Anti-gays hide their bias behind the Bible

Sara - posted on 06/02/2010 ( 59 moms have responded )

9,313

50

586

Anti-gays hide their bias behind the Bible
By LZ Granderson, Special to CNN

•Scripture says marrying a woman who isn't a virgin is sin, he writes, so why no outrage?
Editor's note: LZ Granderson is a senior writer and columnist for ESPN The Magazine and ESPN.com, and has contributed to ESPN's Sports Center, Outside the Lines and First Take. He is a 2010 nominee and the 2009 winner of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) award for online journalism as well as the 2008 National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) winner for column writing.

Grand Rapids, Michigan (CNN) -- My partner and I recently took our mothers to Las Vegas for a week for Mother's Day. It's not our favorite city, but for a pair of 60-somethings who can sit at the penny slot machines for hours, it was heaven.

When they were not being robbed by one-armed bandits, we saw a couple of shows and had some amazing dinners. We also enjoyed trying to figure out which women were hookers and which were just dressed like one. And of course saying "public drunkenness" is pretty redundant after 11 a.m.

But that's why we go to Vegas, right? Life on the Strip. What happens here stays here ... and all that good stuff. By the end of our trip, the four of us had seen just about everything you would expect to see in a place nicknamed Sin City -- except for faith-based protesters.

Funny, a week of walking up and down the main artery of the self-proclaimed heart of moral debauchery, and nary a Bible verse could be heard. In the many times I've been to Las Vegas over the years, I've never seen a religious protest. And yet let a midsize city try to add sexual orientation to its municipal nondiscrimination policy or a high school senior bring a same-gender date to prom, and you would think it was the apocalypse.

The Bible doesn't state that one sin is greater than another, but you wouldn't know that by counting the number of comments that quote Scripture on news stories about the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community. Compare them with how many address murder, or the environment, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and well, the word "hypocrite" comes to mind.

I am never ashamed to say I follow the teachings of Christ, but I am not always proud to say I am a Christian. That's because I am bothered by the continual mutilation of my religion's basic principle of love by the extremists in my religion who construct a hierarchy of sin -- which does not exist in the Bible -- for no other reason than to protect their own prejudices.

We've seen this throughout this country's history, and perhaps with the exception of abortion, no current issue illustrates this transgression more so than gay rights.

Some conservatives might attend church only twice a year, but ask their opinion about gays in the military. They can find Leviticus 18:22 blindfolded, handcuffed and sinking underwater: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is an abomination."

Rarely do you hear them mention the other "sexual sins" in Leviticus, such as making love to your wife while she's menstruating. There are some people who say Jesus freed us from the old laws with one side of their mouths while using old laws to condemn GLBT people with the other.

Many turn to the destruction of Sodom as proof against homosexuality. But the King James version lists fornication, greed and lying as sins committed in Sodom as well, and never specifies which particular sin caused God's wrath.

In fact, the word "Sodomite," which some like to toss around as an anti-gay insult, is a mistranslation and is not used in the original Hebrew text. The actual word is "kadesh," and it does not refer to the city, its inhabitants or a specific sexual act. It refers to the occult male prostitutes in the shrines, just as "kedesha" refers to the female equivalent. Neither word reflects sexual orientation.

It may be convenient to say Sodom was all about homosexual people, but historically and scripturally, that isn't accurate. This is why I, like so many other Christians, do not follow a literal interpretation of the Bible.

I'm not ducking Leviticus, I'd just rather go directly to the source. Concepts get lost in translation, and we all know history is filled with influential people and institutions that have defined religion for the masses based upon their own selfish needs. For example, King Henry VIII, the man who authorized the first English translation of the Bible, was married six times and essentially had the British Empire separate from the Roman Catholic Church so he could divorce in peace. Then there's King James, whose own writings suggest he was secretly gay or bisexual, according to historians such as Michael B. Young and Caroline Bingham.

He was directed to marry for the sake of the throne before authorizing the version of the Bible that swapped "kadesh" for "Sodomite" in the first place. Hmm, where have we heard that story -- closeted gay politician with an anti-gay policy -- before?

