Why Are Christians Against Love?

This is….tiring.

Several points can be inferred from the title of this post alone. There is no need to read the post.

1) It’s a leading question. “Mr. Smith, Why were you in the mood to kill your wife?”
2) We already know what the topic of the post is going to be – the hypocrisy of Christians.
3) By using the words “love” and “Christians” in the same sentence, it is hoped to create some sort of dissonance between the two.

I absolutely love this piece. I think a lot of Shore’s stuff is really good, but this one just knocked it out of the park for me.

Those Christians can’t conceive that someone could love a person of the same gender. It’s important to realize that for them it’s all about sex and lust. And thus they can easily equate homosexuality with heterosexual lust. For them, both are things than can be denied and controlled.

I understand the equal rights part and have no problem with that. But, I would still advise any man, gay or straight, against marriage.

There’s a reason marriage has such a high failure rate….it sucks.

Looking at his list of other sins- murder, robbery, rape, etc- have you ever noticed that Christians never want to deny marriage rights to people who do all that stuff (i.e. criminals)? Homosexuality is perfectly legal here in America, and becoming more and more accepted as mainstream thankfully, yet because ‘it’s a sin’ then allowing gay folks to marry will somehow degrade marriage as a whole? So why then aren’t Christians protesting when common criminals want to get married? Why aren’t they pushing for mandatory criminal background checks for anyone and everyone planning on getting married? As far as I know, in many places even convicted criminals doing hard time in prison can get married (though I’m sure there’s extra hoops to jump through). Yet you don’t hear the religious right fighting against that, complaining that it will weaken their marriage. So while homosexuality is 100% legal, it’s apparently more heinous than, say, gang rape, or kidnapping. Pretty fucked up. I tend to avoid arguments with the gay marriage bashers (seems futile to me, and I don’t need any more headaches than I’ve already got) but I wish that for the people who do get into debates with them, especially online or public ones, I wish they’d bring this point up more often.

The sticking point is this: the Bible is explicitly and unambiguously anti-gay. It couldn’t be more anti-gay if it carried around a big sign that said “being gay is despicable in the eyes of God and is a perversion of nature”… wait. No, hang on. That’s exactly what it says.

Those who are Christians self-identify as being members of that faith. They make a choice to align themselves with a group whose belief system is allegedly based on the same Bible that clearly hates Gay people.

Why would anyone choose to associate themselves with a clearly anti-gay, unloving belief system? Either a) they’re not really thinking about the implications of the label they choose for themselves or 2) they don’t care.

BTW, the prevailing attitude towards homosexuality in Jesus’ day was exactly that expressed by the Bible in other places. Homos were to be killed if caught. Jesus, who had no problem speaking out against the prevailing culture on other issues, never brought this up. Ever.

So either he 1) didn’t care, or B) well actually I can’t think of another reason he wouldn’t mention this.

In other words, Mr. Shore is completely wrong about Jesus wanting love extended to the LGBT population. There is no evidence supporting that idea and plenty of reason to think otherwise.

I think that the issue of whether homosexuality is a choice is utterly moot. Don’t we want to allow people to make choices that don’t hurt other people? Isn’t that the point of freedom? I’m tired of hearing “It’s not a choice!” because I think that’s approaching it the entirely wrong way, it’s arguing the point on their terms.

@Justin:

BTW, the prevailing attitude towards homosexuality in Jesus’ day was exactly that expressed by the Bible in other places. Homos were to be killed if caught. Jesus, who had no problem speaking out against the prevailing culture on other issues, never brought this up. Ever.

You’re making the mistake of assuming that the Bible is an accurate historical record. Assuming that there was a historical figure corresponding to Jesus and assuming that the anonymous authors of the gospel were attempting to give a factual account of that person’s life (neither of which are assumptions that I think are very likely), you still are stuck with the problem that they very obviously exercised great editorial control over what they chose to report. Perhaps Jesus spoke out against anti-gay hysteria all of the time, but no one bothered to write it down.

@Justin:

BTW, the prevailing attitude towards homosexuality in Jesus’ day was exactly that expressed by the Bible in other places. Homos were to be killed if caught. Jesus, who had no problem speaking out against the prevailing culture on other issues, never brought this up. Ever.

You’re making the mistake of assuming that the Bible is an accurate historical record. Assuming that there was a historical figure corresponding to Jesus and assuming that the anonymous authors of the gospel were attempting to give a factual account of that person’s life (neither of which are assumptions that I think are very likely), you still are stuck with the problem that they very obviously exercised great editorial control over what they chose to report. Perhaps Jesus spoke out against anti-gay hysteria all of the time, but no one bothered to write it down.

