The Gay Thread

Quote: PotPie

.
re LBGTQ_______

acceptance or lack of acceptance is split very much along the lines of age

the % of older people who are accepting is much less than the % of younger people who are accepting

it' a Brave New World - and many new things and ideas are hard for older people to accept

the same thing happened with the Civil Rights Movement - it took a very long time for African Americans to be accepted as being equal in our society

and there are prolly still a great many who don't accept it

.

This is all true.

Luckily the anti-LGBT people are closer to death than the younger non-bigots.

Quote: PotPie

.
re LBGTQ_______

acceptance or lack of acceptance is split very much along the lines of age

the % of older people who are accepting is much less than the % of younger people who are accepting

That is because in the 1990s there was an organized effort to indoctrinate kids to accept it starting at a very young age. Many of us pointed out that it was happening at the tine.

Quote:

the same thing happened with the Civil Rights Movement - it took a very long time for African Americans to be accepted as being equal in our society

and there are prolly still a great many who don't accept it

.

Correct! Look at how many on the left that are today saying blacks cannot succeed without affirmative action and other preferences like the Rooney Rule.

Quote: AZDuffman

That is because in the 1990s there was an organized effort to indoctrinate kids to accept it starting at a very young age. Many of us pointed out that it was happening at the tine.

Correct! Look at how many on the left that are today saying blacks cannot succeed without affirmative action and other preferences like the Rooney Rule.

I don't remember your top paragraph happening whatsoever.

If you want to know what really got me on the LGB side (which I wouldn't have even known to call it that), circa the 90's, it was the church.

That's right. I saw how the church talked about gay people. I saw how the church discussed how they would burn in Hell, for all eternity, unless they got saved and repented to Jesus. I saw the anger, hate and resentment in their eyes-firsthand. Hate for what reason? None.

I saw how all of the church kids would yell, "Faggot," and throw things at other kids in the school just because those kids were a little bit weird and also too small to be a physical threat to the church bullies.

I saw all of this.

I discovered that the deacon cheated on his wife (who he also hit regularly, btw). I discovered that the pastor cheated on his wife, but then the organization simply moved him to a different church (lest he lose credibility with the one he was at) because it became known. You have failed to be a convincing hypocrite here, Pastor, because your hypocrisy was discovered...please go try again somewhere else.

Why is she wearing sunglasses in church, AZDuffman? Would you care to explain to me why this woman is wearing sunglasses in church, sir? Would you care to explain to me about how all of these men, who are supposed to defend and protect women, all fifty of these men...haven't beaten the tar out of this guy because he has caused it that his wife has to wear sunglasses in church?

So many hateful, bigoted and intolerant people. Even if they aren't that, then there is a great chance they will be hypocrites/frauds, if not both. Everyone there who is not a hateful, bigoted, intolerant, fraudulent or hypocritical person simply chooses to pretend that those people aren't there.

Everything is fine. Nothing to see here.

And, that's why I accept gay people. I accept them because, evidently, Christ does not. At least, Christ's 'people' don't.

I want to be better than Christ's people in that way.

.

I remember when I was a little kid - there were a couple of boys who were kind of effeminate
they didn't play sports - and almost all of the other boys did
they got bullied a little bit - not too bad - I didn't bully anybody
I know at that time I didn't even know what "gay" was or what it meant - and prolly didn't until h.s.

I didn't have a clue

as far as sex between men and women I knew about intercourse

I didn't know anything about any other kind of sexual activity until I think about age 14

re Mission's post -

there is a Biblical quote against homosexuality from the Old Testament - Leviticus 20:13 - (The Third Book of Moses)

I won't quote it because it's very nasty - Christians, of course, also revere the Old Testament - even though their prime book is the New Testament

and this quote may in their minds serve to justify their animosity towards the gay community

.

I don't deny it, but as you reference, that was before Christ. Secondly, those were laws that God commanded (in the fiction) specifically for the Israelites, who are now the Jews. Jews are largely (more than 75%) in favor of gay marriage. Why? I assume because, unlike some Christians (who are very selective about what they like or don't like from The Bible, anyway) they know that not everyone is Jewish, and therefore, should be free to do as they will.

These things also relate to social rights and rights provided for under the Government, which specifically shouldn't be the purview of religion anyway. The First Amendment does create many allowances for churches; for example, if a church wanted to excommunicate an individual for being homosexual, I believe it could. Personally, I would disagree, but wouldn't have any real problem with it if they did. Any organization with no Governmental protections (because we are not talking about employment, necessarily) should be able to admit or deny whomever it wishes.