But theology and history aside, it is clear from the lack of consistent reaction to and organization against the litany of other present-day sins that a large number of people who call themselves Christians do not follow the literal interpretation of the Bible either. So, if some of us are picking and choosing which Bible verses to follow, why are so many opting to pick and choose verses that appear to condemn homosexuality and not the one against marrying a woman who isn't a virgin?

If sin is sin, why such Christian angst directed at the GLBT community and not the greedy corporate community, which, quite frankly, has more direct impact on the average person's life?

The answer is simple: Those who are uncomfortable or fearful of someone who is different from them sometimes hide behind religion to gain power, nurture their ignorance and justify their prejudices.

It's no different from Christian slave owners using Scriptures to feel better about enslaving Africans, or men pointing to Jezebel as a way to keep women out of the clergy, or Bob Jones University picking verses that supported the school's ban on interracial dating.

The extremists aren't fighting gay rights because of sin and honoring Leviticus 18:22. If they were, then where are the faith-based organizations spending millions trying to make adultery a crime punishable by death, as suggested in Leviticus 20:10? Is 18:22 more true than 20:10, or does it just support a more common and entrenched prejudice?

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of LZ Granderson.


Thoughts?

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Isobel - posted on 06/11/2010

9,849

0

286

the same way you wait for scientific proof of a "gay gene", I would like to hear one logical reason why anybody would CHOOSE to be ostracized by their family and society in general. Why anybody would CHOOSE to be ridiculed, kicked out of their church, beaten, kicked out of their home, even murdered for their sexual preference is beyond me.

Sara - posted on 06/03/2010

9,313

50

586

Out of curiosity what would you say is the difference between a personal conviction and bias? And what exactly would make someone prioritize opposition to homosexuality above greed, the accumulation of wealth, failing to help those in need, divorce, or any of the other things Jesus actually spoke about other than antigay bias?

I guess what I am looking for is the why in that situation. What makes someone prioritize and fixate on that one alleged sin to the point that they feel they have any say what kind of relationships consenting adults have. What makes gluttony, and divorce and all that other stuff par for the course, or something you leave between the sinner and God, but makes homosexuality or more importantly the recognition of the civil rights of homosexuals somehow beyond the pale?

Johnny - posted on 06/12/2010

8,686

26

322

One of my good friends is a straight woman. She's been in a series of terrible relationships with men, no good losers, sexual abusers, emotionally vacant, complete idiots, I could go on. She's realized that there is just something about her psychological state that leads her to be attracted to losers and for them to be attracted to her. She decided that until she can figure out what the heck it is that leads her to constantly make mistakes in the men she is choosing, she will stop dating. She's been celibate now for 3 years. Difficult choice but entirely possible.

Her best friend in the whole wide world is a lesbian. And quite a good looking woman with a wonderful wry sense of humor and loads of fun to be around. They have lived together several times between my friend's relationships. My friend loves her best friend very much, acknowledges the good influence she is, enjoys her company thoroughly and even likes living with her. But she would never choose to try to enter into a relationship with her.

Why?

Because she can't just CHOOSE to be attracted to the same sex out of the blue when every bone in her body tells her that she is attracted to men. Any more than one of my closest friends growing up could have CHOSEN not to be gay. Trust me, he tried really really really hard. Being gay made his teen years a living hell. I can not count the number of times they beat the shit out of him until he was in the hospital, his father kicked him out of the house as soon as his mother died, and he was too afraid to go to school so he dropped out and hid at home. Kids were teasing him about being gay when we were in grade 3.

"One logical reason why anyone would choose to be ostracized by their family and society in general? Well maybe its for the same reason that paedophiles go round molesting kids. Obviously the urge is more important to them than their family and society in general. I couldnt care less what anyone does in their private life that doesnt affect me or anyone i care about but the constant harping on about they cant help it and they wouldnt choose to be like that is a load of rubbish. They have a sexual urge which they act on to make themselves happy."

Pedophile = Homosexual? Actually pedophile = straight man or straight woman. Statistically speaking. Perhaps you need to do some more "book learnin'" on this subject.

