Evangelical Alliance: "We aren't homophobic women-haters"

[Simon Moon]

The problem with evangelicals being "homophobic women haters" rests with others who label them so. Evangelicals believe that homosexual relations are sinful and that women and men have different roles in the church and family. Others hear this and then say that they hate homosexuals and women. This perceived hatred is not embraced by evangelicals, but rather is assumed by other people who are ignorant of their beliefs.

The question then becomes, do you personally want to prevent homosexuals from getting married? Or prevent women that don't follow your particular Bronze age texts, from having nontraditional (by your standards) relationships or family structures?

Would you consider Evangelicals that do want to prevent these things to be bigoted?

[Lek]

Obviously, you strongly disagree with christian beliefs. Do you hate christians?

I hate prejudices. I hate people who think it's their business to stick their noses where they don't belong, since it doesn't concern them.

Christians, no, I don't hate them. Fundamentalist on the other hand, who think a book is to be followed to the letter, even if it does mean to discriminate against others, are a different matter. And I don't reserve my contempt for christians, but for every breed of fundamentalist out there.

So you don't hate evangelical christians. You hold contempt for people who unjustly discriminate against other people.

[abaris]

So you don't hate evangelical christians. You hold contempt for people who unjustly discriminate against other people.

Thanks for twisting my words. I hold everyone in contempt, who discriminates against people just because they belong to a certain group. There is no just in discriminating people because of gender, sexual orientation or the coincidence of being born into a certain group. It's always unjust.

So, you decide if the shoe fits evangelical christians.

[Lek]

The question then becomes, do you personally want to prevent homosexuals from getting married? Or prevent women that don't follow your particular Bronze age texts, from having nontraditional (by your standards) relationships or family structures?

Would you consider Evangelicals that do want to prevent these things to be bigoted?

I don't want to prevent homosexuals or women from having equal rights. First of all, it's up to each woman to either accept biblical views of her role in the church and family or not. Secondly, I think that homosexuals should have equal rights under the law with heterosexuals. They should have equal access to the privileges, protections, tax breaks, etc, that come with the married status. However, until recently, marriage, which is sacred to christians, has been defined as between a man and a woman. I don't believe it's right to redefine marriage and step on the toes of those who do consider it sacred. Equal rights can be allowed without redefining marriage. For example: A woman attends a college and attempts to join a fraternity. She is denied membership and is told that fraternities are for men only, but she can join a sorority which has equal status with fraternities. She is not being denied any rights by not being allowed to join a fraternity. Furthermore, she has no right to demand that fraternities be required to admit women into their membership.

---

So you don't hate evangelical christians. You hold contempt for people who unjustly discriminate against other people.

Thanks for twisting my words. I hold everyone in contempt, who discriminates against people just because they belong to a certain group. There is no just in discriminating people because of gender, sexual orientation or the coincidence of being born into a certain group. It's always unjust.

So, you decide if the shoe fits evangelical christians.

Well, the shoe fits if they do discriminate in those matters, but it doesn't fit just because they believe certain things about the morality of homosexual acts or the role of women. You're confusing the two different situations.

[Simon Moon]

The question then becomes, do you personally want to prevent homosexuals from getting married? Or prevent women that don't follow your particular Bronze age texts, from having nontraditional (by your standards) relationships or family structures?

Would you consider Evangelicals that do want to prevent these things to be bigoted?

I don't want to prevent homosexuals or women from having equal rights. First of all, it's up to each woman to either accept biblical views of her role in the church and family or not. Secondly, I think that homosexuals should have equal rights under the law with heterosexuals. They should have equal access to the privileges, protections, tax breaks, etc, that come with the married status. However, until recently, marriage, which is sacred to christians, has been defined as between a man and a woman. I don't believe it's right to redefine marriage and step on the toes of those who do consider it sacred. Equal rights can be allowed without redefining marriage. For example: A woman attends a college and attempts to join a fraternity. She is denied membership and is told that fraternities are for men only, but she can join a sorority which has equal status with fraternities. She is not being denied any rights by not being allowed to join a fraternity. Furthermore, she has no right to demand that fraternities be required to admit women into their membership.

In the US, marriage is nothing but a legal contract. Why would you want to discriminate against 2 adults of the same sex from entering a legal contract?

Are there any other legal contracts that you can think of that you'd discriminate in the same way?

The religious ceremony is a different story. If churches, temples or mosques do not want to perform same sex ceremonies, that is fine with me.

If you want to allow homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals, then the correct thing to do is have the legal portion for all couples called "civil unions", and have the religious ceremony called a marriage.

How does it "step on the toes' of Christians?

[abaris]

Well, the shoe fits if they do discriminate in those matters, but it doesn't fit just because they believe certain things about the morality of homosexual acts or the role of women. You're confusing the two different situations.

If they don't discriminate, I have no problems with them. I'm not a preacher or a missionary. They may believe in Donald Duck for all I care and that's why I didn't paint them with the broad brush, but made my point about those I dislike pretty clear.

However, if they take center stage to call the rights of certain people into question, whilst quoting their belief, I make it my business to be against that.

My one and only point is, that I don't accept anyone discriminating against a group of people. Whoever does it has earned my contempt, be they religiously or politically motivated.

[Lek]

In the US, marriage is nothing but a legal contract. Why would you want to discriminate against 2 adults of the same sex from entering a legal contract?

Are there any other legal contracts that you can think of that you'd discriminate in the same way?

The religious ceremony is a different story. If churches, temples or mosques do not want to perform same sex ceremonies, that is fine with me.

If you want to allow homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals, then the correct thing to do is have the legal portion for all couples called "civil unions", and have the religious ceremony called a marriage.

How does it "step on the toes' of Christians?

I agree with you totally here. The government has no business deciding who is married and who is not.

[Esquilax]

The problem with evangelicals being "homophobic women haters" rests with others who label them so. Evangelicals believe that homosexual relations are sinful and that women and men have different roles in the church and family. Others hear this and then say that they hate homosexuals and women. This perceived hatred is not embraced by evangelicals, but rather is assumed by other people who are ignorant of their beliefs.

Which is a very convenient position for the evangelicals to take, but it's also not one whit convincing: you don't get to shop off the beliefs you adopt onto your god, and pretend that you have no ownership over them. At best, this appeal to second hand beliefs is simply a "just following orders" excuse, but the Nuremburg defense is hardly convincing. At worst, the position is that though the evangelicals don't hate women and homosexuals, they willingly opt to follow a set of beliefs and mandated actions that look, sound, and behave, precisely like a group who hated women and homosexuals would.

In essence, it's an attempt to act in ways befitting homophobic, misogynistic bigots, while shirking all the negative reactions that such behaviors would produce in a progressive society. Like I said, it's very convenient.

Secondly, I think that homosexuals should have equal rights under the law with heterosexuals. They should have equal access to the privileges, protections, tax breaks, etc, that come with the married status. However, until recently, marriage, which is sacred to christians, has been defined as between a man and a woman. I don't believe it's right to redefine marriage and step on the toes of those who do consider it sacred. Equal rights can be allowed without redefining marriage.

Shockingly, this point doesn't become less fatuous the more it's repeated. Marriage is sacred to christians? Who cares? If I decided that the erasure of the christian religion was sacred to me, if I had a few hundred years of tradition in that, would you and your churches completely disband in order to avoid stepping on my toes? What if christian marriage ceremonies were offensive to my religion, does that mean they should stop? Or is it just your religious observances that should be held above the secular government?

Additionally, this talk of "redefining" marriage is an eye rolling crock, because the christian habit of redefining marriage is well storied. Multiple wives? Gone. Slaves via marriage? Gone. Interracial marriages? Now allowed. The definition of marriage has already been redefined, even in recent history. Why should you get to draw a line in the sand for future generations simply because it's convenient to you?

