Christians Endorse God's Hatred

[Neo-Scholastic]

And when did I use the words 'sick', 'icky' or 'repulsive'. Maybe these represent your own feelings about homosexual activity. I called it a sinful sexual perversion. Sin means contrary to biblical teaching. True and not hateful. Sexual used to indicate the type of behaviour being discussed. And perversion to describe deviation from conjugal love, like s&m. I fail to see hate or bigotry in how I have addressed the issue. Seems some of you are intent on seeing malice where none exists.

[Jacob(smooth)]

And when did I use the words 'sick', 'icky' or 'repulsive'. Maybe these represent your own feelings about homosexual activity. I called it a sinful sexual perversion. Sin means contrary to biblical teaching. True and not hateful. Sexual used to indicate the type of behaviour being discussed. And perversion to describe deviation from conjugal love, like s&m. I fail to see hate or bigotry in how I have addressed the issue. Seems some of you are intent on seeing malice where none exists.

As I said, the definition I found also mentioned immoral. I don't think it's immoral

Also, I have no problem with s&m!

[Anomalocaris]

And when did I use the words 'sick', 'icky' or 'repulsive'. Maybe these represent your own feelings about homosexual activity. I called it a sinful sexual perversion. Sin means contrary to biblical teaching. True and not hateful. Sexual used to indicate the type of behaviour being discussed. And perversion to describe deviation from conjugal love, like s&m. I fail to see hate or bigotry in how I have addressed the issue. Seems some of you are intent on seeing malice where none exists.

I think you should go to hell and suffer infinite and never ending torture.

Here, I just invented a god who said I am right to wish you so.

Therefore, there is no malice, only love, in my wishing upon you the worst you can imagine heppening you. Remember, only love, Now go along and fry.

[Doubting Thomas]

And when did I use the words 'sick', 'icky' or 'repulsive'. Maybe these represent your own feelings about homosexual activity. I called it a sinful sexual perversion.

OK, my apologies, you just called it a sinful perversion, not a sick perversion. That makes it so much better.

The fact is that society doesn't see sexual orientation as a perversion, only a minority of bigoted homophobes do. What other people do in the bedroom is none of your business and you have no right to refuse rights to people based on what they do with other consenting adults. This is why people are reacting negatively toward you and other homophobes.

[Ryantology]

And perversion to describe deviation from conjugal love, like s&m. I fail to see hate or bigotry in how I have addressed the issue.

Either you live in a place where being called a sinful pervert might be used as a forthright term of endearment, or you just have a vocabulary sufficient enough to mask how much of a hateful bigot you are at heart.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Throwing around epithates like "homophobe" is why it is difficult to have a reasonable conversation about the issue. Having a sexual orientation is not in itself a perversion. I never said it was. People have all kinds of temptations to which they are susceptible, not all of which have anything to do with sexuality. Some people are tempted by members of their own sex. Others have adulterous desires towards the opposite sex. It is the act and not the desire that is a perversion.

I have stated multiple times on this thread that I do not care what people do privately, homosexually or otherwise. I have also clearly stated my position regarding marriage, that its religious and civil functions should be separated in such a way that all partnerships, regardless of composition, would have the same privileges and responsibilities. In case it was not clear enough for your little mind, I will be even more specific. All partnerships, regardless of gender identity, would, for political purposes, would be considered secular civil unions. The term marriage would be reserved for private sacramental commitments. For the religious, that is an extra layer of commitment. That approach would give gays equal rights and still preserve the sacred meaning that marriage has for Christians and other believers.

[freedomfromforum]

The term marriage would be reserved for private sacramental commitments. For the religious, that is an extra layer of commitment. That approach would give gays equal rights and still preserve the sacred meaning that marriage has for Christians and other believers.

"Preserve the sacred meaning that marriage has for Christians and other believers while denying equal considerations for human beings our dogma disagrees with." (Bold added to finish Chad's sentiment)

PERFECT AGAIN CHAD!!!

You're really catching on with this thread.

The more you post - the deeper and wider the hole you're digging for your christ.

[Esquilax]

Except that marriage is not, and never was, a christian invention, Chad; your guys don't get to bogart the word now just because you've hitched such significance to it in the meantime. That'd just be another thing christianity has stolen from the rest of the world, and it shouldn't be, especially for more of this "separate but equal," segregationist shit.

Gay people don't need to make concessions to make christians comfortable.

[The Valkyrie]

I've heard many Christians say that they aren't judging anyone when they make bigoted comments, and that it is God who does the judging. That they seem to be able to disregard their blatant agreement with God's hateful judgments is the clearest example of exactly how blinding religion is.

Whenever I hear theists say that I'm always reminded of people who start sentences with, "I'm not being racist, but . . ."

[Ryantology]

Throwing around epithates like "homophobe" is why it is difficult to have a reasonable conversation about the issue. Having a sexual orientation is not in itself a perversion. I never said it was. People have all kinds of temptations to which they are susceptible, not all of which have anything to do with sexuality. Some people are tempted by members of their own sex. Others have adulterous desires towards the opposite sex. It is the act and not the desire that is a perversion.

It was never possible to have a reasonable conversation about the issue with someone who uses a book of fairy tales to justify discrimination against other people.

I have stated multiple times on this thread that I do not care what people do privately, homosexually or otherwise. I have also clearly stated my position regarding marriage, that its religious and civil functions should be separated in such a way that all partnerships, regardless of composition, would have the same privileges and responsibilities. In case it was not clear enough for your little mind, I will be even more specific. All partnerships, regardless of gender identity, would, for political purposes, would be considered secular civil unions. The term marriage would be reserved for private sacramental commitments. For the religious, that is an extra layer of commitment. That approach would give gays equal rights and still preserve the sacred meaning that marriage has for Christians and other believers.

You would support equality in some alternate universe where marriage was not a legally-binding contract recognized by the government, but since that's how it is here, you just can't do it because Jesus.

Your stated position doesn't reflect the reality of the situation and is, therefore, stinks of a convenient copout.

I would not be antagonistic towards Christianity if it wasn't designed to be a tool for people to justify their various hatreds, if Christians concerned themselves with loving thy neighbor instead of looking for every possible reason not to, but it is what it is.