Johnny - posted on 06/11/2010

8,686

26

322

Yeah, none of that clears up the whole "Christians are hypocrites" thing for me. Of course people who are opposed to homosexual marriage will utilize the bible to defend their voting against it. That is exactly the point. They are asking non-believers to live by the rules of their holy book. Christians would not want to have their churches forced to perform divorces despite the fact that they are currently state sanctioned. That is really the equivalent in this situation. They are using religious reasons to oppose a state institution. Unless marriages could only be performed specifically for Christians in a church, it is hypocritical.

Amie - posted on 06/11/2010

6,596

20

412

That's where things get muddled Christa. You see it as asking for acceptance, the other side sees it as fighting for an equal right.

This conversation has been closed to further comments

59 Comments

View replies by

Pamela - posted on 06/15/2010

1,496

104

45

Here's my overall view on the whole subject:

Love God. Love people. Period.

Ava - posted on 06/15/2010

307

31

12

Couldn't have said it more beautifully myself, Sara. I agree with you 100% from an Atheist but religiously-tolerant perspective.

Cyndel - posted on 06/15/2010

754

24

54

Ok, LZ jumped around so much that he really didn't make a cohesive argument for anything. It just sounds like the normal bashing of Christians, though I will admit that legalistic Christians need some bashing as they are rediculous. The only thing I can say is this article was written by someone who knows verses of the bible, but has no understanding of the bible.

Johnny - posted on 06/13/2010

8,686

26

322

Well, probably not obsolete, but they will be hanging out with the people who still think that the earth is flat.

Jenny - posted on 06/13/2010

4,426

16

129

Ah I see. I assumed it was coming from your perspective.



Yes, I think we are seeing in this day and age the fall of modern life based on ancient writings. Modern Christians are changing in droves to support equal rights for all. Those are the true Christians, the ones who live a life of love. They are also the evidence that hiding behind a book is still bigotry. They have discovered they can be even more godly by supporting a culture of acceptance. We'll still have those clinging to their misguided beliefs but with every generation their numbers will slide until they will be, rightly, obsolete.

Isobel - posted on 06/13/2010

9,849

0

286

sorry...that was a quote from Google...Why can't I own a Canadian...I think it explains exactly how valid Leviticus is as an argument for anything.

Isobel - posted on 06/13/2010

9,849

0

286

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

Suzette - posted on 06/12/2010

1,086

29

0

@Carol (partially lol),



Thank you for talking about your friend! Before my husband I was your female friend as well. I had many failed relationships from hell (so to speak) just as she did. I had lesbian friends who were wonderful, before I moved and lost touch. They are gorgeous, both inside and out. I also had my experimental experiences both in high school and after high school. I just didn't stick with them because I found that I'm not attracted to women in that sense. I don't know about every other woman, but I do know that most of the women that I know have had at least ONE experience with another woman in their life. Whether it's just a romantic kiss or something more. Most women that I know of have experimented in their life. Some of those women have found that it is their calling to be a Lesbian or Bisexual. Others tried it and found that it's not their calling, they are purely heterosexual, as I found I'm heterosexual. My husband knows about my past experiences, we're completely honest with one another, and he's completely comfortable with my experiences. I know that I'm not going to hell because of whatever sin someone believes I committed. I'm also not going to ask for forgiveness because someone else believes that I should do so. My mother also knows about my past experiences. She believes in God, she also believes in accepting people for who they are, and she would've accepted me with open arms regardless of whether I was lesbian, bisexual, or heterosexual. My Nana, a devout Catholic, is the same way. Because I had two experiences, does that make me bisexual? I don't think so.



"One logical reason why anyone would choose to be ostracized by their family and society in general? Well maybe its for the same reason that paedophiles go round molesting kids. Obviously the urge is more important to them than their family and society in general. I couldnt care less what anyone does in their private life that doesnt affect me or anyone i care about but the constant harping on about they cant help it and they wouldnt choose to be like that is a load of rubbish. They have a sexual urge which they act on to make themselves happy."



I agree with Carol on this. Before people make comments on things like this research should take place. Just because one or two pedophiles have been reported to commit acts with the same sex, it does NOT mean that they are all homosexual. To group them together is wrong.



(Sorry, had to add)



Carol, I missed your last post as you posted the link while I was posting this... LOL! I know a few Christians who are very accepting of the LGBT community, and many other religions as well. (including devout Roman-Catholics.) I love knowing that there are so many religious people out there that have their eyes opened. I hope that some day there will be more. =)

Johnny - posted on 06/12/2010

8,686

26

322

Please take a look at an interpretation of the bible that is accepting of homosexuality:

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosex...