Well that would make a great argument. “Oh, Jesus loved gays, it’s just the Gospel authors totally lied about it and cut out all his tons of pro-gay speeches and added in anti-gay verses. But the resurrection and whatnot were totally real! Also Jesus Hypothetical Christ predicted global warming, recommended seat belts for horseless chariots, and predicted the outcomes of the first 3 World Series, but that bastard Paul just cut all that out.”

I like to keep an eye on what the prominent voices of the religious right say and Al Mohler is probably one of the more palatable ones to read (compared to raging lunatics like Bryan Fischer).

A few days ago in a blog post he commented on how inconsistent conservative Christians are with regards to homosexuality and divorce. (Here if anyone is inclined to read it.)

This prompted some thinking on my part. This is a case of wild inconsistency (even for Christians – and the thing Mohler laments).

I asked myself, what is the difference between the rhetoric and the actuality of this issue when heterosexual divorce is ok but homosexual marriage isn’t? The entire thing is couched in language of “the sacred institutuion of marriage” and “a sanctified institution of God in His Holy Word” etc, ad nauseum – language that refers to all marriage and would also overtly condemn divorce (if divorce hadn’t already been tacitly assumed as an exception). So what gives?

It’s easy. Heterosexual divorce is something that the majority of conservative Christians take advantage of, or at least like to have as an option.

Homosexuality is inherently a minority position and thus keeping it classified as “wrong” is sociologically useful – it plays the outgroup.

Of course, these are probably almost never conscious in the minds of the “defenders of traditional marriage” but it is why.

Heterosexual divorce is ok to most Christians because they utilize it. Homosexual marriage is not because most of them don’t. It’s a blatant example of how the Bible is used in an ad hoc manner to justify “moral” stances rather than dictating them.

Almost every benefit of marriage is already available in other legal forms.

Not all.

It is a legal form to make fathers responsible to their children.

Because unmarried men don’t pay child support?

there are just some things you don’t ask a mom

Like what?

Should someone be able to marry their pets?

Animals aren’t people. It just the same old “homosexuality=bestiality” thing. Is this really the best you have?

Where do we draw the line with marriage?

When the line includes all couples equally.

@ Aaron:

It is the standard thought.
You can have whatever color you want, as long as it is black.
You can be whatever religion you want, as long as it is Christian.
You can love anyone you want, as long as they are the other sex.
You are free to do everything I approve of.
If you do anything I do not approve of, you are violating my rights, even if you do not do it to me

Aaron, I’ve taken the liberty to “update” your post to reflect the attitudes and opinions of the majority of the readers of this blog. Let me know what you think…

It is the ONLY VALID THOUGHT.
You can have whatever color you want, as long as it is NOT CHRISTIAN.
You can be whatever religion you want, as long as it is NOT CHRISTIANITY.
You can love anyone you want, as long as they are NOT A CHRISTIAN.
You are free to do everything I approve of (EXCEPT BE A CHRISTIAN).
If you are a CHRISTIAN, you are violating my rights, PERIOD.

Ahhh…that’s better, isn’t it? 🙂

Justin Says:
The sticking point is this: the Bible is explicitly and unambiguously anti-gay.

Only fundamentalists and atheists believe this. The attitude that the Bible or any sacred text must be interpreted literally is a fundamentalist approach to literary criticism. You are a fundamentalist.

It couldn’t be more anti-gay if it carried around a big sign that said “being gay is despicable in the eyes of God and is a perversion of nature”… wait. No, hang on. That’s exactly what it says.

Ah, no, it says no such thing at all. The Greek word used by Paul in the New Testament, arsenokoitai, does not refer to homosexuality. Such a concept no more existed then than quantum mechanics did. Paul is referring to court prostitutes, male or female or to abusive pedophiles or hebephiles.

I am sure we both agree that keeping slave boys for your pleasure is a bad thing.

Also, the New Testament represents a new covenant and therefore supersedes the OT.

I love how the “Friendly Atheist” is becoming increasingly combative in his old age. Way to “keep the faith” as it were.

@noen
Interesting discussion about arsenokoitai in the link you provided.

I’m not so impressed with the New/Old Covenant dodge though. Paul understood well the value of changing the old wine skin for something newer in order to market the message to the Gentiles. If something is unpopular with the new market, just spin it out with the “New Covenant.” New converts can eat pig and keep their foreskins. It’s a win/win.

