where couples who were not married were asked to leave the church. That may sound harsh to some, but it is exactly what Christ tells us to do in Matthew 18.

I do seek to promote equal treatment under the law in the wider civil society, including the equal right for gay people to marry legally our beloved spouses. I do not want to see any churches forced to perform or to recognize our marriages if they don't want to. And there is no reason why they would be forced to recognize them. In Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal, no church has been forced to perform same-sex marriages. That's freedom of religion.

So then are legal unions acceptable? For many, marriage even though it is used in secular as well as religious contexts, has always been and will always be a religious term.

 

[Ohioprof]

In some of the churches I have attended, you would be treated much the same with one exception. You would be welcome to attend, but could not be a member because of the view that you are leading a sinful life. We have had several gay attendees over the years, and although they were treated with warmth and friendship, they decided to go elsewhere. The exact same would be true if you were hetero and living with a girlfriend outside of marriage or you were an unbeliever. We have also had several situations where couples who were not married were asked to leave the church. That may sound harsh to some, but it is exactly what Christ tells us to do in Matthew 18.



So then are legal unions acceptable? For many, marriage even though it is used in secular as well as religious contexts, has always been and will always be a religious term.

I personally think it's fine for churches to deny membership to whomever they choose. That's religious liberty. I think that all people must be treated equally under the law, regardless of whether some people think of "marriage" as a religious term or how they regard the term. Different religions look differently upon same-sex marriage. My church recognizes and performs same-sex marriages. To us, marriage is both religious and civil, and our religious marriages include same-sex couples. No one faith tradition has a claim on the meaning of civil, legal marriage or on the terminology used in the civil, legal arena. I think the states must allow same-sex marriages to be legal. The law should not discriminate against certain people simply because some religious people advocate the discrimination. Churches must be free to discriminate as they choose within their faith, but they must never be permitted to write discrimination into civil law. What churches and other religious institutions do within their faith is religious liberty. What the state does is a matter of protecting the equal rights of everyone, regardless of religious belief.

 

[Ohioprof]

My computer is not creating the paragraphs that I write in my drafts, which is why my posts are coming out as one long paragraph with many ideas tossed in. They are supposed to be broken into separate paragraphs. My apologies.

 

[Ohioprof]

In some of the churches I have attended, you would be treated much the same with one exception. You would be welcome to attend, but could not be a member because of the view that you are leading a sinful life. We have had several gay attendees over the years, and although they were treated with warmth and friendship, they decided to go elsewhere. The exact same would be true if you were hetero and living with a girlfriend outside of marriage or you were an unbeliever. We have also had several situations where couples who were not married were asked to leave the church. That may sound harsh to some, but it is exactly what Christ tells us to do in Matthew 18.



So then are legal unions acceptable? For many, marriage even though it is used in secular as well as religious contexts, has always been and will always be a religious term.

Oh, btw, let me point out to you that saying that I am living a "sinful life" is an assumption on your part. Even by the standards of Christians who regard "homosexuality" as a "sin," I am not. I am single, and I do not have sexual relations with anyone. Therefore, if the "sin" is having sex with someone of the same sex, I don't do that. But I am gay.

 

[mattlock73]

I personally think it's fine for churches to deny membership to whomever they choose. That's religious liberty. I think that all people must be treated equally under the law, regardless of whether some people think of "marriage" as a religious term or how they regard the term. Different religions look differently upon same-sex marriage. My church recognizes and performs same-sex marriages. To us, marriage is both religious and civil, and our religious marriages include same-sex couples. No one faith tradition has a claim on the meaning of civil, legal marriage or on the terminology used in the civil, legal arena. I think the states must allow same-sex marriages to be legal. The law should not discriminate against certain people simply because some religious people advocate the discrimination. Churches must be free to discriminate as they choose within their faith, but they must never be permitted to write discrimination into civil law. What churches and other religious institutions do within their faith is religious liberty. What the state does is a matter of protecting the equal rights of everyone, regardless of religious belief.

If legal unions permit the same rights (and penalties) under the law, then we are talking a matter of semantics. Right?

My computer is not creating the paragraphs that I write in my drafts, which is why my posts are coming out as one long paragraph with many ideas tossed in. They are supposed to be broken into separate paragraphs. My apologies.

No worries.

 

[mattlock73]

Oh, btw, let me point out to you that saying that I am living a "sinful life" is an assumption on your part. Even by the standards of Christians who regard "homosexuality" as a "sin," I am not. I am single, and I do not have sexual relations with anyone. Therefore, if the "sin" is having sex with someone of the same sex, I don't do that. But I am gay.

You are correct and I apologize for making the assumption. If I offended, that certainly wasn't my intent.

 

[Ohioprof]

You are correct and I apologize for making the assumption. If I offended, that certainly wasn't my intent.

No offense taken. I just wanted to point out that some gay people are not in relationships and are not having sex. I personally don't think that my being in a relationship would make my life "sinful" any more than it is now. But I have been busy raising my daughter, and I have chosen not to be in an intimate relationship with a spouse at this time in my life.

 

[Ohioprof]

If legal unions permit the same rights (and penalties) under the law, then we are talking a matter of semantics. Right?



No worries.

Except that the civil union laws do not provide the same rights, obligations, benefits, and penalties that marriage laws provide. So it's not just a matter of semantics. The different laws really do provide different and unequal treatment. I personally do not care what you call "marriage," so long as our families are given the same protections as families with opposite-sex spouses. And right now, the protections are not equal. I have to run and get my daughter ready for school. Have a great day.

 

[mattlock73]

Except that the civil union laws do not provide the same rights, obligations, benefits, and penalties that marriage laws provide. So it's not just a matter of semantics. The different laws really do provide different and unequal treatment. I personally do not care what you call "marriage," so long as our families are given the same protections as families with opposite-sex spouses. And right now, the protections are not equal. I have to run and get my daughter ready for school. Have a great day.

That's a fair point then. I must admit that I don't know too much about the legal differences between the two, but would support civil unions if they offered equal status. I don't think that homosexuals should be denied equal treatment under the law, and I don't know of any Christians personally that do.