There are quite a large number of Christians and faith groups that do not believe that the bible can be interpreted to condemn homosexuality as the word of God. Thus the original post stands. Some Christians CHOOSE TO BELIEVE that the bible condemns homosexuality. Others feel differently. That seems to be more of a choice to me.

Suzette - posted on 06/12/2010

1,086

29

0

@Christa,



“@Suzette, I appreciate the link but the bible is clear through out. It may not mention it, but it's clear about no sex before marriage and the a marriage is between a man and a women. Plus God's anger towards that in the Old Testament didn't just go away. Also I'm not judging anyone because that is left to Jesus. And they will be forgiven, but they must realize what they are doing is wrong and ask for forgiveness.”



In other words, only your interpretation of the Bible is correct? If it doesn’t mention it, then how can it be that homosexuality is just flat out, clear cut, wrong, and those that are homosexual are going to hell in a hand basket? Because it is your interpretation along with others of whatever faith? I find that extremely hard to believe and extremely arrogant. (You/Your = generally speaking.) You are judging the LGBT community based upon your interpretation of the Bible about sin and what is right and what is wrong.



So you’re stating that you follow both the Old Testament and the New Testament? If God’s anger didn’t go away to all that was stated in the Old Testament then are you not also committing sins against all that in the Old Testament or is it going to be okay if you just ask for forgiveness for all the sins you commit with all that is spoken in the Old Testament? This is where I get confused with people who only follow what they want to follow when it comes to the Old and the New. I’m not accusing you of being one of those, I’m asking for clarification.







“@Iris, Yes. God MUST be taken on faith. We SHOULD be able to prove that a "gay gene" exists. We've mapped the entire genome, it should be something we can find. We've found genes that suggest you will get breast cancer among other things and yet they have not found one conclusive piece of evidence to links a gene to your orientation. This is why I believe it is a choice.”



Breast cancer does NOT equal a gay gene. If that is the case then breast cancer should equal a heterosexual gene as well.

Lucy - posted on 06/12/2010

591

33

23

Current research suggests that sexuality (in particular homosexuality, as this was the focus of most studies) is a result of a combination of genetic, biological, hormonal and environmental factors.

No scientist has claimed to have discovered THE gay gene, just as an individual gene hasn't been discovered to explain many other aspects of the human make up- a preference for certain foods, or natural aptitude in sports or arts, for example. But, it is widely accepted that these things can be hereditary.

Although not conclusive, a study in the late nineties discovered that homosexuality in several sets of brothers included in the study could be linked to chromosomal behaviour and resulting hormonal changes within their mothers whilst they were in utero. The theory was that the condition meant the likelihood of subsequent sons of the same woman being homosexual went up considerably, and this, indeed, played out to be correct in the majority of cases.

Whilst I appreciate that the scientific evidence certainly isn't bullet proof, it makes sense that it is something that the individual cannot adjust, given the persecution many face in the light of their homosexuality. It certainly beats the argument that people choose to be gay, having sex with people they are apparently not really attracted to, just to annoy the rest of society. There is no scientific or common sense evidence to support that idea!

Christa - posted on 06/12/2010

3,876

14

209

@Suzette, I appreciate the link but the bible is clear through out. It may not mention it, but it's clear about no sex before marriage and the a marriage is between a man and a women. Plus God's anger towards that in the Old Testament didn't just go away. Also I'm not judging anyone because that is left to Jesus. And they will be forgiven, but they must realize what they are doing is wrong and ask for forgiveness.

@Iris, Yes. God MUST be taken on faith. We SHOULD be able to prove that a "gay gene" exists. We've mapped the entire genome, it should be something we can find. We've found genes that suggest you will get breast cancer among other things and yet they have not found one conclusive piece of evidence to links a gene to your orientation. This is why I believe it is a choice.

ME - posted on 06/12/2010

2,978

18

193

Thanks Suzette! I've always wondered why Christians, who say that many of the laws of the old testament no longer apply, refuse to allow 10% of the human population their rights based on old testament "suggestions"! Sounds incredibly hypocritical to me.

