the hammer of homosexuality

[robvalue]

So let me get this straight...

Apparently, if someone has gay sex, that means they must be "mentally ill". So that's why they should be killed, according to the bible! Kill mentally ill people.

OK, it makes sense now. God is using gay sex as a way of diagnosing mental illness. And then they deserve to die... because god created them to be mentally ill. Or something. Do we need to kill people with other "forms" of mental illness too?

Oh wait, we can't kill them anymore, can we? Because now we have proper laws that are not based on archaic mythology. So given god is perpetually "out to lunch" we should just piss off gays as much as possible until he gets back and sorts this whole mess out. That will achieve... nothing? Does pissing off mentally ill people make them better?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I just want to read some scientific literature which reveals homosexuality to be an illness.

At least one good peer reviewed article would be a good start, Ron, just one.

[Mermaid]

That's a complete lie.

Here is an unbiased piece on "why" the APA dropped homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses. Its NOT because of any further medical studies! It was
because of political pressure put on the committee, who passed the resolution with only a 55% vote. What this proves is that the lobby effects did their job
without the need for any medical data. And there hasn't been a study, or research since. At least in this country....obviously!

This is a complete lie.

[Drich]

Please. Any reasonable person...

Can see thru your B/S.

and you seem to insist on being unreasonable, at this point...

Appeal to peer pressure.. That's always a good start to a logical argument.

would clearly understand that I do not refer to every single person who is a Christian in the USA, only that we have a particularly virulent branch (generally, the evangelicals and the more conservative Catholics) which has a clear and continuing history of doing this.

And, which classification of religion were you responding to with such negative 'sarcasim' when you directed all that toward what I said?

However, I did  mean "all except the good ones", since there are a large number of good ones, as well, such as the personal examples I listed. Other good Christians include Kingpin and C_L, here, who despite having religious objections to the practice of homosexuality,

Which Again Is A Key Practice in Racist/Bigoted person. Example all gooks eat dog, All Chinks are petty and judgemental, (except the 'good ones.') I had a grandfather who fought the Japs in World war II and I had a Grandfather who fought with the Japs in WWII. The American Grandfather would go on and on about how terrible the japs were, then I found out that my other grandfather fought with the japs and asked him if he was a dirty no good jap? and He said "no boy, he's a good one."

Your 'good one' argument does not paint you in a good light, it only further serves my argument that you are a bigot and liar. So by all means continue to stand behind your words, and garner support for them. Because the fact of the matter is you made no provision in your response to my initial post in this thread. (Because again It does not follow the definition of bigoted speech.) You simply lumped my words in with the Fred Phelps' of the world, and attacked accordingly. It wasn't till challenged that you like my grandfather made a provision for his 'loved ones' under the bigot's "Good one" clause.

as the Bible warrants for Christians, are perfectly willing to accommodate the rights of others in a pluralistic society. I consider them friends and allies, on my list of personal examples, though I certainly recognize that they are not the only ones whom I would consider such!

book chapter and verse. (for accommodating gay rights.)

Are you denying that Christians in this country have a history of abuse of the gay population of this country?

I have made the distinction between those who follow what the bible actually says verse those who have made Homosexuality the modern day witch and proceed to hunt down and persecute them. Again, Homosexuality is a sexual sin (Sexual sin being very very serious) but not unforgivable. Meaning Homosexuals need follow the same road of repentance and redemption as all sinners. That is why it is so important not to justify that sin, because it dooms the Homosexual to Hell. From an eternal stand point their is Potentially more mercy to be found at the end of a Hell fire and condemnation sermon against Homosexuality than their is in a society that openly embraces this sin or any other.

As pointed out by several people, along with me, if you're radical enough that you would tell your daughter you won't attend her wedding because of your personal religious views, then yes I do consider you to be one of the broad category I briefly described.

Any 'marriage' that does not conform to the standards of a biblical marriage is not a marriage. it is a civil union. This includes all homosexual and even some hetrosexual unions. Whether I would go or not would greatly depend on her and where her heart was. If she was lost to the world, then so to would she be lost to me. If their were still hope, then I would attend, but either way I would not be paying for anything.

I don't know whether or not you're the type who would yell something cruel at a homosexual (I doubt that this is the case, given your current objections, but that far extreme is not necessary; there are many ways to be cruel to gays, and screaming at them is only one way).

Anything the a gay person finds objectionable can be twisted into being 'cruel.' I am not a egg shell walker one way or the other. (As witnessed by how I interact here) At the same time I will always do what I know to be right no matter who it is.

As I already wrote, I certainly consider your position more moderate than the screamers, but no less bigoted, and only somewhat less-harmful.

