Some Christians Not Homophobic

[Lex]

Yes- somebody who understands exactly what I was trying to say. The decisions that I make and what I believe is between myself and God. What anybody else does, believes to be sin or the manner in which they conduct themselves has nothing to do with me and everything to do with God. I recognize that nobody is answerable to me for their beliefs and as such try not to judge or meddle in their lives.

Not only do I not support legislation that relegates homosexual men and women to second class citizens, but I support the idea of everyone having equal rights. Why should any group impose their values on society in general. I would hope that people will continue to support what is “moral” legislation put in place to protect others (eg: statutory rape) and let the legislation that limits peoples rights without reason fall.

Individual churches are free to preach what they wish. Some are welcoming to gays, some even have gay ministers. Others are not and they too should be free to do as they wish (within reason). Of course, jackasses such as the “good” Reverend Fallwell and others have really given Christians a black eye with their brand of hate.

I think the key here, Dolf (and what separates your stance from many would claim the same faith), is that you understand and recognize that it would be wrong to legislate your beliefs onto others. Which is really, all that I would hope that anyone agree to.

I don't care what the fundamentalists or other Christains think of me and my "kin" as long as they do not seek to put into place legislation that limits our rights, freedoms and privileges. There are people who think and propagate natsy things about African Americans (we're stupid, lazy, barbaric, etc.) which, while angering, is not as important to me as the fact that we consistently chip away at barriers which keep AfAm and other minroties from accessing the "American Dream."

I applaud everyone's openess here and willingness to explain themselves.

 

[B_Stronzo]

I don't care what the fundamentalists or other Christains think of me and my "kin" as long as they do not seek to put into place legislation that limits our rights, freedoms and privileges. There are people who think and propagate natsy things about African Americans (we're stupid, lazy, barbaric, etc.) which, while angering, is not as important to me as the fact that we consistently chip away at barriers which keep AfAm and other minroties from accessing the "American Dream."

Boy nor do I Lex.

I am though trepidatiously suspect of the words 'homosexuality' and 'sin' used in the same sentence no matter how poster specific (or denomationally specific for that matter)

By way of illustrating this point let me say-

Again and with due deference given your mention of race; had dolph said "I think for me it would just fine with God (as it states in Leviticus) to keep slaves" the board would be in a freaking uproar.

I want that point duly noted here.

 

[Lex]

Racism, sexisim, classism, and homophobia, are not all seen with the same weight by our populace.

My own family members think I am going to hell. They're black like me. But I'm gay, so to hell I will go (where the big fag party will happen).

Racism against Hispanics is not seen in the same light as racism against African Americans.

I am not saying this is right--I am just saying that it is.

Equating homosexuality to racism is no longer the way to go, in my opionion.

In fact, the Brown vs. Board decision was based on discrimination against someone based on their "unalterable characteristics," not race, per sea.

I think the clearer course is to continue to amass scientific (genetic, biological, social) evidence that shows that orientation is a innate, unalterable characteristic and to educate people as such. In this way, laws that discriminate will no longer be tolerated.

And even then, for gay people (as there is now for AfAm) people will be free to think whatever they will of them.

 

[B_Stronzo]

Racism, sexisim, classism, and homophobia, are not all seen with the same weight by our populace.

My own family members think I am going to hell. They're black like me. But I'm gay, so to hell I will go (where the big fag party will happen).

Racism against Hispanics is not seen in the same light as racism against African Americans.

I am not saying this is right--I am just saying that it is.

Equating homosexuality to racism is no longer the way to go, in my opionion. In fact, the Brown vs. Board decision was based on discrimination against someone based on their "unalterable characteristics," not race, per sea.

I think the clearer course is to continue to amass scientific (genetic, biological, social) evidence that shows that orientation is a innate, unalterable characteristic and to educate people as such. In this way, laws that discriminate will no longer be tolerated.

And even then, for gay people (as there is now for AfAm) people will be free to think whatever they will of them.