Also, I've known MANY individuals who are part of the LGBT community. Several of them knew they were different by age 5 or 6 (when they started school, and hanging around other children their age). This cannot possibly have ANYTHING to do with the sexual urges of any adult, but rather with GENETIC differences! I wish some of the "Christians" who adamantly deny individuals their human rights would check out the episode of Vanguard I posted below...then try to tell me that their bias against the Gay Community is not about Human Rights!

Lucy - posted on 06/12/2010

591

33

23

Susanne- "They have a sexual urge which they act on to make themselves happy".

Sounds like just about everybody, to me.

What makes you think this makes them any different from the urges of a heterosexual?

Do you choose to be straight, or do you have heterosexual urges that tell you it is an in built part of who you are?

Why anyone should be denied the right to express their natural sexuality is beyond me, whether gay or straight. To claim that you know the origin and nature of someone else's sexuality, and to deem it less genuine or profound than your own, seems somewhat arrogant to me.

Iris - posted on 06/12/2010

1,993

29

51

"@Laura, I knew someone would bring that up. Because I believe this is a choice I don't equate it to race or gender issues. Those are biological traits and people should not be treated differently. Homosexuality is a behavior, not a genetic trait, therefore it is treated like any other behavior. Until Science can prove that it is a biological trait, and I don't believe it will, that argument is lost."



Interesting Christa.... But you believe in God even though it has never been proven that such thing as God exists?

Iris - posted on 06/12/2010

1,993

29

51

The difference between molestation and gay people is quite enormous. One is FORCING a child into illegal sexual act while the other can easily find a partner which is both willing and of legal age. I will never understand how anyone can compare the two.

[deleted account]

One logical reason why anyone would choose to be ostracized by their family and society in general? Well maybe its for the same reason that paedophiles go round molesting kids. Obviously the urge is more important to them than their family and society in general. I couldnt care less what anyone does in their private life that doesnt affect me or anyone i care about but the constant harping on about they cant help it and they wouldnt choose to be like that is a load of rubbish. They have a sexual urge which they act on to make themselves happy.

Suzette - posted on 06/11/2010

1,086

29

0

Christa,

"And the “don’t eat shellfish” or pig etc, those are Old Testament. The New Testament created a new covenant; you no longer have to do “works” to get to heaven."

If this is the case, why judge them at all by making statements about condoning their lifestyle 'choices'? Furthermore, how is it that you can know, with any level of certainty, that they are making any type of choice in their sexuality? If there is no need to have to do "works" to get into heaven, then that is stating God will forgive them, if they are sinning. It should be left to God, and God alone, to judge them for any actions, not any followers.

Also, it sounds as though you do not follow the Old Testament, but the New Testament. (I apologize if that is not the case and I misunderstood.) If it is the case, here's something you might find interesting.

http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodica...

Johnny - posted on 06/11/2010

8,686

26

322

Personally, I'm waiting for the straight gene. I want to understand why the heck are all of us putting up with men?

Christa - posted on 06/11/2010

3,876

14

209

@Laura, I knew someone would bring that up. Because I believe this is a choice I don't equate it to race or gender issues. Those are biological traits and people should not be treated differently. Homosexuality is a behavior, not a genetic trait, therefore it is treated like any other behavior. Until Science can prove that it is a biological trait, and I don't believe it will, that argument is lost.

With that I leave you. . . . :-)

Christa - posted on 06/11/2010

3,876

14

209

@Suzette Interesting, I thought it was illegal everywhere. :-)

I don't want to go down this road again so I'll leave with this. We all vote based off our beliefs/values no matter where they come from. This is not the religious community trying to force our beliefs on anyone anymore then it is the LGBT community and it's supporters trying to force their beliefs on the religious (and anyone else who is against it). It's a behavior that I believe is wrong and I won't support anything saying otherwise. Just as you wouldn't vote for something that you thought was wrong. Again what someone does in the privacy of their own home is their business but when you come out asking for acceptance you are going to hear what people think of your choices (and yes I do believe it’s a choice so the “human rights violation” argument doesn’t hold any water for me). If you (general) don't like the answer then quit asking.