Maybe look at the definition of bigoted again.
big·ot·ry
/ˈbiɡətrē/
noun
noun: bigotry; plural noun: bigotries
intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

It is the "screaming" (And in your case the sarcasm) that identifies what a bigot actually is. It is the hate /distain that turns simple opposition or protest into bigotry.

Um, "want to hate everyone"... wut?

No, I want to not  have to be angry about the harm I see done by Christian bigotry, both subtle and overt, and to listen to stories from people who are driven to outright despair by the actions of their religious friends and relatives.

Ok let's try this:
Using the proper definition of bigot I provided above, apply it to my first post in this thread that identifies Homosexuality as a sin. Show the hatred and intolerance in what was written. Remember if you can't, then what was written is by definition not bigoted. it simply stands in opposition to what was said. Now if this is the case How is treating someone who simply does not believe as you do, with the same anger and distain as someone who is on a homosexual 'witch hunt' ANY Different than what the homosexual witch hunters are trying to do? How are your action somehow less bigoted, less hateful, less intolerant? What makes you ANY DIFFERENT than a Mirror, Mirror version of fred Phelps?

Do you see now why I identified you, your actions as being hypocritical? Because when given what you perceive to be a justifiable opportunity you attack or lash out with the SAME bitter anger and venom as those you say are such bad people in the church. Your Actions are the same as theirs. the only difference you have with the Homosexual/witch hunters is which side of the topic you fall on. What makes them bad people also lends it self to your judgement/Judgement of your actions as well.

I want to see more  Christians who show (real) love regardless of whether a person's sexuality matches their religious standards. You clearly have a compulsion to pretend that my righteous anger toward the people who hurt gays with their words and deeds means I hate anyone who is a Believer, and that clearly is not so.

That's the thing sport. Nothing I said put me in that group, yet you classified everything I said with those people, Because to you EVERYONE who does not believe as you or one of your 'good one's believe, is immediately identified as a Fred Phelps. Then attacked accordingly.

I do not consider you "one of the good ones". You consider yourself one of the good ones. And I stand by what I said in the post you are quoting here, every word.

Again I don't care if I am in your friends and family circle or not. The point I was making is my words contain no birgotry or hate in them which means despite your personal definition of a bigot I do not fall under the same category as you and say all those in the church of hate gay people do. You inability to make that distinction makes you a fred phelps of anti gay haters. because you like he only see those who agree with your beliefs, and everyone else in lumped into one group and attacked.

If this were true do you really think Gay marriage would be a thing right now?

What, you think atheists are responsible for the victories in the gay marriage debate? As I pointed out with the example of my inlaws and parents, many Christians have changed or moderated their views in the past couple of decades, especially the past decade.

Atheist alone? no. As you pointed out non-biblically based Christians also are responsible for this.

Just as the Civil Rights Movement was won when whites began to see that White Supremacy was unsupportable, thanks to the actions of activists like Dr. King, and felt sickened after witnessing the cruelty that was enacted against the black minority population, it was the action of a coalition of gays, liberal Christians, and other hetero allies that enabled this gay rights victory. The fact remains that, overall, Christians make up 75% of this country. You guys aren't in danger of being genuinely repressed, even though the fundamentalist types tend to scream oppression when they are stopped from trying to enforce their theocratic leanings upon others.

kinda not the same thing at all sport. The oppression of a minority is based on a physically identifiable trait that one can not hide or escape from. So discrimation is automatic and often time without even a word spoken. Homosexuality in a internal/not physical manifested unless one chooses to do so (closeted gays is a good example of this)

So while discrimation is possible, as with any ideology (for example religion) it is not on the same level as racial discrimation.
I've lived both, and it's not even close to being the same thing. It's just a good way to tap 'white guilt' and push to get what they want.

lol, no. The Nazi's started just like You guys are. A hand full of people taking the actions of a few, and misrepresenting the facts to try and apply to everyone who was not like minded. using fear and hate to rally majority support. This is exactly what you've done here.

Soooooo you're claiming that we atheists are going to convince the liberal half of the Christian church to turn on the conservative half? Because that's the only way I can see that your claim, here, makes any sense as an argument. I'm just trying to wrap my mind around such lunatic paranoia. Difficult to do.

Please explain where you got that from in what I said.

I am speaking to you specifically and how you warp the truth. Then I compared what you did to how hitler used that very same method to turn a nation against the Jews.

Again My example was directed at you, but many like you also use this technique, so if my observation applies to one or a whole movement then so be it. You be the judge on who else I am speaking about

[FatAndFaithless]

Phew. That's the biggest wall of bullshit I've seen in a while.

[Drich]

why would your god make us sexual creatures and then demand us to forgo that desire until only a specific set of circumstances occur?  Why would a good and loving god do this and then threaten us with hell in the after life and make us feel guilt in this one.

The answer:  A) God is a cruel jokester or
                   B) there is no god and the whole thing was made up by men who were/are homophobic.

Why does a bakery make cakes and pies when the bakers must know their are people out there who would only eat cakes and pies till they died? Are bakers jokesters? Are their no other healthy bodily needs, and those who only want to binge on cake and pie justified in their diet? thereby rendering those who would allow themselves and their children to ONLY eat cake and pie 'good parents' and those who would say otherwise, hate filled bigoted people?

Cakes and pies, Like sex in this instance has a place in life. It can play a very positive role in our lives if we don't make all of life, all about cakes and pies/sex. It should not define every aspect of who we are, nor rule every part of life. We should not center all life around making and eating Just cake and just pie. Yet their are those who do. So then should all bakeries stop selling cake and pie because their are those of us out there, who will not control their primal urge for sweets?

Or

Is it reasonable for a society to establish some sort of healthy guideline for a proper diet and offer or even tell people they are not eating healthy/tell them to not just eat only what 'taste good' but to them, and Teach them to control their base desires and live a healthy life?

Just incase you missed it, Cakes and pie in this analogy is ALL Sex/Sexual desire. God would have sex be apart of a health life, not the only reason for living. Those who would put sex or their sexual desire before all other aspects of life are those who would only eat cake and pie.

Just because their are people who only live for sex does not mean ALL life is only about what they want to live for. God is seeking to push us past out base 'monkey' desires and make us greater than the sum total of our parts. To borrow a term from another religion, God wants us to be 'enlightened' and a healthy control of our lower base functions/desires is apart of that enlightenment process.
Where Christianity is different that Buddhism is we can never expect to reach that 'enlightenment' by our works, but rather we must earnestly want that enlightenment, and seek atonement and redemption to backfill in our short comings.

The Law of God here is meant not to be the impossible standard in which to live and those who do not meet it burn forever in Hell. Like in Romans 3 The law here is meant to show us our short commings, so that we make seek atonement, not remind us we will never make the cut. The point of the Law being that no one is or ever will be good enough, so that an honest/humble person seeks atonement with a contrite heart.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Yeah that was most definitely an avalanche of bullshit.

I did like the Star Trek original series reference, though, however misguided.

I prefer this one:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bigot

bigot (n.)
1590s, "sanctimonious person, religious hypocrite," from French bigot (12c.), which is of unknown origin.

The only part of the above avalanche of bullshit I think is worthy of a response is this:

Any 'marriage' that does not conform to the standards of a biblical marriage is not a marriage. it is a civil union. This includes all homosexual and even some hetrosexual unions. Whether I would go or not would greatly depend on her and where her heart was. If she was lost to the world, then so to would she be lost to me. If their were still hope, then I would attend, but either way I would not be paying for anything.

Churches don't perform marriages. They perform wedding ceremonies, an act which is completely unrelated to the civil laws that regulate and define marriage. Since you appear not to know what I mean by "a pluralistic society" (you asked for Bible verses to back up why people would accept that they live in a pluralistic society? ... I mean, really, come on, man!), it means that we are a nation of many faiths and other beliefs, and one religious group does not get to establish their personal religious beliefs in order to restrict the actions of others, except for those who voluntarily choose to be a part of that faith. Many Christians actually do understand this concept, while others really seem to think that it's okay to try to establish theocratic rule-- when you say "conform to the standards of a biblical marriage", you're talking theocracy, no different than those who try to establish Sharia Law in other countries.

I am not afraid of being seen as a bigot against the ridiculous ideas of those who really believe that their religious ideologies gives them a right to dictate. I am as against the Sharia Law types as I am against the Biblical Law types, and you're not going to use the "shame the liberal into being so open minded his spine bends" bullshit against me.

Carry the rest of your whining to the cheese shop.

[The Grand Nudger]

If the point of gods law, is that no one can satisfy it, it's useless. Why is god so bad at everything Drich? He could just take a look down here for pointers........pass on the word for me? I'd do it myself, but since I'm not one of his people I don't have the batphone.

[Cecelia]

Why would God give his law to a group of slaves over two thousand years ago, and then to a small group of descendants of those slaves 2000 years ago, rather than giving it to everyone?

If God wrote it in everyone's heart, then there would be no need for the bible. In fact that would make me question the bible even more, because it's completely unnecessary, and contradicts what is in the hearts of many.

[dyresand]

Why would God give his law to a group of slaves over two thousand years ago, and then to a small group of descendants of those slaves 2000 years ago, rather than giving it to everyone?  

If God wrote it in everyone's heart, then there would be no need for the bible.  In fact that would make me question the bible even more, because it's completely unnecessary, and contradicts what is in the hearts of many.

Simple because a bunch of fucking goat herders got together and found a way to trick stupid people. 

In biblical terms god only gives a shit about the people that  he deems worthy.