Christian Reasons to Support Gay Rights

[micatala]

I offer this thread as a Christian who supports gay rights as an admittedly forward challenge to my brothers and sisters in Christ.

In Acts Ch. 14 and 15, Luke describes James and the other Apostles discussions which led them to exempt Gentiles from well over 99% of the Law of Moses. The main reason they did so was to avoid putting an excessive burden on Gentiles. Implicit in their decision was the issue that expecting everyone to follow these traditional rules, rules that many saw as outdated, would be a drag on the new movement.

Today, we see polls like this one that indicate many young people leaving the church or the faith because of the negative attitude displayed by many religious people towards gays and lesbians.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/2 ... ign=buffer


1) Would it not make sense for Christians to lay aside anti-gay rhetoric, including quoting of Biblical verses that are claimed to condemn homosexuality, if for no other reason than it is counter-productive to evangelism?

2) Does not Jesus' own ministry, and the actions of the Apostles as described in Acts 15 give ample precedent for laying aside Biblical verses that seem to allude to homosexuality?


I will note that Christianity has by and large already set aside many precepts now seen to be archaic, including the idea that women should never speak in church, and that we should simply accept any and all governments as instituted by God and worthy of our obedience. The Declaration of Independence, in particular, repudiates this notion, outlined by Paul in his letters.

I will note that Jesus is quoted in the gospels as explicitly laying aside aspects of the law, and that he was criticized by many of his fellow believers, especially those who were arguably most religious, for doing so.

I will point out that the faith of those conservative believers rather quickly became a small minority as compared to Christianity.


It really comes down to this:

3) Is non-acceptance of homosexuality so central to Christianity that Christians should cling to traditional notions against homosexuality, or can we lay those aside as tangential to the central message of the gospel?

[Haven]

Thank you for 'clearing that up' for us, only it's anything but 'clear'?
So just how many mistakes do you think doctors make at birth (assign wrong genders to babies)?

If by this, you're asking about the incidence of transgender people in the population, it's about one in 100 (one percent).

What would you think would be the 'proper' way of assigning genders to babies at birth?

I don't think gender should be assigned at birth. Raise the child in a gender-neutral way and let them figure out on their own what their gender is. There's no need to force a gender (and worse yet, a set of gender stereotypes) on a newborn baby; that seems absurd.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 299 by Haven]
Maybe we've both been "schnookered" here. I'm reading arian "straight", knowing he can be dreadfully assertive. You apparently took his post as entirely serious, or maybe you just answered the parts that you thought were serious or were at least the bait leading up the to switch at the end.
Sorry, I can't help you. I don't know which parts (at least some?) are serious. C'mon arian, be more clear for at least your "groupies" here so we don't fall victims. (By victims I mean both of falling for the trick or getting ourselves in trouble by "ameniing" your posts or even enthusiastically furthering with our own posts that might be careless of going beyond the rules that you seem to be able to get around so easily. I'm Under Probation, man, and it's partly because of you.)
So yeah, I hear you man. Beyond that....no comment.
So the safe thing for me is to "report" this post? But then you schnooker the Mods that it's all in fun, or that the quotes got misplaced, you're ADHD (like me, but it doesn't seem to help ME get around the rules), your heart's in the right place, yada yada. I don't need to wish you good luck, yours has been better than mine at not getting yourself on probation.
EDITED TO ADD:
Now I've really gone and done it! I post the above and within 3 minutes danmark issues to arian his Final Warning! Here I'd just made a fool of myself about how arian could get away with uh. "murder" (and thieves, rapists) here, and I couldn't even predict the future 3 minutes. Or maybe danmark was finally goaded into action by my post, and arian would still be fancy-free except for betrayal by his friend? (A certain Mod, not to be named, but not danmark, responded to my remark that arian was my Teacher's Pet with his snooty, "Hah!. He toys with you as HIS Teacher's Pet!" All is lost.

[Danmark]

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that 'active thieves, murderers, adulterers, homosexuals, rapists, child molesters' all come under that same LGBT heading?
So then legalizing all sin IS the reason this law passed, I was thinking this just leads in that direction', not that now all sin, (you know, what the bronze Aged Bible listed as sin: thieves, murderers, adulterers, homosexuality etc.) is labeled as LGBT!?

So it is no longer correct to refer to thieves and murderers as thieves and murderers? We are to 'ask' what they prefer to be labeled as?
Boy, talk about the changing of books, .. all those "falsely labeled" prisoners, .. and for all them years too!