To get back to the OP it’s not hypocrisy, but it is the only behavior that we are currently voting on. If there was some sort of legislation (I’m not sure what it would be) on pre marital sex, or promiscuity, or anything else of the same weight you would have a similar opposition from the Christians. One last thing, there are different “levels” of sins. Without getting into the entire theology of the Bible . . . there are day to day sins, telling a lie, hitting you sister in anger, etc. These we all do everyday and no matter how hard we try we will never be perfect. Then there are lifestyle sins, homosexuality, promiscuity, premarital sex, etc. These are worse because you (general) are making a choice everyday to live in a sinful manner. You are choosing everyday, purposefully, to sin against God. And the “don’t eat shellfish” or pig etc, those are Old Testament. The New Testament created a new covenant; you no longer have to do “works” to get to heaven. You don’t have to sacrifice lambs anymore either. Jesus was the final lamb and therefore much of that is not needed, though I think some of them are good ways to live your life if you choose, but it’s not worth getting all worked up about.

Anyway there’s too much to the Christian theology to completely explain it in this thread or any thread for that matter, but I wish you all would look more into it before you start spouting about how hypocritical Christians are. But I’m sure none of you will and we will have this same discussion many more times. ;-)

Isobel - posted on 06/11/2010

9,849

0

286

They are not asking you to vote for their sin...they are asking the courts to recognize that you have no right to vote in regards to their lifestyle.

The same way that Americans did not vote on whether or not black people could ride on the front of the bus...or whether women were indeed "persons".

You believe it's a sin...so don't do it. You're not allowed to tell me that because YOU believe it's a sin, I can't do it...that's insane.

And for the record, I don't necessarily believe that Christians are hypocrites...I think that gay-hating bigots are...and that has NOTHING to do with Christianity.

Suzette - posted on 06/11/2010

1,086

29

0

@Christa,

"Actually here in the US cousins can't marry. I'm not sure how far apart the relation has to be before it's legal."

Cousins can marry in the U.S., I believe even First cousins if I remember correctly. I only know that because when hubby and I were looking at where to get married (he's military) we were also looking at what the laws were and what we'd need. Here's the website for the different states that allow cousins to marry.
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4...

"We are all allowed to marry under the current law. While you can rationalize to yourself why all those other limitations are valid, that is EXACTLY how Christians can appose gay marriage. It is a valid limitation in my eyes. Try to see it that way."

While we are all allowed to marry under current law, the LGBT community would have to go against who they are (not who they chose to be) to get married.

I also believe that all religions, not just Christians, need to learn to be more tolerant. They all ask for tolerance of their chosen religion but refuse to give tolerance to others. They also need to remember that their religion is not the law, what they choose to do in their free time with their God and their Bible should not be forced upon others in the law.

Krista - posted on 06/11/2010

12,562

16

847

They are asking non-believers to live by the rules of their holy book.

Good point, Carol. This would be as though Muslims living in America tried to legally restrict other Americans' rights, using the Qu'ran as a justification. People would FREAK.

Amie - posted on 06/11/2010

6,596

20

412

For clarification I think it needs to be 2nd cousins, I'm not entirely sure but I know cousins.

I do but it's also why I put the sentence at the very end of my last post.

"I don't agree with it but it was their right too."

Individual people don't need to agree on every issue. You don't even need to accept that others are the way they are. You do need to respect it as an individuals right.

It's not like we're talking about something that is impeding on other's rights. It is their own individual rights to marry or not marry as they see fit that is the problem. They do not have that right and they deserve it.

It's not even the gay issue at all for me. It is about tolerance. Religious people as a whole cry for acceptance and tolerance of "their way" a lot. They will not extend that same tolerance of others though. I really don't care if it something you (general) can accept but at least be tolerant and respect the fact that they are grown adults. They can make these decisions, and should be allowed to do so, for themselves.

Christa - posted on 06/11/2010

3,876

14

209

Actually here in the US cousins can't marry. I'm not sure how far apart the relation has to be before it's legal.



I'm really not going to get into this again, I just wanted to comment on the whole "Christians are hypocrites" thing. While you can rationalize to yourself why all those other limitations are valid, that is EXACTLY how Christians can appose gay marriage. It is a valid limitation in my eyes. Try to see it that way.