[Chad32]

If someone is a bad influence then it is your responsibility to cut tires with them. When you get in trouble the cops aren't going to care when you tell them that so and so told me to do it. Anyway, the bible can be translated a million different ways. Just sit around until you figure away to alter it in a fashion that doesn't discriminate homosexuals and women and you are good to go. Or don't. Doesn't matter to me.

Yo guys just proved my point. Let's be real about where the hate is coming from. By the way, homophobia is defined as dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.

I'm not sure how we proved your point. Yes we know it's defined as dislike of homosexual people. Which you are. you may say you just dislike homosexuality itsself, but that would be like me saying I dislike heterosexuality itsself. It makes no sense.

[Lek]

If they don't discriminate, I have no problems with them. I'm not a preacher or a missionary. They may believe in Donald Duck for all I care and that's why I didn't paint them with the broad brush, but made my point about those I dislike pretty clear.

However, if they take center stage to call the rights of certain people into question, whilst quoting their belief, I make it my business to be against that.

My one and only point is, that I don't accept anyone discriminating against a group of people. Whoever does it has earned my contempt, be they religiously or politically motivated.

Amen. My point is just because someone is an evangelical christian doesn't mean that he discriminates against homosexuals or women. Believing one thing is not necessarily discriminating. Furthermore, there are many people who are not christian or religious who do discriminate against homosexuals. I'd also bet that there are homosexuals who hate christians and would discriminate against them if they could. We've got all kinds in this world.

---

Yo guys just proved my point. Let's be real about where the hate is coming from. By the way, homophobia is defined as dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.

I'm not sure how we proved your point. Yes we know it's defined as dislike of homosexual people. Which you are. you may say you just dislike homosexuality itsself, but that would be like me saying I dislike heterosexuality itsself. It makes no sense.

No. Not true. I hate drunkeness, but I used to be a drunk and I don't hate myself. I like some homosexual people just fine and others not so much. My brother is gay and I love him, but I don't like him much because he continually bashes me when we talk on the phone. We never even get to discuss homosexuality. He has just assumed, for no valid reason, that I hate him.

---

Which is a very convenient position for the evangelicals to take, but it's also not one whit convincing: you don't get to shop off the beliefs you adopt onto your god, and pretend that you have no ownership over them. At best, this appeal to second hand beliefs is simply a "just following orders" excuse, but the Nuremburg defense is hardly convincing. At worst, the position is that though the evangelicals don't hate women and homosexuals, they willingly opt to follow a set of beliefs and mandated actions that look, sound, and behave, precisely like a group who hated women and homosexuals would.

In essence, it's an attempt to act in ways befitting homophobic, misogynistic bigots, while shirking all the negative reactions that such behaviors would produce in a progressive society. Like I said, it's very convenient.

So your position is that because I believe homosexual relations are sinful that I hate homosexuals? And because I believe a woman should not be a pastor that means I hate women? So far, I've never advanced the position that people should be denied the right to have homosexual relations or women denied the right to be pastors in a church that allows it. Why do you assume something that you don't know about?

Shockingly, this point doesn't become less fatuous the more it's repeated. Marriage is sacred to christians? Who cares? If I decided that the erasure of the christian religion was sacred to me, if I had a few hundred years of tradition in that, would you and your churches completely disband in order to avoid stepping on my toes? What if christian marriage ceremonies were offensive to my religion, does that mean they should stop? Or is it just your religious observances that should be held above the secular government?

Additionally, this talk of "redefining" marriage is an eye rolling crock, because the christian habit of redefining marriage is well storied. Multiple wives? Gone. Slaves via marriage? Gone. Interracial marriages? Now allowed. The definition of marriage has already been redefined, even in recent history. Why should you get to draw a line in the sand for future generations simply because it's convenient to you?

If you want to call a union between two dogs marriage you can. I jut said that I think it's wrong to change the meaning of an institution that is sacred to so many. How do you view my previous example of fraternities and sororities?