Christians! It may be time to convert->

[joyfulgirl]

Well against my better judgement I'm going to respond to this.

looks like we were thinking the same thing at the same time

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

I merely stated my opinion and tried to explain why others think like me and why there is such an oppossition. I don't agree with you but I'm not calling you "bigots" or whatever. I never even tried to make you change your minds.

So relax...

 

[Elvis]

Main Entry: big?ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
- big?ot?ed /-g&-t&d/ adjective
- big?ot?ed?ly adverb

 

[melon]

No Difference Between Gay & Straight Parents Court Told

Posted: March 24, 2004 5:14 p.m. ET

(Little Rock, Arkansas) A Little Rock court where the state's ban on gay foster parents is being challenged has been told there is no difference between gay parents and straight ones and that gays are no more likely than heterosexuals to be pedophiles.

Arkansas bars gays and lesbians from serving as foster parents, although the law does not prevent them from adopting.

The ban was imposed by the state Child Welfare Agency Review Board in March 1999. The board said it imposed the ban on households with gay adults in an effort to protect children from disease, violence, sexual abuse, neglect and instability.

In 2001 an attempt was made to ban gay adoption, but legislators refused.

Nebraska is the only other state to ban gay foster parents; Florida and Mississippi ban gay adoptions

The suit challenging the ban was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of four prospective foster parents.

The nonjury trial is being heard by Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox.

Michael Lamb, chief of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development?s section on Social and Emotional Development testified that there is no evidence to support the contention that gays can?t be as good at parenting as heterosexuals.

Lamb said studies of children raised by both homosexual and heterosexual people show no more behavior problems for children reared by homosexuals. He also said children reared by gays are no more likely to become gay.

Being raised by gay parents would not have negative consequences for children, he said.

He also said that children don?t necessarily require an adult male as one of their care givers. ?It?s become clear that the absence of a male figure is really not important,? Lamb said.

He said children with behavioral problems rises from 15 percent in two-parent homes to 30 percent in single-parent homes. ?There?s a clear consensus that children are more likely to be maladjusted when raised by single parents,? he said.

Dr. Fred Berlin, founder of the Sexual Disorders Clinic at Johns Hopkins University testified that heterosexual married men are just as likely to be pedophiles as gay men.

The court also heard from a Waldron, Arkansas man whose family has sheltered abused gay children at its own expense. William Wagner testified that he and his wife of 30 years were not allowed to become foster parents because his adult son, William, is gay and sometimes stays in their home.

The trial expected to continue through the week.

Melon

 

[maude]

Main Entry: big?ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
- big?ot?ed /-g&-t&d/ adjective
- big?ot?ed?ly adverb

Well, according to that definition I would venture to say there's more souls on this forum than just browneyedboy that are guilty of bigotry in one area or another.....on both sides of the political spectrum.


I did want to ask, since Browneyedboy was point-blank labeled a bigot, do the majority of you (or any of you) here feel that all individuals opposed to homosexual marriage and view homosexuality as a sin are hateful bigots, equal in evilness to those that kept slaves or murdered Jews?

 

[BVS]

I did want to ask, since Browneyedboy was point-blank labeled a bigot, do the majority of you (or any of you) here feel that all individuals opposed to homosexual marriage and view homosexuality as a sin are hateful bigots, equal in evilness to those that kept slaves or murdered Jews?

First of all this thread had nothing to do with marriage, it had to do with the fact of if this woman could continue to be clergy or not, now that she came out of the closet. BEB's response didn't give any insightful piece of information as to why he was opposed to it. He just came out and said he doesn't want his kids to imitate or "want" to be gay.

Now yes this is his opinion but in a forum designed for debate statements like this don't fly. In his mind gay people aren't worthy of being role models to his children. Now replace gay with black, hispanic, Jew, etc. and tell me if you would still be comfortable with allowing people in this forum to make blanket statements like this without any logical reasoning.

 

[martha]

^ Nicely said.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I did want to ask, since Browneyedboy was point-blank labeled a bigot, do the majority of you (or any of you) here feel that all individuals opposed to homosexual marriage and view homosexuality as a sin are hateful bigots, equal in evilness to those that kept slaves or murdered Jews?

I've thought about how to answer this for a few hours, since I have an unpleasant suspicion that someone's going to try and paint me as being a holocaust-denier or something equally abhorent for what I'm about to say. (For the record, I've worked on numerous anti-racism campaigns, including a campaign to prevent a notorious holocaust-denier from speaking on a university campus.)