Amie - posted on 06/11/2010

6,596

20

412

That's not entirely true Christa, there are cousins that can legally get married. It pertains to immediate family.

Consenting adults, well sure they are consenting adults. I do not understand what a person's sex has to do with any of it. It is no ones business. You're still marrying a human. No child of the union would be at risk of being born with issues (which is what the no family aspect is about). No one is asking to marry a kid, though even children can get married so long as their parents consent to it. I know of a couple who got married when they were 14. Both sets of parents signed off on it. I'd never do it for my children and I don't agree with it but it was their right too.

Christa - posted on 06/11/2010

3,876

14

209

You're right, that is where the problem is. I see it as we all have the same rights, they want an additional one. We are all allowed to marry under the current law, but there are specific parameters we must follow, must be of consenting age, must be of opposite sex, must not be related etc. If you want to go outside of those parameters you are asking for a special privilege or an additional right. You are asking for acceptance of your chosen way of life. IMO

Christa - posted on 06/11/2010

3,876

14

209

At risk of opening a can of worms. . . . . I don't see any hypocrisy. Christians never claim to be perfect and we are all sinners. The difference here is the LGBT community is asking people to vote in favor of their sin. That's all this is. Nobody is running around trying to outlaw homosexuality, Christians just will not vote in acceptance of it. Just as Christians wouldn't vote in acceptance of promiscuity, sex before marriage, gluttony, etc. Believe me if there was some way we could outlaw some of these behaviors I'd be all for it, but we can't. We can't control what people do with their free time. The reason this is an issue is because the LGBT community makes it an issue. If they would quit pushing this marriage stuff and just go about their business, all this would stop. I think most people are ok with granting them legal privileges if that's all they want. But it's not they want the world to agree that what they are doing is ok and even if the marriage thing or DADT goes through that will not change peoples minds about that behavior.



The only hypocrisy I can see is divorce, but that's done and I think forcing people to stay together legally would cause more harm then good.



One last thing, and I’m not going to get into a big debate about homosexuality, but the bible is very clear on this behavior. It’s not ONE verse in Leviticus or anywhere else. It is a common thread throughout that bible. If others want to interpret it their own way, fine, but I believe the bible is the word of God and isn’t open for societal shifts of convenience.

[deleted account]

Religion is there to hide behind so you can do what you want then say its ok ive found god im forgiven, im not accountable for my actions. Reality take responsibility for your own life, stand by your own convictions and get on with life without hiding behind a book.

Carolee - posted on 06/07/2010

21,950

17

585

The "Christians" tend to only harp on about certain texts from the bible because those are the ones that 'prove' that it's okay to hate and discriminate those that they want to hate because they are different. They don't mention the other thousands of things that we're not 'supposed' to do, because a lot of those are things in which they enjoy participating.



This is why I believe what I do. If you feel the need to constantly let people know that you are a "Christian", you probably aren't. "Real Christians" actually LIVE like they are Christians, and don't use the title to try to force their views on other people. "Real Christians" are actually accepting of others (which does not mean that you have to LIKE them), no matter whether they disagree with them or not.

Iris - posted on 06/04/2010

1,993

29

51

I think it would be quite funny seeing soccer players running after a big orange balloon (that's what soccer balls look like underneath the leather) I wonder if Beckham could bend that one... it would even be funnier if it was windy ;)

Isobel - posted on 06/04/2010

9,849

0

286

(footballs are made from pig and we're not allowed to touch dead pig stuff ;P)

Isobel - posted on 06/04/2010

9,849

0

286

Don't forget that we are not allowed to wear two different types of fabric at the same time, or play football ;P

and I certainly hope that divorce will be against the law soon...consistency right?

La - posted on 06/04/2010

0

0

63

I am against religion for reasons like this. Many of the "followers" are hypocrits in some form.

Lucy - posted on 06/04/2010

591

33

23

This is real personal irritation for me, and I'm always harping on about it in threads about homosexuality.

There are loads of things in the bible considered sins, such as eating shellfish, women wearing gold jewellery and a dwarf being allowed to enter a holy place (?!) but nobody pickets seafood restaurants or jewellers.

Just as the writer suggests, people who know their poisonous views are not easily justifiable will find an external source to justify it for them, in this case the bible.