Moderator Final Warning
You have been previously warned not to equate murderers, thieves, and rapists with people attracted to the same gender. You are free to argue why you think the Bible decrees something is a sin, but not to equate criminal conduct with someone's status re: gender attraction. This is a repeated, personal, blanket attack and against the rules.
Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[arian]

Thank you for 'clearing that up' for us, only it's anything but 'clear'?
So just how many mistakes do you think doctors make at birth (assign wrong genders to babies)?

If by this, you're asking about the incidence of transgender people in the population, it's about one in 100 (one percent).

Thank you Haven.

So when they give the ultrasound results of the babies gender, they make one mistake in a hundred?

And when the baby is born, 1 in a hundred is diagnosed wrong as to gender? Now who is at fault here, the nurse at the ultrasound, is it the doctors at birth noting the penis for female and visa-versa? Or is it evolution messing up on purpose, from some future telepathic intelligence assigning men to men and women to women to reduce future population or something?

What would you think would be the 'proper' way of assigning genders to babies at birth?

I don't think gender should be assigned at birth. Raise the child in a gender-neutral way and let them figure out on their own what their gender is. There's no need to force a gender (and worse yet, a set of gender stereotypes) on a newborn baby; that seems absurd.

Oh OK, so please give me an idea (in case I have any more children?) .. how should we dress this, .. this 'thing' the mother, .. oops, sorry, I meant the parent #2 gave birth to? Oh wait, why should the one who gives birth be called parent #2, why not parent #1, right? Or should we let the judges decide which parent be #1, #2, #3 etc.? Anyways, how should we dress 'it' (since it could have some serious consequences dressing them a certain way, like the one with a penis who will ultimately choose to be a female could have serious brain damage if we dress it as a male, and visa-versa, .. so what would you suggest we dress it, you know this newborn evolving animal of the ape family so we won't be stereotyping it which as you said would be absurd.

I mean yeah, .. just because it has a penis, shouldn't give us the right to dress it in male garb, right? Or is this going to be included in the new laws, 'not to dress newborn human-animal apes that would define gender'?
Oh yea, what if it refuses to be of the ape family, .. and wishes to be of the bird family, you know, like an owl or something?

Anyways, have our government designed the correct genderless clothing for newborn human animals yet? Because I didn't find anything mentioned in Agenda for the 21st Century yet, but I could have missed it!?

Or wait, .. they do have the new 'baphomet' outfits, they are genderless, or actually it is of both male and female gender, .. hey that would be perfect, right? What do you think Haven? We wouldn't want to make some absurd decisions here like calling a man with a penis a man for the rest of his life or something, right?

P.S
Hey why are you highlighting my name and what I say in such 'gay' color as red, are you trying to 'suggest' a wrong gender to me? Because that would be really absurd.

[Haven]

Thank you Haven.

So when they give the ultrasound results of the babies gender, they make one mistake in a hundred?

Ultrasounds don't determine gender, they determine sex. Sex and gender aren't the same thing: sex is the biological makeup of one's body (genitals, chromosomes, and so on), while gender is one's internal subjective experience of being (or not being) gendered (determined by brain structure and activity, pre-natal hormones, and so on). A person who has a gender identity that aligns with their birth sex is cisgender, while a person who doesn't is transgender. Most people (about 99 percent) are cisgender, the other one percent is transgender.

Oh OK, so please give me an idea (in case I have any more children?) .. how should we dress this, .. this 'thing' the mother, .. oops, sorry, I meant the parent #2 gave birth to? Oh wait, why should the one who gives birth be called parent #2, why not parent #1, right? Or should we let the judges decide which parent be #1, #2, #3 etc.? Anyways, how should we dress 'it' (since it could have some serious consequences dressing them a certain way, like the one with a penis who will ultimately choose to be a female could have serious brain damage if we dress it as a male, and visa-versa, .. so what would you suggest we dress it, you know this newborn evolving animal of the ape family so we won't be stereotyping it which as you said would be absurd.

The baby is a child, not a "thing," so "it" wouldn't be the correct pronoun. There are gender-neutral pronouns (like "they") that could be used. There is also gender-neutral clothing.

P.S
Hey why are you highlighting my name and what I say in such 'gay' color as red, are you trying to 'suggest' a wrong gender to me? Because that would be really absurd.

Since I joined this forum back in 2012, I've put quoted post in colors. Go back and check my posts: I always do this. It has nothing to do with any 'suggestion.' It's also news to me that red is a "gay" color -- I think all those macho cowboys who drive red pickup trucks will be surprised to know their trucks like other male vehicles!