Frankly, the ideas behind slavery and the holocaust bear a lot of similiarity to the ideas behind homophobia. Slavery was justified on the basis that Black people weren't equal to white people; the holocaust was justified (in part) by the belief that Jewish people were inferior. Homophobia is justified by the belief that there is something inherently wrong with homosexuality.

So while I wouldn't say that your average idiot homophobe is as bad as Nazis or slave-owners, I would say that homophobia is every bit as much an evil as racism and anti-semitism. There are plenty of racists out there who don't own slaves and plenty of anti-semites who weren't involved in the holocaust, but that doesn't make their bigotry acceptable.

 

[Dreadsox]

this is one of those threads...I am sorry I stepped into.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I've thought about how to answer this for a few hours, since I have an unpleasant suspicion that someone's going to try and paint me as being a holocaust-denier or something equally abhorent for what I'm about to say. (For the record, I've worked on numerous anti-racism campaigns, including a campaign to prevent a notorious holocaust-denier from speaking on a university campus.)

Frankly, the ideas behind slavery and the holocaust bear a lot of similiarity to the ideas behind homophobia. Slavery was justified on the basis that Black people weren't equal to white people; the holocaust was justified (in part) by the belief that Jewish people were inferior. Homophobia is justified by the belief that there is something inherently wrong with homosexuality.

So while I wouldn't say that your average idiot homophobe is as bad as Nazis or slave-owners, I would say that homophobia is every bit as much an evil as racism and anti-semitism. There are plenty of racists out there who don't own slaves and plenty of anti-semites who weren't involved in the holocaust, but that doesn't make their bigotry acceptable.

.

Angela

 

[Lilac]

Well, according to that definition I would venture to say there's more souls on this forum than just browneyedboy that are guilty of bigotry in one area or another.....on both sides of the political spectrum.

Yeah, I think that a lot. Not only in this thread or on this forum. So many people consider themselves so "liberal" "all inclusive" and "open minded" but let someone disagree with THEIR views and they attack like a pit bull and all the "open mindedness" and is gone and replaced by I'm right, you're wrong, shut up. Now isn't that the same thing liberals hate about "right wingers?" So, I don't see a difference I am not even talking about a particular issue here, I don't give a shit who marries who, you can marry your dog for all I care. It's the priciple of the hypocrisy that bothers me.

I also become bothered by seeing slavery compared to the Holocaust. Both were bad but not the same thing. With slavery, it was more people justifying something they wanted to do and not feel guilty about, so they convinced themselves it wasn't wrong, used any argument to rationalize it, and shouted down all those who tried to point out how wrong it was. A lot like abortion is now. I would compare it more with abortion than the Holocaust, though some anti-abortion groups compare abortion to the Holocaust. But I'm not talking religion or politics here, only looking at it objectively the way it seems to me.

Some of the slaveholders' common defenses when confronted by the abolitionsists (who were most often extremists and religious zealots as most anti-abortionists are today) were the same rhetoric we hear today from pro-abortionists, like, it's my life, if you don't want to own slaves don't but don't deny me my choice, it's not your business, my personal decision, nothing wrong with it by my conscious so don't judge me by yours, etc. Yes, the people who owned slaves (only 25% of Southerners, mostly rich) tried to justify it because they wanted to do it and they didn't want anyone to tell them they were wrong so they had to make their opposers look wrong. So I compare it more to the justification of abortion than the genocide againt Jews. Genocide did occur in the US in the 19th century, but it was against the Indians, not the blacks. Again, it was justified, they called them savages, dehumanized them, and you know what I'm getting at, my fingers are too stiff from typing.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Originally posted by Lilac
Some of the slaveholders' common defenses when confronted by the abolitionsists (who were most often extremists and religious zealots as most anti-abortionists are today)

Can I just check I'm understanding you clearly: the abolitionists were extremists and religious zealots? I don't think I've heard that argument before, would you mind explaining a bit about why you think that?