Equating racism to homophobia is the only way to go in my opinion. I'm not concerned in the least who it offends and since it appears to offend it's proof-positive that it bears comparison. I'm interested to know why you don't think it's, as you say, 'the way to go' Lex.

I agree that these issues are not seen equally in society at large but I'd have hoped and indeed have expected that they'd have been seen as equal to some of those posters who would have us believe they're more evolved than the general populace. I'm amazed to know that it's often not the case.

Racism will be picked out of context even when its barely (if at all) there. I say I want an explanation for 'homosexuality is sin' and the posting population does a fandango to justify the absurdity of the contention.

Further- if I serve no other purpose on this board other than to have fun on some of the less weighty issues and threads it will be to underscore the inequality of issues which bare equal comparison when there is, effectively, no difference in their import.

Much of what I see is "new bias, old attitude, nothing learned from history". That, for me, is a pretty sad state of affairs.

 

[Lex]

The foundations of racist and homophobic beliefs, IMO, no longer have the same basis, so that an argument that equates them will not have equal power to change people's minds (now).

The underlying tenets of racism were not rooted in the Bible (although the Bible was used to propogate certain actions). As such, they were a bit easier to undo.

The underlying tenets of homophobia are rooted in biblical beliefs. People's faith can not be disproven. So, to me, that implies that we need to not attack their beliefs (which in and of themselves, have no basis).

So, for me, we have to deal with educating people from a different (read: scientific) perspective which allows them to not feel as if we are attacking their faith as much as we are challenging what they know of human development. Then, they will be less defensive and more apt to accept "new" information.

 

[b.c.]

I don't profess to know why Lex doesn't think equating racism to homophobia would be the way to go. I can, however, state what I think he's saying.

While homphobia and racism are equally reprehensible, and morally and ethically should be equally dealt with by the law, I think Lex is saying equating the two for the purposes of accomplishing legislation and legal initiatives is "not the way to go" because society at large (not the members of LPSG or any minute representation of society) has not yet accepted that is equally offensive. We may know it is, but too many don't.

As far as racism being "picked out of context" when it is (or isn't, as suggested) there, this is true of all forms of bigotry.

If I understand Lex correctly, the "way to go" in order to get the kind of laws and legislation enacted to deal with this kind of discrimination, and to change some people's thinking on the subject, is to get "alternate sexualities" (and I use this term to encompass and even broader spectrum than what we are discussing here) legally defined just as race is... an "unalterable characteristic".

[edit: well, as it turns out, Lex's post hit a minute before this reply...so, guess i was right]

 

[B_Stronzo]

The foundations of racist and homophobic beliefs, IMO, no longer have the same basis, so that an argument that equates them will not have equal power to change people's minds (now).

The underlying tenets of racism were not rooted in the Bible (although the Bible was used to propogate certain actions). As such, they were a bit easier to undo.

The underlying tenets of homophobia are rooted in biblical beliefs. People's faith can not be disproven. So, to me, that implies that we need to not attack their beliefs (which in and of themselves, have no basis).

So, for me, we have to deal with educating people from a different (read: scientific) perspective which allows them to not feel as if we are attacking their faith as much as we are challenging what they know of human development. Then, they will be less defensive and more apt to accept "new" information.

When the Bible can legitimize slavery just as it negates homosexuality (Leviticus).. it's all the same to me.

 

[madame_zora]

Well Stronzo, since you addressed me by name, when I answered DOLF'S post, I responded to your remarks. You'll notice, I haven't been addressing you much of late, now have I?

Actually, I think equating homophobia to race is a very good example, I wish I had done it. Yes, they are very much the same, to me. I also find it acceptable for someone to say that they would not date or marry a person "outside their race", and I find it equally acceptable for them to say that they would feel like it would be a sin for them, and separate them from their God.

I know, everyone's dropping dead right now, right?

Probably not. Even with all the time we've had to approach this issue, change happens very slowly. This is just an acknowledgement of reality, nothing more.

Do I wish everyone was completely comfortable with interracial relationships? Sure! But wishin' ain't gettin'. Homosexuality is in its first tenuous steps as a cause at all, there is no need to expect that human beings, who have grown up with concepts of it being wrong are going to instantaneously adapt to this new way of looking at it in a very brief time. We've been dealing with race a good deal longer, and you can see how far we still have to go.