I hope you find this manly shade of blue a bit more hetero, though -- just keep in mind that blue was "for girls" about a century ago. Gender norms are socially constructed.

[arian]

Thank you Haven.

So when they give the ultrasound results of the babies gender, they make one mistake in a hundred?

Ultrasounds don't determine gender, they determine sex. Sex and gender aren't the same thing: sex is the biological makeup of one's body (genitals, chromosomes, and so on), while gender is one's internal subjective experience of being (or not being) gendered (determined by brain structure and activity, pre-natal hormones, and so on). A person who has a gender identity that aligns with their birth sex is cisgender, while a person who doesn't is transgender. Most people (about 99 percent) are cisgender, the other one percent is transgender.

Thank you again Haven, I learn something every day. I see, from what I just learned that 'gender' is a word that has been redefined, especially in the 60's hippie movement where the upside down cross was introduced into the world as the symbol of peace. So I guess with it came a lot of new laws and readjustments to our Christian based "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" society, one of them was the removal of the Bible from schools along with prayer.
I remember how interesting it was for me coming from a Communist Country to see the entire school children stand up to pray. There was the Muslim next to the Jew, the Buddhist next to a Catholic and so on, not ONE person seemed uncomfortable, until atheists and gays DEMANDED that the "no praying in school" (a year after it was introduced) be enforced.

The Muslim parents/children were just as unhappy about it as the Christians, because I remember the teachers would always make it clear as new students arrived to let them know they could pray to any God/gods of their choice.
Yes the atheists and the gays won. We in a free Country could have any book in school except the Bible (It has been revised since then because of pressure from Christian organizations) but now I guess they came back with a vengeance with this New Legalization of sin.

What's there to stop kleptomaniacs to fight for their right to steal, or people with STD's to have the freedom to beat up other "they's" (genderfull its)?
Or white supremacists to gain the right to beat up and even hang Negros in public, just as gay men can now wear little girl clothing pushing a huge dildo in a baby carriage and make out in public?

Gender should include and acknowledge other 'former' sins, like an honest person who refuses to steal vs. the kleptomaniac who can't help but steal because it was 'born this way'. Besides, who defines 'honest', right? If a thief steals honestly because h.. it just honestly can't help but steal or else it will throw up (I actually knew a few people like that, good hardworking honest taxpaying citizens too!), should be considered the same as a person who could never steal, and if he even considered it, he, .. she, .. oops, .. I mean it would throw up. Stealing could be considered as a masculine characteristic, while not stealing could be considered a sissy, .. or feminine characteristic.

Oh OK, so please give me an idea (in case I have any more children?) .. how should we dress this, .. this 'thing' the mother, .. oops, sorry, I meant the parent #2 gave birth to? Oh wait, why should the one who gives birth be called parent #2, why not parent #1, right? Or should we let the judges decide which parent be #1, #2, #3 etc.? Anyways, how should we dress 'it' (since it could have some serious consequences dressing them a certain way, like the one with a penis who will ultimately choose to be a female could have serious brain damage if we dress it as a male, and visa-versa, .. so what would you suggest we dress it, you know this newborn evolving animal of the ape family so we won't be stereotyping it which as you said would be absurd.

The baby is a child, not a "thing," so "it" wouldn't be the correct pronoun. There are gender-neutral pronouns (like "they") that could be used.

OK, .. so I shouldn't use the term "my daughter" because it automatically assumes a feminine gender, so I should call her, .. oops, there I go again with the old Christian Hateful discriminating labeling; her. I mean I should call it 'they', so it assumes both a male and female gender, .. hey that's smart. 'They' can't possibly find fault in that.
So when I refer to myself, I should say a genderless "we", correct? Wait, genderless could be considered a hate crime also since bi-sexual enjoy being male and female at the same time. So maybe the word "genderfull" would be safer, .. what do you think?

Anyways, what's wrong with labeling an animal child of the ape family as an it? I mean in the old days (a few days ago before this Gay marriage law passed) it was OK to say; he, she, mom, dad, I am, he is, she is, and for animals as it. Now I have to use the plural terms; we, they and so on!? This will be difficult, but hey, "It's the LAW!"

There is also gender-neutral clothing.

Yes, there is, I just found one:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/we ... n-los-ange

It would be a good idea to invest in this company, it is the future. With all the lawsuits that will be hitting parents #1 and #2 for dressing little Johnny and sending it off to school in pants, and little Julia in pretty little discriminating full of hate 'dress', this company will skyrocket to success.
I would suggest offering the baphomet underpants and undershirts as part of this wardrobe to be on the safe side, .. you know, to ward off 'good' which could cause 'guilt' (that discriminating, depressing and evil Bible 'good', not the new rainbow good full of love, joy and freedom!)

P.S
Hey why are you highlighting my name and what I say in such 'gay' color as red, are you trying to 'suggest' a wrong gender to me? Because that would be really absurd.

Since I joined this forum back in 2012, I've put quoted post in colors. Go back and check my posts: I always do this. It has nothing to do with any 'suggestion.' It's also news to me that red is a "gay" color -- I think all those macho cowboys who drive red pickup trucks will be surprised to know their trucks like other male vehicles!

Cars and trucks used to be considered babes, like in girls, and red was a proper color, but this was way, way back a week ago. But now, I could just see the COP's yanking out the macho cowboy and beat the hell out of 'them/genderfull' (singular) for referring a gender to his truck!

I hope you find this manly shade of blue a bit more hetero, though -- just keep in mind that blue was "for girls" about a century ago. Gender norms are socially constructed.

I was just asking, but you're right, you have been doing that.

Yes, even today I find it appealing to see a pretty girl wear a pretty blue dress. But to see boys a hundred years ago running off to school dressed in red, or pink?? Let's not make blanket statements about colors now, ok? Oh never mind, I guess all the rainbow colors are IN, it's very 'genderfull'.

Take care Haven.

Oh yes, 'socially constructed' just as 'Agenda 21' was right? And 17 years later still just a handful know about it!?

[Haven]

Thank you again Haven, I learn something every day. I see, from what I just learned that 'gender' is a word that has been redefined, especially in the 60's hippie movement where the upside down cross was introduced into the world as the symbol of peace. So I guess with it came a lot of new laws and readjustments to our Christian based "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" society, one of them was the removal of the Bible from schools along with prayer.

I don't know what you're talking about. Gender hasn't been redefined (it's always been separate from sex) and the upside-down cross has never been a hippie symbol of peace.

Or white supremacists to gain the right to beat up and even hang Negros in public, just as gay men can now wear little girl clothing pushing a huge dildo in a baby carriage and make out in public?

What? Just . . . what?

Do you even know any gay people?

OK, .. so I shouldn't use the term "my daughter" because it automatically assumes a feminine gender, so I should call her, .. oops, there I go again with the old Christian Hateful discriminating labeling; her.

It's not offensive to refer to someone who identifies as female with feminine pronouns (she/her/hers). Some people do identify with conventional genders, and it's perfectly fine to address them as those genders. However, it's important to keep in mind that some people identify outside the gender binary (as neither female or male) or identify with a gender different than the one assigned to them at birth (for example, a person assigned female at birth who identifies as a man). Use these individuals' preferred pronouns.

There's nothing wrong with the concept of gender itself (if you're a man or a woman it's OK), just respect people's identities (if someone identifies as a woman, don't call her a man, regardless of what parts she was born with).

[arian]

Thank you again Haven, I learn something every day. I see, from what I just learned that 'gender' is a word that has been redefined, especially in the 60's hippie movement where the upside down cross was introduced into the world as the symbol of peace. So I guess with it came a lot of new laws and readjustments to our Christian based "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" society, one of them was the removal of the Bible from schools along with prayer.

I don't know what you're talking about. Gender hasn't been redefined (it's always been separate from sex) and the upside-down cross has never been a hippie symbol of peace.

It's even called the 'peace symbol', the circle with the upside down cross, ..

https://www.google.com/search?[url]q=de ... jSW7UCk%3D[/url]

Or white supremacists to gain the right to beat up and even hang Negros in public, just as gay men can now wear little girl clothing pushing a huge dildo in a baby carriage and make out in public?

What? Just . . . what?

Do you even know any gay people?

"Whaaa? I don't get it? Come again? Just what?" I just love how homosexuals put on the act, .. lol

Yes, I used to manage a small apartment complex in down-town San Diego with a pretty big homosexual population. I've seen things, some even terrible things including with young boys, very young boys, so don't give me that "What? Just ... what?"
Oh, and I wouldn't call homosexuals 'gay', that's just the front they put on. I would say they are one of the most depressed, disturbed and unhappy people around, and I know this 'legalizing gay marriage' will not change that, .. not for the better anyways. It will not turn their lives any more 'gay'. Homosexuals like the 'free roaming" lifestyle, especially on the weekends. Unless polygamy is passed as legal?? That would explain why they are demanding the removal of mother and father from children's school documents to 'parent #1 and parent #2, .. etc. it will be easier to add more.

OK, .. so I shouldn't use the term "my daughter" because it automatically assumes a feminine gender, so I should call her, .. oops, there I go again with the old Christian Hateful discriminating labeling; her.

It's not offensive to refer to someone who identifies as female with feminine pronouns (she/her/hers). Some people do identify with conventional genders, and it's perfectly fine to address them as those genders. However, it's important to keep in mind that some people identify outside the gender binary (as neither female or male) or identify with a gender different than the one assigned to them at birth (for example, a person assigned female at birth who identifies as a man). Use these individuals' preferred pronouns.

"Important to remember"?? "Conventional genders"?? "Outside the gender binary", .. LOL Are you serious? Hey, if I was to meet Michael Robinson, you know the ex-football player turned First Lady, I would offer to shake his hand and say; "Yo, hey dude, what's up?" just like his teammates used to do to him. I'm sure they'd do the same. We should not allow 'playing dress up, switching gender roles' to interfere with real life.

There's nothing wrong with the concept of gender itself (if you're a man or a woman it's OK), just respect people's identities (if someone identifies as a woman, don't call her a man, regardless of what parts she was born with).

OK, I'll make a note of that in my phones notepad. I have a question though, what if Michael Robinson Obama decided to be a lesbian? I mean can the First-lady of the greatest country on earth come out and confess one day that sh, .. it is now a 'lesbian'? How would you refer to it then? What 'proper-gender' would you say we use in this case, you know, to respect our First-Lady'? (lol, .. sorry, just a little chuckle there) but no, I'm serious!? How would we address that?

[Haven]

I won't be responding to the disrespectful and uncivil content in your post. I'll simply address the few debate-related points you raised (remember, this is called 'Christian reasons to support gay rights,' not 'bash LGBT people').

It's even called the 'peace symbol', the circle with the upside down cross, ..

The peace sign has nothing to do with an upside-down cross. It comes from the olive branch, a symbol of peace in ancient Greek religion. It's not an anti-Christian symbol at all.

"Whaaa? I don't get it? Come again? Just what?" I just love how homosexuals put on the act, .. lol

I don't recall mentioning my gender or sexual orientation on this thread.

Oh, and I wouldn't call homosexuals 'gay', that's just the front they put on. I would say they are one of the most depressed, disturbed and unhappy people around, and I know this 'legalizing gay marriage' will not change that, .. not for the better anyways.

That's not what the empirical data suggest:

A 2002 study: http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb02/newdata.aspx

More recent data: http://www.cdc.gov/lgbthealth/youth.htm

Also, bigotry and discrimination can cause depression. The kind of hatred of LGBT people you've shown in the past few posts contributes to higher rates of depression and suicide among queer people, especially youth. While it's debatable if the Bible condemns homosexuality, it certainly does not call for you to hate people with homosexual orientations. Please reconsider your hate: it doesn't align with your beliefs and it really hurts other people.

Homosexuals like the 'free roaming" lifestyle, especially on the weekends. Unless polygamy is passed as legal?? That would explain why they are demanding the removal of mother and father from children's school documents to 'parent #1 and parent #2, .. etc. it will be easier to add more.

Heterosexuals don't party on the weekends? And who is demanding the removal of "mother" and "father?" Please provide evidence.

"Important to remember"?? "Conventional genders"?? "Outside the gender binary", .. LOL Are you serious? Hey, if I was to meet Michael Robinson, you know the ex-football player turned First Lady

Michelle Robinson Obama is not transgender; that's nothing more than a ridiculous right-wing conspiracy theory. Even if she were trans, however, that would make her no less of a woman.

I would offer to shake his hand and say; "Yo, hey dude, what's up?" just like his teammates used to do to him. I'm sure they'd do the same. We should not allow 'playing dress up, switching gender roles' to interfere with real life.

Intentionally misgendering a transgender person is very hateful, offensive, and hurtful. Please don't do this. Would your god of love want you to show this kind of hate to a person he created?

[dianaiad]

"Whaaa? I don't get it? Come again? Just what?" I just love how homosexuals put on the act, .. lol

Moderator Warning


This sort of wholesale negative generalization of an entire group of people is not only uncivil, it's unproductive. This forum is for the civilized debate of religion, not the unthinking bashing of entire groups. While being politically correct is not a goal we aim for, precisely, common courtesy is.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.