 

[Lilac]

Because everything I've ever seen or read portrayed them as church based, very deeply religious Christians who formed these anti-slavery societies. They were often led by preachers. They used religion as a basis for slavery being evil. Take John Brown for example. He was such a religious zealot he believed slave owners should be murdered, and he and his sons and their gang led raids that did kill people. They intended to kill in Harper's Ferry the night they were caught, but only person was killed, ironically a free black man was shot. So in that way John Brown can be compared to anti-abortionists who blow up clinics and kill doctors. They are so fervent they believe they are doing the Lord's work. Of course not every abolitionist was as extreme as Brown just as not every anti-abortionist supports violence against clinics and doctors. But most of them are/were known as very religious and that was behind both movements.

 

[Lilac]

There is much evidence that the abolitionists were mostly Evangelical Christians who believed ending slavery was a high moral purpose. Like the anti-abortionists, they were scorned, joked on, and criticized by many for years, and only long after their ultimate victory were they glorified. They were so despised in the south in the 1840's that both the Methodists and Baptists churches broke with their brethren in the north when they learned the ones in the north wanted to use the churches to spread the message of the evils of slavery in the south to convert southerners and make them see the evil of their ways. They didn't want to see it, they wanted to believe their ridiculous justifications because it was too inconvenient to them to think of giving up their slaves. Also, the abolitionists were criticized for their methods and for handing out anti-slavery literature. Their pamphets featuring a scantily clad black man on his knees in chains with the caption "Am I not a man and a brother" was as offensive to some in those days as the pic of the aborted fetus is now. There is plenty of historical documentation on all this. It will take time but I can dig up links if you are really interested.

Back to 'extremists' now. After John Brown was hung for his insurrection (he not only intended to start a slave rebellion, he had stole an arsenal of guns and was going to try to take over the government of the US) his diehard supporters called him a martyr and a saint. This man was a cold blooded killer, yet they honestly believed he was in Heaven and was more righteous than slave owners. There were plenty of them. In fact, the song "Battle Hymn of the Republic" which became the Yankee battle song, was written to the tune of "John Brown's Body" and here are the original lyrics:

John Brown's body lies a molding in the grave
John Brown's body lies a molding in the grave
John Brown's body lies a molding in the grave
But his soul goes marching on!
He's gone to be a soldier in the army of the Lord
He's gone to be a soldier in the army of the Lord
He's gone to be a soldier in the army of the Lord
but his truth goes marching on!

"His truth" meaning his cause, abolition. But remember now, this man had violently killed people in Kansas because they were pro-slavery, he had led an uprising and intended to take over the US gov't, yet he was still revered by many people because they really believed he was sent by God to end slavery! If that is not religious extremism and zealots, I don't know what is.

As I stated previously, not all abolitionists were that exteme as not all anti-abortinists support the guys who shoot doctors and bomb clinics. But the parallel is there, some are extremists, some are/were only deeply religious and believe their cause is a holy and moral obligation. For some politics was more of a factor than religion. But my point is the comparisons can be made.

 

[BVS]

Alright I'm joining Dread, this thread has gone far off the ridiculous cliff.

 

[melon]

Alright I'm joining Dread, this thread has gone far off the ridiculous cliff.

I gave up on people a long time ago. They are, for the most part, utterly hopeless and completely lack empathy. On the opposite end, I was cursed with too much of it.

Until the dominant hegemony understands what it is like to be a member of the subordinate hegemony ("minority") of any kind, they will continue to parade their right to oppose homosexuals. After all, their Bible told them so, and, since they aren't homosexual themselves, there's really no need to challenge those beliefs. It is, thus, easier to blindly hate, rather than question the theology behind the anti-gay sentiment.

I can tell people until I'm blue in the face that translating these passages as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality to be utterly ridiculous. I can tell people that, instead, they are mistranslations of archaic practices that have been gone for so long that we do not have an English equivalent for the word--hence the reason why all these disparate words get such a blanketly incorrect translation on homosexuality. I can tell people that such a translation is heavily incorrect, being the equivalent of translating a prohibition against prostitution or rape and then blanketly translating it as a prohibition against heterosexuality.

But because it doesn't affect them, there is no need to free their minds. No, it is more comfortable to be numb, especially if it doesn't affect you in your personal life. But then these same people get irritated by same-sex marriage and insist on banning a practice that would give others immense happiness and never once affect them.

And all I can say to these people, in the least empathetic manner possible, is for them to f*ck themselves, and I hope that more communities follow the example of Multonomah County, Oregon by no longer granting opposite-sex marriage licenses. After all, maybe they need to understand what it is like to be denied formal recognition of their love, since they clearly don't get it empathetically.

I'm done with this crap thread. I don't need to argue with people who, really, will never be affected by any of this personally.

Melon

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Look, if somebody honestly has a problem with gay marriage...*Shrugs*. That's their opinion. I don't understand why, and will give my view on the whole thing and debate the reasoning with them and all that, but it's up to them if they wish to agree with me or not. I'm not going to force it on them.

My blood really gets boiling, however, when people support a ban on gay marriage (and I'm not saying anyone here does). Those who do support a ban wouldn't like it if somebody barred them from marrying somebody they loved dearly just because they had a problem with that kind of love, so I really don't understand why they feel they have the right to do that to homosexuals. That's what makes me mad most of all.

Angela

 

[nbcrusader]

Can I just check I'm understanding you clearly: the abolitionists were extremists and religious zealots? I don't think I've heard that argument before, would you mind explaining a bit about why you think that?

Anti-slavery movements in England and the US were essentially Christian based.

 

[nbcrusader]

I gave up on people a long time ago. They are, for the most part, utterly hopeless and completely lack empathy. On the opposite end, I was cursed with too much of it.

Until the dominant hegemony understands what it is like to be a member of the subordinate hegemony ("minority") of any kind, they will continue to parade their right to oppose homosexuals. After all, their Bible told them so, and, since they aren't homosexual themselves, there's really no need to challenge those beliefs. It is, thus, easier to blindly hate, rather than question the theology behind the anti-gay sentiment.

I can tell people until I'm blue in the face that translating these passages as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality to be utterly ridiculous. I can tell people that, instead, they are mistranslations of archaic practices that have been gone for so long that we do not have an English equivalent for the word--hence the reason why all these disparate words get such a blanketly incorrect translation on homosexuality. I can tell people that such a translation is heavily incorrect, being the equivalent of translating a prohibition against prostitution or rape and then blanketly translating it as a prohibition against heterosexuality.

But because it doesn't affect them, there is no need to free their minds. No, it is more comfortable to be numb, especially if it doesn't affect you in your personal life. But then these same people get irritated by same-sex marriage and insist on banning a practice that would give others immense happiness and never once affect them.

And all I can say to these people, in the least empathetic manner possible, is for them to f*ck themselves, and I hope that more communities follow the example of Multonomah County, Oregon by no longer granting opposite-sex marriage licenses. After all, maybe they need to understand what it is like to be denied formal recognition of their love, since they clearly don't get it empathetically.

I'm done with this crap thread. I don't need to argue with people who, really, will never be affected by any of this personally.

Melon

Melon, you have stated your arguments many times. You make a number of good points and have obviously put a lot of effort studying various passages. I can't say I agree with parts of your analysis.

I doubt you would claim to have the only correct understanding of Scripture. I would not make such a claim.

If you are correct, you should be able to live in God's peace in a sinful world. Lord knows the world has told me I am wrong many times.

Peace

 

[Angela Harlem]

There's many feathers in many caps amongst the lovely people of FYM and Interference on the whole. While it is nice to broadly condemn the many for having biased and bigoted views, thus elevating ourselves above this very trait (when declaring it), truth is, it exists in most of us here. We might support gay marriage, equal rights for race, and any other 'liberal' idea, but I think bias is something we all have in some way or another. Its a horrible nasty human trait, but I sincerely doubt anyone here is pure enough to be in a position to point everyone else's out without first looking at ourselves. Never seeing it in ourselves, doesn't necessarily mean it isn't actually there.

Lets not cast stones.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Anti-slavery movements in England and the US were essentially Christian based.

Yes, I'm aware of that, though I would hope being a Christian wasn't then and isn't now equivalent to being an "extremist" and "religious zealot."

 

[Lilac]

Yes, I'm aware of that, though I would hope being a Christian wasn't then and isn't now equivalent to being an "extremist" and "religious zealot."

Obviously you either didn't see or chose to ignore both my long posts answering your question.

No question there was that fringe to the movement, and though they were not all extremists many in their opposition did portray them all that way in order to discredit their cause, just as happens with anti-abortionists today. Not all of them are extremists either, and of course being a Christian does not automatically make anyone a zealot. I explained all that fully in my other posts and I hope you will read them

 

[nbcrusader]

Yes, I'm aware of that, though I would hope being a Christian wasn't then and isn't now equivalent to being an "extremist" and "religious zealot."

I would hope so as well. Sadly, it does happen.

 

[martha]

While it is nice to broadly condemn the many for having biased and bigoted views, thus elevating ourselves above this very trait (when declaring it), truth is, it exists in most of us here. We might support gay marriage, equal rights for race, and any other 'liberal' idea, but I think bias is something we all have in some way or another.


Lets not cast stones.

Yeah, everyone has a bias of some sort. We all have different experiences that shape who we are and how we think. But I'm not upset that my thinking excludes acceptance and tolerance of those who would gladly relegate entire groups of people to second-class status merely becuase of their color, religion, or sexual orientation. I will listen to their views, but I reserve the right to challenge their thinking. Fortunately, others have done so in the past, so now those whose skin is a different shade than mone are free to participate in my society, those whose religion is sifferent from mine are not allowed to prees theirs upon me without my consent. Soon, those whose sexual orientation is different from mine will be allowed to fully participate as well.

So yeah, bias is there. But some of us work it in a different way.

 

[cell]

this thread has totally confused me big time.

im christian, i read the bible once in a while, go to church say...once a year if im up to it, etc...

i have no problems with gay marriage, gays in the army, gay whatever. my best friend was gay. he went to church. he couldnt change to what people wanted him to be. he was in huge conflict with himself, his beliefs, so he killed himself.

so am i supposed to change my views on gays in church especially in a leadership role? personally, i dont think they should be there.


so the question is, how much more of my beliefs should i throw out the windows because of this?

this is just totally confusing me and its about ruined my day.

 

[BVS]

so am i supposed to change my views on gays in church especially in a leadership role? personally, i dont think they should be there.


so the question is, how much more of my beliefs should i throw out the windows because of this?

this is just totally confusing me and its about ruined my day.

Now I'm confused. You do believe in gays in the military, marriage, etc. but you don't believe they should hold a leadership role in the church? So you would have denied your friend this profession if that's what they wanted to do?

 

[nbcrusader]

this thread has totally confused me big time.

im christian, i read the bible once in a while, go to church say...once a year if im up to it, etc...

i have no problems with gay marriage, gays in the army, gay whatever. my best friend was gay. he went to church. he couldnt change to what people wanted him to be. he was in huge conflict with himself, his beliefs, so he killed himself.

so am i supposed to change my views on gays in church especially in a leadership role? personally, i dont think they should be there.


so the question is, how much more of my beliefs should i throw out the windows because of this?

this is just totally confusing me and its about ruined my day.

The thread's initial story deals with church governance in the Methodist denomination. It was not started to understand the differences in the Methodist denomination nor to examine how a church deals with conflicting ideas.

You have no need to throw out your beliefs. Perhaps that is the goal of some. If anything, it makes me want to spend more time with God through reading the Bible and prayer.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

so am i supposed to change my views on gays in church especially in a leadership role? personally, i dont think they should be there.


so the question is, how much more of my beliefs should i throw out the windows because of this?

I guess I don't really understand why you would oppose gay people holding leadership roles within a church. You've said you don't agree with discriminating against gay people in other scenarios, for example marriage and military service, so why do you believe it's still okay for gay people to be discriminated against in church?

I don't think it has anything to do with throwing beliefs out of the window. It is about accepting people for who they are, recognising their talents and allowing them to achieve their potential whether they are black or white, straight or gay, male or female. It's that simple.

 

[cell]

Now I'm confused. You do believe in gays in the military, marriage, etc. but you don't believe they should hold a leadership role in the church? So you would have denied your friend this profession if that's what they wanted to do?

no, i dont believe gays should hold leadership roles in church.

and whether or not my friend wanted to be a pastor or not, i wouldnt agree with the decision. its not up to me to deny or approve. i can still disagree and love him.

 

[BVS]

no, i dont believe gays should hold leadership roles in church.

and whether or not my friend wanted to be a pastor or not, i wouldnt agree with the decision. its not up to me to deny or approve. i can still disagree and love him.

Alright I just wanted to make sure.

Me, personally anyone who truly wants to serve God in this manner should be allowed to. If it's truly in their heart then why would I deny them and others this gift. We have so many awful people in religious positions throughout the world, I just don't know why some people would want to deny a truly devoted and loving person and the congregation this. I never will.