When someone digs deep enough to say that they understand that others will scoff at them for not being more expansive, but in all honesty, this is still how they feel- but they make it clear that they feel it for themselves, and still fully support the rights of others to engage in free and loving relationships with members of the same sex, that is a very big step. Would you prefer he lied, and just went with the crowd, but still harboured some negative feelings he never dealt with? I would not, and the reason is simple- there are a lot more people than you probably realise who feel exactly like that, and they may be struggling to find a place of peace.

I would much rather those people get the message that it's okay for them to be feeling uneasy with this decision, and it's natural. I want them to know that even if they wouldn't suck cock themselves, that other people's right to do so is terribly important. "Live and let live" is a fine stance to take, especially since the desired effect WILL be achieved this way. If our generation can just get to the place where homosexuality becomes a protected class with EEO and our general governmental tenets, personal views will come around in a few more generations. It WON'T happen in our lifetimes, nomatter what we wish, or what we do. I wonder if you even realise how much of our country is still basically segregated? Outside of major cities, it's really rather shocking.

I agree with you on a philosophical level that it should be treated the same, but that's just not a realistic view of what is likely to happen. Homosexuals now are in the same position black people were in in the 60s- would that it were not so. This cause won't be catapulted to the foreground and dealt with in swooping terms any more than any other social issue was, and that's just reality.

It took a lot of white ppl to support the cause for blacks, or a majority would never be achieved. Here, it's going to take a lot of straight ppl to do the same for the gay rights movement, and shooting those down who are really trying to help won't achieve your goals. He said clearly, "it is a sin for ME" but he also spent a paragraph telling you personally that he respected and even envied your loving relationship- how could you NOT get that it isn't a sin for YOU? That's because in the REAL Christian view, YOU are the only one who can determine that. You just don't get to say "sin is sin" and then fight from that stance, because right and wrong ARE different for different people, and someone who IS expansive enough to understand that is a valuable ally, if you choose to make one. Fundies say "sin is sin"- meaning what's wrong for me is wrong for you, and that is THEIR sin of judgement. Still, everyone must set their own personal parameters, and if they make allowances in their personal philosophies not to encumber the rights of other's personal views and lives, that's as much as I'd ask anyone. Live and let live.

 

[Lex]

...If I understand Lex correctly, the "way to go" in order to get the kind of laws and legislation enacted to deal with this kind of discrimination, and to change some people's thinking on the subject, is to get "alternate sexualities" (and I use this term to encompass and even broader spectrum than what we are discussing here) legally defined just as race is... an "unalterable characteristic".

Well, b.c. really got at the gist of why I believe what I believe.

When the Bible can legitimize slavery just as it negates homosexuality (Leviticus).. it's all the same to me.

Wow, what a sad statement, Stronzo. Are all us gay guys the same? All gay women? Are we all the same and can be lumped together? Or do we always ask that we be judged as individuals, similar and dissimilar to both our kind and others somewhat different from us?

Energy spent on challenging the Bible --which contradicts itself ad nauseum-- is to me, better spent on getting people to realize that sexual orientation is an "unalterable characteristic."

 

[madame_zora]

When the Bible can legitimize slavery just as it negates homosexuality (Leviticus).. it's all the same to me.

Yes, I agree. The Bible DOES mention slavery, they are very similar arguments. The not-so-funny thing is that in several places where our modern Bibles use the word "homosexual" (which didn't exist when the Bible was written), in was inserted to replace "temple prostituion" of BOTH genders, since temple prostitues no longer exist. Isn't it disgusting that when we erradicate something nauseating, we just find a new demon?

As for Leviticus, if you are not a practising Jew, it is of no relevance beyond fairy tales. Actually, the same can be said of the whole OT- Jesus came along to say "we can do better". The Bible outlined the society for which it was written, it never said we weren't supposed to grow and evolve- the NT itself is a HUGE evolution from the OT. Slavery still existed there, so it was addressed as it was perceived by a society that still found it acceptable. They were still wrong.

Homosexuality was never an issue for them, which is why Jesus never spoke of it. That didn't stop Paul from inserting his view of sexual immorality to include "men who lie with men", or the translators from inserting "homosexual" for temple prostitues, or the then popular practise of selling slaves into prostitution. The damage done by this is immense.

Don't even get me started on women- there's another fully acceptable comparison. We are STILL not equal. And once again, I find it fine for someone to say they don't feel it's right for women to work outside the home, and they wouldn't have a wife who did so, as long as they don't impede MY right to do so.

 

[B_Stronzo]

Well Stronzo, since you addressed me by name, when I answered DOLF'S post, I responded to your remarks. You'll notice, I haven't been addressing you much of late, now have I?

Huh? Who cares who you're addressing. I don't. This time you addressed me indirectly through dolph. Now I address you. I wasn't paying attention one way or the other because I'm not looking for your responses. Be that as it may, I kind of saw this particular refererence as you speaking directly to me on dolph's behalf.

Six of one half dozen of the other. Either way he's not weighed in yet. So I'll take his mute stance as my own answer.

Actually, I think equating homophobia to race is a very good example, I wish I had done it. Yes, they are very much the same, to me. I also find it acceptable for someone to say that they would not date or marry a person "outside their race", and I find it equally acceptable for them to say that they would feel like it would be a sin for them, and separate them from their God.

I know, everyone's dropping dead right now, right?

No. I'm not. I'm waiting for you to explain so I'll continue to read.

Probably not. Even with all the time we've had to approach this issue, change happens very slowly. This is just an acknowledgement of reality, nothing more.

I repeat Zora I'm wasn't initially addressing the world at large but directly dolph.

Do I wish everyone was completely comfortable with interracial relationships? Sure! But wishin' ain't gettin'. Homosexuality is in its first tenuous steps as a cause at all, there is no need to expect that human beings, who have grown up with concepts of it being wrong are going to instantaneously adapt to this new way of looking at it in a very brief time. We've been dealing with race a good deal longer, and you can see how far we still have to go.

We've 'been dealing with race a lot longer'? Oh. Well that's news. I think homophobia is as age-old (at least in our American society) as race issues.

When someone digs deep enough to say that they understand that others will scoff at them for not being more expansive, but in all honesty, this is still how they feel- but they make it clear that they feel it for themselves, and still fully support the rights of others to engage in free and loving relationships with members of the same sex, that is a very big step. Would you prefer he lied, and just went with the crowd, but still harboured some negative feelings he never dealt with? I would not, and the reason is simple- there are a lot more people than you probably realise who feel exactly like that, and they may be struggling to find a place of peace.

Well that's nicely explained but somehow makes it no less offensive to the homo reading the words.

I would much rather those people get the message that it's okay for them to be feeling uneasy with this decision, and it's natural. I want them to know that even if they wouldn't suck cock themselves, that other people's right to do so is terribly important. "Live and let live" is a fine stance to take, especially since the desired effect WILL be achieved this way. If our generation can just get to the place where homosexuality becomes a protected class with EEO and our general governmental tenets, personal views will come around in a few more generations. It WON'T happen in our lifetimes, nomatter what we wish, or what we do. I wonder if you even realise how much of our country is still basically segregated? Outside of major cities, it's really rather shocking.

Boy oh boy.. where is Webster when we need him to apologize and afford him the same wide berth of understanding as he voiced his views on race in America...

I agree with you on a philosophical level that it should be treated the same, but that's just not a realistic view of what is likely to happen.

Especially so when it's continually reinforced by people as seemingly intelligent as you.

Homosexuals now are in the same position black people were in in the 60s- would that it were not so. This cause won't be catapulted to the foreground and dealt with in swooping terms any more than any other social issue was, and that's just reality.

No.. we're worse off. We never had anyone (to the best of my knowledge) attempting to ammend the Constitution to prevent blacks from marrying for all time.

It took a lot of white ppl to support the cause for blacks, or a majority would never be achieved. Here, it's going to take a lot of straight ppl to do the same for the gay rights movement, and shooting those down who are really trying to help won't achieve your goals. He said clearly, "it is a sin for ME" but he also spent a paragraph telling you personally that he respected and even envied your loving relationship- how could you NOT get that it isn't a sin for YOU?

I said to him and I say to you "double talk". You'd not brook it were it directed at race. There's not a question in my mind.

That's because in the REAL Christian view, YOU are the only one who can determine that. You just don't get to say "sin is sin" and then fight from that stance, because right and wrong ARE different for different people, and someone who IS expansive enough to understand that is a valuable ally, if you choose to make one.

Sure I get to say it. And I do. So Zora are you saying that it's acceptable and 'right' for some people to support slavery if we understand their context as innocuously benign somehow (because it's simply their own 'belief' that people should own other people) and we can consider them a 'valuable ALLY'? That's the inference. I don't see any 'ally' there.

Fundies say "sin is sin"- meaning what's wrong for me is wrong for you, and that is THEIR sin of judgement. Still, everyone must set their own personal parameters, and if they make allowances in their personal philosophies not to encumber the rights of other's personal views and lives, that's as much as I'd ask anyone. Live and let live.

Oddly you don't feel that way about race (I mention for the third time) now do you?


Pure double standard. No matter how you slice it. What is it that escapes you about how you defend a person's 'right' to call homosexuality a sin but use a "take no prisoners" attitude if just the slightest intimation of racial bias is demonstrated? Surely you're aware you're doing it in all this justification rhetoric of yours.

 

[B_Stronzo]

Wow, what a sad statement, Stronzo. Are all us gay guys the same? All gay women? Are we all the same and can be lumped together? Or do we always ask that we be judged as individuals, similar and dissimilar to both our kind and others somewhat different from us?

Of course not Lex any more than all enslaved peoples would be the same.

Energy spent on challenging the Bible --which contradicts itself ad nauseum-- is to me, better spent on getting people to realize that sexual orientation is an "unalterable characteristic."

In case you've forgotten the frame of reference of this discussion (and it appears you have) I will remind you of dolph's statment about homosexuality and sin based in his Scriptural frame of reference (I can only assume) and its genesis in this discussion - much as its taken a wrong turn.

You've accused me in the past of bashing Christians though I am one at least in a social context. So I find it significantly contradictory you'd blast the Bible so directly yourself just now in an open attempt to undo my initial premise. Let's stay on topic please. And the topic is the justification by dolph of "homosexuality is sin". I'm still waiting for him to justify that on a broader plane of reference. So far? Nada.

But do what you will.

 

[Shelby]

The cool thing is - as this board proves - is that some homos are not christiophobic.

 

[B_Stronzo]

The cool thing is - as this board proves - is that some homos are not christiophobic.

Nah.

They can't have me for misconstruing a few random lines from obscure scriptural sources. In fact Christ appears entirely devoid of anything even remotely resembling anti-homosexual reference.

He da man.

 

[Shelby]

He da' man indeed!

I love yo' crazy ass Stronzo.

And I want to marry Zora.




balance and shit

 

[madame_zora]

Oddly you don't feel that way about race (I mention for the third time) now do you?

Yes, I DID address it, you asshole, and YOU quoted it! Check the second block YOU quoted of mine. Nevermind, here it is again:

Actually, I think equating homophobia to race is a very good example, I wish I had done it. Yes, they are very much the same, to me. I also find it acceptable for someone to say that they would not date or marry a person "outside their race", and I find it equally acceptable for them to say that they would feel like it would be a sin for them, and separate them from their God.

Slavery is an action, not a belief. What you continue to refuse to read, although it's been posted many times now, is that NO ONE on this thread is supporting passing legislation against gay marriage. Dolf was talking about his personal view about how he lives his life, but still actively supports gay rights for others. You are an idiot, and your own worst enemy. I don't know how you get along with people in real life. Learn to read, please.

 

[B_Stronzo]

Yes, I DID address it, you asshole, and YOU quoted it! Check the second block YOU quoted of mine. Nevermind, here it is again:

[/b]

Slavery is an action, not a belief. What you continue to refuse to read, although it's been posted many times now, is that NO ONE on this thread is supporting passing legislation against gay marriage. Dolf was talking about his personal view about how he lives his life, but still actively supports gay rights for others. You are an idiot, and your own worst enemy. I don't know how you get along with people in real life. Learn to read, please.

Chill beyotch. You're your own worst enemy. Choose your battles. And for those buying those people on the auction block? They sure as fuck believed it was legit!

And I'll be waiting for ol' dolph when we line up for the next Boston Gay Pride parade. I'll have his tiara handy...

And stop instructing me. Your beliefs are selective to your reality and mood.

Now stop breathing that cuntbreath on me.:wink:

.... oh and I get along just dandy with people in real life. Since we're taking personal pot shots Jana how many times have you gotten a marriage license speaking of getting along??:33:

 

[Shelby]

Truce beyotches?

We all know where y'all can go when you get amped up.

I'm all up for the entertainment but (weirdly) I don't want any of my virtual freinds to suffer.

Nah, bullshit. Have at it.

 

[B_Stronzo]

Truce beyotches?

We all know where y'all can go when you get amped up.

I'm all up for the entertainment but (weirdly) I don't want any of my virtual freinds to suffer.

Nah, bullshit. Have at it.

Nopes.. It's tedious.

She just "don't" like getting as good as she gives. So she got some back.

It was dolph's response I wanted and he's silent as the grave.

Btw? Love yo crazy ass too my man. :wink:

 

[dolf250]

It is 1:30 and I just got home from my Opa's 85th. I really need to get to sleep (early morning) so I do not have as long to respond as I would like, so it may lack detail.

Dolph? Since you think homosexuality is sin- as you've stated twice over now - is that 'sin' relegated only to believers and does that designation of 'sin' relate only to Christians like yourself who see it as such and not people like me who don't? Again? "Do I get a 'free pass' from St. Peter at the Pearly Gates" coz I think being homosexual isn't a sin?

You want to know if you get a free pass? Look to God, do not look to a fellow wretched man. Here is a previous quote for you.

Perhaps I am still immature and lagging and holding Christianity back, but it is my interpretation and as I have said, it is not my job to judge what is a sin for others, just for me.

Now you are a fairly intelligent man and I am surprised that you could not follow this statement to it's logical conclusion. Perhaps (though I do not know) you are a stronger Christian than I. Perhaps the fact that you have found freedom makes you stronger. I will not say that you ARE, but you MAY be.

I almost find it funny enough to laugh out loud. back when I used to be judgmental I constantly had people ask how I can judge them. The regular question was “are you God? How can you judge what is sin?” That is a fair question, and looking at Matthew 7:4-6 it says “Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. 6Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”

Sorry for using the KJV. Anyhow, I took it to heart and do not judge people. I am a little too busy trying to pull the bloody beam from my eye. The question was usually asked when I judged something to be a sin. Now I am asked by you to judge something as NOT being a sin. Am I God? Is my judgment now considered the gold standard and infallible?

Here's my most simplified question to dolph (remember I said dolph);

****************************************************

dolph? Do you think homosexuality as it applies to humankind is a sin?

****************************************************

I am now mature enough to admit that I do not know what is OR IS NOT sin for you or for humankind.

Now a quote from you (one of the things that you wrote that I most agree with.)

In this divided world it's high time we learned to respect one another for our DIFFERENCES as well as our commonalities. God's got better things to do than to concern Himself with what two consenting adults do in their bedroom.[/FONT]
[/FONT]

It is too bad you did not catch me a few years back. 5, 6 or 7 years ago you will find my name on petitions to save the traditional definition of marriage. I would never consider signing one now. 4 years ago I would have hesitated signing one but was still a great judge of others. A few years back I voluntarily resigned my seat on the supreme court. Now you ask me to judge you and judge what is sin and I say too damned bad. You want judgment- look elsewhere.