I would really love an answer from our resident Christians…
-
louderthandrew — 16 years ago(January 06, 2010 10:42 AM)
alpeaston,
This may not be what you are looking for, but I'll tell you EXACTLY how a real Christian justifies this hypocrisy: they don't.
See, I've been a Christian for years. And while as a child I had the tendency to simply parrot my family and church's beliefs on homosexuality (and the larger political spectrum as a whole), as a reasonably intelligent adult, I've learned to evaluate things for myself, and I find no discrepancy in believing in Christ AND supporting gay rights. After all, I find little in the Bible that justifies blanketing an entire group with hate, or, for that matter, finds Jesus (the obvious figurehead of Christianity) at odds with homosexuality in the first place. I do, however, see the harmfulness of divorce, especially as it pertains to the family.
But that's just me. Some Christians choose love, some find it easier to hold on to archaic prejudices.
-
alpeaston — 16 years ago(January 06, 2010 04:42 PM)
louderthandrew,
Thanks! It is very encouraging that, someone who is a Christian, can also see what I see; that the bigotry against gays is not based on religion or dogma but just plain old "left over" prejudice. You cam also see that there are so many other areas where Christian could put their money and effort.
It is easy to understand why Christians do NOT want to toughen divorce laws - because they want the "right" to avail themselves of divorce (keep in mind here that Christian have a higher divorce rate then either atheists or, where gay marriage is available, gays!.
I image, if gays and atheists banded together to toughen or change the divorce laws, that Christians would be furious that their "choice" to divorce was being challenged.
I wish we were willing to do it Might be fun to give these hypocrites a taste of their own BS. -
BoogieKnight — 16 years ago(January 20, 2010 03:29 AM)
"I think the reason Christian put less emphasis on divorce is because, well, the majority of the time it just HAS to happen. Marriages go through turmoil, spousal abuse, one person gets saved and the other doesn't, and the only solution is to rid yourself of that person for the sake of your well-being."
But according to the Bible, your "well-being" isn't allowed to trump remaining in such a volatile marriage. So it is assumed that one is supposed to tolerate the termoil, spousal abuse, "getting saved" or not.the only allowable Biblical exception is adultery. -
BoogieKnight — 16 years ago(January 22, 2010 02:41 AM)
"God equally hates homosexuality and divorce. I was not trying to say that divorce was any less of a sin than homosexuality is. I was trying to explain that I think Christians put more emphasis on one of them because the situation is different."
Different yet equally unacceptable Biblically. So although you are only speaking for yourself, surely you can admit based upon this, that a great number of other Christians are in fact complete hypocrites when it comes to comparing the implications of divorce and homosexuality. Right? Pretty simple question here, ofuoku71. -
AmericanGayAtheist — 15 years ago(September 18, 2010 12:45 PM)
They should. A sin is a sin. God equally hates homosexuality and divorce. I was not trying to say that divorce was any less of a sin than homosexuality is. I was trying to explain that I think Christians put more emphasis on one of them because the situation is different.
Yeah, only 10 % (or less by Christian standards) of the population are gay but 50% of heterosexuals want the OPTION to divorce if they are UNHAPPY (and there is no scripture that say UNHAPPY is a valid reason for a divorce - in fact the only reason given in the bible was adultery). But that's the difference; its not about scripture or religion or anything else, it is the difference of what the "majority" wants as opposed to a left over prejudice that cretins over 35 can't let go.
The constitution was created to protect US Citizens from "MOB" (Majority) rule. That is why denying gay marriage is wrong, it is being denied out of a religious "prejudice" and has nothing to do the civil and legal aspect of it!
The really great news is that in the under 35 crowd, they get it! Even if we don't get gay marriage, they will - it is just a matter of time.
I just wish I had more time so I can see it happen!
"Atheism is a 'Religion' sort of like NOT collecting stamps is a hobby!!!" -
anasamas — 15 years ago(July 10, 2010 04:10 AM)
You are a dishonest piece of filth.
The Westboro Baptist Church????
They don't represent Christians and they certainly don't speak for Baptists.
This is a fringe bunch of radical nutjobs that protest with their vulgar signs at the funerals of serviceman who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They represent Christians like the Ku Klux Klan represents White people.
Whenever you make a dishonest argument like this, it makes your agenda look even more pathetic than it already is. It is this kind of crap that turns the public against you and is why Americans continue to be squarely against gay marriage. -
hadmatter — 15 years ago(July 10, 2010 10:00 AM)
Al never said or implied that the Westboro Baptist Church represented Christianity in general, and your attempt to vilify him with this implication is just as pathetic as the behavior of which you're accusing him (behavior which, for the record, did not actually occur).
Of
course
Fred Phelps is a radical fringe nutjob, but he also has a huge number of vocal supporters (and, one might imagine, a fair number who agree with him but are smart enough to keep rather quiet about it).
Exactly what was "dishonest" about referring to Fred Phelps (a real man with a real, hateful, anti-gay agenda)? What was "dishonest" about supplying a
direct quote
from one of his supporters? What was dishonest about asking a valid question regarding what appears to be, at least from the perspective of an outsider, a fundamental Christian hypocrisy?
So you think that gay people wanting the right to marry is a "pathetic agenda". Fine. But your disgusting accusation that you and "the public" would turn against us because of something like
this
? That is the truly pathetic behavior on this thread.
Here's what it looks like to me. You're fully aware that the Christian obsession with homosexuals
cannot
be reconciled, biblically, with their general refusal to take exception to divorce. Rather than be forced to answer that hypocrisy, you manufacture a false offense - this
fiction
that Al accused all Christians of being like Phelps - and then blame homosexuals for
your
hatred of them.
Wrong.
You're "squarely against gay marriage" because you don't like gay people. You justify your personal dislike for gay people by using the bible. And you ignore other rules in the bible because they're not convenient to you.
Which is
exactly
the point that Al was making in the first place. Congratulations, you've demonstrated the precise hypocrisy he was trying to bring to light.
I am the sod-off shotgun. -
anasamas — 15 years ago(July 10, 2010 07:54 PM)
I'm not going to restate my position. It's all been done before.
'Almost' doesn't count. I don't see a federal law allowing this craziness in the near future. Once you convince the brain deads that rights you have never had are being 'taken away', you might get it.
I'm not going to relive past debates but every time interracial marriage, womens' rights, civil rights, court precedent, the 'homophobe' and "intolerance' name calling is brought up, you immediately lose the argument. None of this is germaine and/or true. Hadmatter told a lie about me hating gays. He also lied saying I was using the bible and religion in my comments. Also lies. This is how you do business. You don't HAVE an argument. It is based entirely on your own selfish demands and hope.
I'm not 'afraid' of further debate. You have nothing new and our side has won each time. As far as 'court cases' are concerned, when you win at the Supreme Court, the place you lost 39 years ago, you will have succeeeded in 'winning'.
It certainly could happen one day, so good luck.