Anyway, Leviticus was the law of the Israelites. Unlike the United States, it was a Government and nation unto itself. The law was religious law because it was the only law they had; also, if you were with the Israelites, then it is because you were an Israelite and were expected to believe in the God of Abraham. This country allows for you not to believe in him, and therefore, has different laws.

Leviticus also specifically discusses the manner in which goats are to be presented as sacrifice. I don't see many of these Leviticus lovers sacrificing goats with any great regularity.

*Leviticus 20 also suggests that adulterers be put to death; I really don't see that happening much in this country. Also, getting the Red Badge of Courage results in ostracizing and excommunication.

*It also claims that if a man has sexual relations with his aunt, both are dishonored and they will die childless. First of all, I'm not sure how exactly that's supposed to work if either of them already has children; secondly, I don't want to be the one to prove that wrong...but I am quite certain that a man could get his aunt pregnant were she still capable of being impregnated, by anyone.

The thing to understand about The Bible is that some passages are profoundly retarded. It's still one of the best books ever written, overall.

The main difference is the law that was in effect at the time of a person's life.

There's a new sheriff in town now.

So the law changed from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant.




"I will put my law in their minds, and I will write them on their hearts."

----------------------------

“‘The day will come,’ says the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. . . . But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,’ says the Lord. ‘I will put my law in their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people’”

----------------------------



With the Old Covenant, forgiveness of sin was different.

So if a person got caught disobeying the Mosaic law, they were penalized, possibly with death.


With the New Covenant, sin can be forgiven through the authority of Jesus.

The laws written on our hearts, refers to our conscience.

We don't go by the Mosaic laws such as the Ten Commandments nor homosexual laws for example, unless they're written on our hearts.

In order to know if something is right or wrong (knowing what is written on our hearts), such as for a person to choose to become a homosexual, a person must have a relatively clear conscience.

To have a relatively clear conscience, one must be forgiven of sin.


So to explain a conscience and how it works to the people is a different category than reading a law on paper or hearing by word of mouth.

I don't object to any of that. I care about the laws that are on paper. What people do in the context of their personal beliefs, provided it doesn't go against the laws that are on paper, is irrelevant to me.

If Evangelicals would simply desist in their efforts to co-opt the Government and use it to enforce their theocratically ordained SUPPOSED moral standards on all of the population, including those who are not Christian, I would have no problem with them as a group. I would find them totally inconsequential to me.

They could easily do that if their arguments as to how life should be lived, and why, were sufficiently compelling. Everyone would already be on-board with them and you wouldn't need laws to codify what people are already doing, or not doing. The problem is that their arguments are not sufficiently compelling as they all call back to a fundamental root position that not everyone believes in the first place. They cannot accept this, or accept that there are people who are different from them, so they attempt to use the Government in promotion of their social ideals.

This is why they have failed and continue to fail. Had they even found it within themselves to simply ignore people who are doing what they don't want, then their numbers would be much stronger right now. In trying to enforce their ideals, they actively drive people away from them.

Like I said, when the social policy wars are finally over, they will be irrelevant to me. In fact, I think the Republican Party will become de facto Libertarian after they have finally conceded on most social issues, and when that happens, it's possible that I'll join them due to their economic policies and the fact that they aren't fighting social policy battles anymore.

When introducing a conscience for law making, it implies personal responsibility and accountability.

So addressing a group is a different concept (like Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.).






Here's an example:

Jesus told the followers the Greatest Commandment but included a second part to the statement.

--------------------

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

-------------------





If a neighbor is homosexual, and I love the neighbor less than myself, then there's a blemish that goes on my conscience.

Not on a group of people.

Only on that one person.

So that person can remove the obstruction (sin) from their conscience through the authority of Jesus.

If they don't, then the blemish can cause other issues, such as not knowing what is right or wrong in another category.

Quote: Mission146

If Evangelicals would simply desist in their efforts to co-opt the Government and use it to enforce their theocratically ordained SUPPOSED moral standards on all of the population, including those who are not Christian, I would have no problem with them as a group.

yes, and this is quite ironic since Conservatives are famous for saying things like "we need to get Big Government off of our backs"

when it comes to big business and regulation they generally want as little as possible

sorry about going off topic here but I couldn't resist:

this is a main reason they are against forcing big business to do anything about climate change - and a main reason that they falsely claim that those who state that climate change is real are perpetrating a hoax

the linked Wiki survey of expert views of climate change indicates that more than 90% of experts believe it is a real thing and that it is happening

from the link:

"the finding of 97% consensus [that humans are causing recent global warming] in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change


.