I must admit, I've never liked a monkey as much as you Shamus. I can see why you are loved so on here. Is it ok if we share just a little monkey love? I wouldn't want anyone to think gays are into bestiality, too. We have enough on our plate ;)
Hatred Toward Gays / Homosexuals
by garbonzo 65 Replies latest members adult
-
-
Botzwana
If you watch the video until it ends...A longer version will present itself on one of the other videos.
-
Fernando
Four things that all supremacist, self-righteous, legalistic, and moralistic Pharisees (religionists) should immediately read and choke (to repentance or to death) on:
- Jesus' righteousness and holiness is freely IMPUTED to believing "gays for Jesus", but never to religionists (compare Matt 23 with Rom 3).
- Jesus was specifically anti-religion, not anti-gay or anti-sex.
- "For all [are dysfunctional in one way or another] and fall short of the glory of God, and it is as a free gift that they are being declared righteous by his undeserved kindness through the release by the ransom [paid] by Christ Jesus" (Romans 3:23-24).
- 'If we make the statement: “We have no [dysfunction],” we are misleading ourselves and the truth is not in us' (1 John 1:8).
-
garbonzo
I wanted to answer the questions garbonzo asked me. How did I find the spiritual community that unreservedly welcomed me? You can read the story and the reactions to it here. I was happy to share this experience with others and gratified with the support I received. As for how does this church reconcile homosexuality and the Bible, I have not yet had that discussion. The reason for this is not that I thought I would not get satisfactory answers, get into an argument, or think that there was no way of resolving being gay and being a sincere Christian. It's just that I found this short treatise online which addressed the issue. I think anyone will appreciate reading it and I'd like to have your thoughts.
Thanks for the link Quendi, I have read all of it, and while the points made seem valid, the author ignores other scriptures that more blantantly condemn homosexuality such as 1 Tim. 1:9-11:
in the knowledge of this fact, that law is promulgated, not for a righteous man, but for persons lawless and unruly, ungodly and sinners, lacking loving-kindness, and profane, murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, manslayers, fornicators, men who lie with males, kidnappers, liars, false swearers, and whatever other thing is in opposition to the healthful teaching according to the glorious good news of the happy God, with which I was entrusted.
and 1 Cor. 6:9-11:
What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom. And yet that is what some of YOU were. But YOU have been washed clean, but YOU have been sanctified, but YOU have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.
I don't see how anyone could debate these scriptures, but I'm still open-minded. I still hold to my view that the Bible is just a historical book litered with stories and historical accuracies, nothing more, nothing less.
-
144001
The bible was written by man, not god. God did not make man "in his own image"; rather, it's quite clear that man made god in his own image. The god of the bible reflects the social norms of the time during which it was written; women are chattels (i.e., property, like a desk or a chair), homos are evil, man is the boss, etc.. The bible has as much validity to me as the Greek myths. Therefore, any ill-thoughts concerning homosexuals expressed in the bible are also devoid of merit.
I have homosexual friends and I have worked with homosexuals in the past. I see no reason to either discriminate against them or to accord them any special status. They are just people, like you and I, except that they have different sexual interests that are none of my business.
As I deem the homosexual interests to be none of my business, I do not appreciate it that homosexuals are tring to make their interests my business (i.e., cramming the homosexual agenda down our throats). Here in Calfornia, a law was recently passed that requires public schools to teach about homosexuals of historical significance. Why not recognize these individuals for their contributions to history, irrespective of their sexal orientation? Is someone really worthy of attention in a history book, primarily because they enjoy homosexual sex?
Despite my disdain for the homosexual political agenda, I do give the gays some slack because they have been suppressed for so long and by so many. Societal hatred for homosexuals is a shameful reflection of a society that prides itself on equality for all.
-
garbonzo
The bible was written by man, not god. God did not make man "in his own image"; rather, it's quite clear that man made god in his own image. The god of the bible reflects the social norms of the time during which it was written; women are chattels (i.e., property, like a desk or a chair), homos are evil, man is the boss, etc.. The bible has as much validity to me as the Greek myths. Therefore, any ill-thoughts concerning homosexuals expressed in the bible are also devoid of merit.
I have homosexual friends and I have worked with homosexuals in the past. I see no reason to either discriminate against them or to accord them any special status. They are just people, like you and I, except that they have different sexual interests that are none of my business.
As I deem the homosexual interests to be none of my business, I do not appreciate it that homosexuals are tring to make their interests my business (i.e., cramming the homosexual agenda down our throats). Here in Calfornia, a law was recently passed that requires public schools to teach about homosexuals of historical significance. Why not recognize these individuals for their contributions to history, irrespective of their sexal orientation? Is someone really worthy of attention in a history book, primarily because they enjoy homosexual sex?
Despite my disdain for the homosexual political agenda, I do give the gays some slack because they have been suppressed for so long and by so many. Societal hatred for homosexuals is a shameful reflection of a society that prides itself on equality for all.
I couldn't have typed it any better myself! I agree with everything you said and it was beautifully written, thank you very much for sharing your views with us!
-
NewChapter
Do you think that agenda could be a way to quell the social hatred for homosexuals? What I mean is that much of society is not where you are yet. They don't take homosexuality with a grain of salt, but still attribute false stereotypes to homosexuals. By mentioning someone's sexual orientation in the context of history, it passes on the message--see these are normal or extraordianary human achievements by a homosexual. They are no different that us in many areas, and they are just as valuable.
I understand you don't want them held in special esteem, but we have a lot of years of prejudice to undo. We can only do that actively, as passive acceptance doesn't always get the message across. Black History is another example. For years society believed falsehoods about African Americans. Now they seek to set the record straight. It's through proper education that we breed tolerance, just as we bred intolerance through false education for the bulk of our history.
It's more than who they prefer to have sex with. It's who they are, how they view the world, how they express emotion. There is a lot of misconception out there, now we seek to enlighten. Look at that little black and white movie flick. We ACTIVELY bred prejudice. It is no longer acceptable to simply say we will no longer actively do that. Now we must ACTIVELY set the record straight.
NC
-
144001
Good points, NC.
As I expressed in my post, I do give gays some slack because of the past history of repression/discrmination/abuse. So I don't dislike gays over this issue. I can certainly understand the motivation for their political agenda. Nevertheless, correcting the wrongs of the past by imposing one's agenda on others who aren't responsible for the past can often alienate otherwise neutral individuals. Black history is a great example. Affirmative action actually increased the negative attitude of many whites against blacks, including some whites who would have otherwise been tolerant of black people.
-
Leolaia
Is someone really worthy of attention in a history book, primarily because they enjoy homosexual sex?
First of all, "enjoying homosexual sex" is an extremely narrow characterization of what it means to be gay, just as "enjoying heterosexual sex" pretty much misses the point of what it means to be a straight person. It includes that, but also has much to do with falling in love, relating to another person romantically, bonding and building a life together, one's circle of friends, and all the other things that come with being a social being. And that may include facing prejudice and discrimination, or internalizing shame, or taking a political stance that aims to overturn society's ingrained homophobia. The above characterization rather sexualizes (and thus trivializes) the lives of people who do not identify as straight, which of course the word "homosexual" already does a fine job of doing.
What's worthy of attention are the accomplishments of people to achieve in spite of discrimination and have worked to create social change. The Stonewall riots are part of the story of activism in the 1960s for equal rights. There are good teaching examples in the story of Harvey Milk and his campaign against the Briggs Initiative (which was all about facilitating employment discrimination). Marriage equality is certainly one of the leading domestic political issues in early 21st century America. Giving historical background to contemporary civic issues is an important purpose of the teaching of history.
-
TimothyT
Ohhhh Leolaia... your depth of understanding...
I remember the elder i spoke with said something like this to me insinuating that all homosexuality is about is sex.
I agree that sex is important and enjoyable in ANY relationship, but for me, falling love was an AMAZING experience. I love being with him, i love cooking with him, i love watching films with him, i love going for walks with him, the list is endless. In relation to all these things, actualy sex is a very minimal matter. I know it is used to define homosexuals, but i sometimes consider, if there was no sex in a relationship between two men, but they held hands, kissed, lived together etc, would they be classed as homosexuals? Interesting. In regards to my disfellowshipping, i was disfellowshipped for having a boyfriend. I was not guilty of anything else but i was still disfellowshipped.
Thanks for your post.
Timmy xxx