It makes me so cross, especially for genuine Christians who are made to look foolish and lacking in compassion by these people.

Amie - posted on 06/04/2010

6,596

20

412

A personal conviction is when you believe something personally (as in you yourself) to be true. Regardless of how unlikely or unbelievable it may be to some. Like believing in God. That debate will go on forever because neither side can prove he does exist or not. Some have a personal conviction (belief) that he does. Others do not.

A bias is an influence in your thinking (whether intentional or not) based on your personal convictions, life style, experiences, etc. So even if a person believes they are being unbiased, they may very well be without knowing it.

^^ Is that what you were trying to say Mary?

[deleted account]

" Those who are uncomfortable or fearful of someone who is different from them sometimes hide behind religion to gain power, nurture their ignorance and justify their prejudices. "

This stuck out for me...

ME - posted on 06/04/2010

2,978

18

193

That is an interesting question Sara...Possibly a whole other topic, but I'm gonna have a go at it anyway...I think a Bias is easy to recognize; but a personal conviction...that's the tough one. If the belief or idea that is central to your personal conviction is both logically coherent (consistent) with the rest of your world view and socially responsible, I think that qualifies as a personal conviction rather than a bias. I think an individual can have a bias they are unaware of, and believe it is part of a personal conviction. For example, if you believe that all people are created equal, but incorrectly define personhood, then some people will be left out, and rather than a conviction in equality, you have a bias against a group of people...not sure if I'm being totally clear...

Shelley - posted on 06/03/2010

435

0

34

A personal conviction is about me and a bias is about everyone else.
I think you bring up some great points. The Answer: I don't know we as christians are sinners. It is my experience that
Christians don't hate homosexuals We want to be kind and accepting of them. There are always extreme's. i would like to apologise to anyone who has been treated badly as this is not what our faith is about. I do however have to try to the best of my ability to follow the teachings of the bible
Not all Homosexuals are the same not all Christians are the same not all Mothers are the same.

ME - posted on 06/03/2010

2,978

18

193

My young Christian College students have interesting reactions to this topic...most are homophobic, and are "grossed out by" gay people, but are willing to admit that they cannot see any legal reason NOT to allow them to marry, etc. They just wish that "they would keep it in their own bedrooms" and not "shove it down peoples' throats"...I think this points to exactly what this author was saying...It is still (somewhat) acceptable to be homophobic and anti-gay, so people take out their moral outrage about a lot of issues on the ONE that it is acceptable to be against...anyone who truly understands the teachings of JC tho, would know that the treatment of the LGBT community in Western society, and in particular by those who call themselves Christians (and I know NOT ALL Christians act this way) is the furthest thing from what Jesus intended!

Lady - posted on 06/03/2010

2,136

73

221

Yes but you can't put down someones way of life because the bible tells you it's wrong when in fact you don't follow the word of the bible to the letter yourself - general you - I don't know how you personally live your life!

Shelley - posted on 06/03/2010

435

0

34

When I say that "Im a Christian", I am not shouting that "I am clean living". Im whispering 'I was lost, but now Im found & forgiven". When I say "I am a Christian" Im not holier than thou, Im just a sinner who received Gods good grace, somehow!

Suzette - posted on 06/02/2010

1,086

29

0

I may not agree with why he wrote it, but I do agree with what he's saying. From what I gather this is something that CNN published due to the DADT and the conservatives and all that jazz. I don't believe that all conservatives are religious freaks with an agenda geared based upon their religion. In fact, I believe there is much more for wanting to keep the DADT policy in tact. That's an entirely different debate though.

I do agree with what he is saying, when I am debating with someone over religion and they bring the GLBT community up talking about sin and punishment and how they're wrong, etc. I always wonder why it is they leave out other verses of the Bible. I'm agnostic, but I have read the Bible before, it just doesn't make sense to me why people do this.

Johnny - posted on 06/02/2010

8,686

26

322

Exactly! I completely agree. I love it when you point out that not all Christians agree on the "gay-hating" stuff and the bigots suggest that those people aren't "real" Christians. Apparently engaging in judgment and hypocrisy while wearing poly-cotton blends (Leviticus 19:19) is what it takes to make a "real" Christian while demonstrating love of others does not pass muster.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms