LGBT rights discussion

[bldavis]

dam skye, you beat me to it!

[tullock]

The only punishment that guy deserves is to see happily married same sex couples happily raising happy children. Just because he is a monster doesn't mean that those of us that can see him as such should also become monsters.

Not that i wouldnt kill the shit out of anyone who was kidnapping children, and may whatever non christian God they worship have mercy on their eternal soul, because my christian one doesnt preach the hatemongering that has been going on.

[Levantine]

The only punishment that guy deserves is to see happily married same sex couples happily raising happy children. Just because he is a monster doesn't mean that those of us that can see him as such should also become monsters.

Not that i wouldnt kill the shit out of anyone who was kidnapping children, and may whatever non christian God they worship have mercy on their eternal soul, because my christian one doesnt preach the hatemongering that has been going on.

I wholeheartedly agree, the best part of that is that seeing happily married gay couples with happy children would be more torturous than anything else that could have been done to him. I'm probably not a great person.

[Nikachelle]

Except that they'll remain forever convinced that the kids are unhappy. They'll see what they want to see, basically.

[Fivelives]

Problem with that is the audience. If he was just Joe Schmoe from down the block, it wouldn't be an issue - BUT, he's a "respected" figure with an audience of around 180 million people listening to his hatemongering.

[bldavis]

i guess all that can be done is wait until someone actually kidnaps a legally adopted/AI birthed child from a gay couple and claims this guy said it was right

[Skye1013]

[Melathys]

[Fivelives]

A lot of people bring up the Leviticus quote, but honestly - didn't Jesus himself say that he was the breaking of the old covenant and the forging of a new one? I'm a bit rusty on my Bible-ese, but I'm pretty sure he mentioned something along those lines. Which in turn would mean that Leviticus hasn't applied since Jesus came on the scene.

However, he also said something along the lines of "what you hold to be true on earth, my father holds true in heaven", so the teachings of Paul condemning homosexuality are valid, at least in a dogmatic sense. Until a current sitting Pope repeals them, that is.

Considering that we've got plenty of people on the planet as is, and the church still condemns birth control, I think it's going to be a pretty long wait for the church to fall into line with the human rights movements. Unless of course it directly benefits the church. Honestly, I can't help but think that some of the "stick" is caused by all the allegations about child abuse being fired at the church, and them raising a big ruckus about LGBT rights is either meant to draw attention away from those, or to try and show a "hard line" stance on the part of the church, since most of the molestation allegations are homosexual in nature.

And yes, I know that molestation is about power and dominance more than gender preference.

[Koatanga]

Paul also said:

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

So that's also valid, at least in a dogmatic sense.

[katraya]

Paul also said:

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

So that's also valid, at least in a dogmatic sense.

I freaking hate Paul.

[Skye1013]

A lot of people bring up the Leviticus quote, but honestly - didn't Jesus himself say that he was the breaking of the old covenant and the forging of a new one? I'm a bit rusty on my Bible-ese, but I'm pretty sure he mentioned something along those lines. Which in turn would mean that Leviticus hasn't applied since Jesus came on the scene.

That's basically what #8 is calling out in the above pic that I posted. The flow chart also calls it out (the second "why" from the left.)

[Fivelives]

It seems to me that #8 is more calling out hypocrisy and saying "well if you break these rules, then why can't you break THIS one?" more than the old testament/new testament thing.

[Koatanga]

Jesus pretty much crushed Leviticus, and didn't have much to say about homosexuality. I think pretty much every new testament reference to homosexuality is through Paul, who had quite a few ideas that aren't doctrine today.

Like with Leviticus, it comes down to people picking and choosing which things they are going to follow.

However...

"It's not about making sense. It's about believing in something, and letting that belief be real enough to change your life. It's about faith. You don't fix faith, River. It fixes you."

[Skye1013]

For those who haven't already read about this on FB or Twitter (or however else you get your news ):

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/firs ... raid060812