The Christian Right also has no problem spinning in stuff they want from the Old Covenant such as Leviticus 20:13. The more tolerant Christian will invoke the New Covenant and semantics to spin the message into something more palatable. Wonderful book the Bible, it has something for everybody.

The problem with the New/Old Covenant dodge is that the Gospel, in its fundamental essence, requires the blood for sin, vengeful, hateful, holy by definition, deity of the Old Testament. Blood of the innocent is the only thing that can wash sin away. Jesus is the perfect blood sacrifice. The foundation of the New Covenant is the Old Covenant. Without the Old Covenant, the New Covenant is meaningless.

Frankly, I think this is the heart of fundamentalist stupidity like Ken Ham (the list is too long). As the Old Testament crumbles away as bad science, bad history, bad ethics, and bad law, they sense a deep foreboding crisis in their religion. Without the moronic assertion of “original sin” and the equally enlightened blood sacrifice for sin, what is the point of Jesus? What is the point of Christianity?

Not even the writer of Matthew was eager to supersede the Old Covenant (Matthew 5:17-48).

A bit off topic, I love the start of ???: ????????????????People at birth/Are naturally good(kind-hearted)/Their natures are similar/(But)their habits make them different (from each other). Not everybody buys into original sin or the inherent fallen nature of man.

Sigh… to the web monkey that set up this blog: ???. No Chinese characters eh

@neon

Only fundamentalists and atheists believe this.

Sorry the bible is clearly anti-gay: Leviticus 18:22, as well you know.

But…

There are those that say, as you do, that the NT overrides the OT or that can prove that the bible is pro-gay or that Jesus was gay or that the devil is gay or that gay is gay or that Adam and Eve were gay. Whatever…

The problem is that the homophobia that comes from (some/many) Christians, while originating from personal bigotry and fear, can easily be justified (and presented as a pithy one liner for the inflamed masses) by the use of the bible. And from this justification springs perpetuation, that in a normal non-biblical environment would be seen for the hateful bigotry that it is.

It’s a real pity God wrote (inspired) the bible so as to make it look like it was just written by a bunch of neolithic middle eastern nomads.

BTW you forgot to mention Catholics – like it or not they’re mainstream Christianity and they hate the gays (officially anyway).

I’m going to have to say that the Bible isn’t explicitly anti-gay but the common interpretation of the Bible certainly is. The Leviticus verse is rarely read in context and hardly anybody reads it critically or tries to examine the available translations. Nor is the ritualised behaviour of sexual practices ever taken into account. Of course we already know that Christians know there religion less well that we atheists so this is hardly surprising.

What we can be assured of is that our 21st century understanding of homosexuality is very, very different from what was meant five or six thousand years ago. The word wasn’t even coined until 1869. What I want is them to drop their reliance on their religion and make up their own minds but failing that I’d prefer them to take the good parts of their Scripture and discard the bad parts. Some might call this cherry picking but in this case cherry picking is a good thing. If they need to perform some mental gymnastics to do so then we know that they are already quite adept at that sort of thing.

David McNerney Says:

“@neon”

Please at least try to get my nym correct.

“Sorry the bible is clearly anti-gay: Leviticus 18:22, as well you know.”

No, I don’t know any such thing. “The Bible” doesn’t have beliefs or desires, only people do. It is a collection of books written by many authors thousands of years ago. So if we wish to understand the intent of the authors we need to look at what they say in context. If we wish to impose our own political agenda then the best way to go about that is to pull quotes out of context and interpret them literally. Like the fundamentalists do.

So once again I see atheists and fundamentalists engaged in the exact same behavior.

Analysis of Leviticus 18:22

The verse is, unfortunately, incomplete. Its precise meaning is ambiguous. The phrase “lay lyings” has no obvious interpretation. Attempts have been made to make sense out of the original Hebrew by inserting a short phrase into the verse.

Why do I have to keep referring atheists to Religious Tolerance dot org? Because you are just as intolerant and bigoted as any other absolutist.

“The problem is that the homophobia that comes from … Christians, while originating from personal bigotry and fear, can easily be justified … by the use of the bible.”

So? This doesn’t get you what you seem to think it does. Prejudice and bigotry are learned behaviors that then become the filter through which one perceives the world. Homophobia is a gloss which is overlaid onto Biblical interpretation. Once one rids oneself of prejudice one’s perception of prejudice as inherent in the text disappears. It was never present in the text in the first place. You discover that you were just projecting your own prejudice onto the text.

You believe the Bible is homophobic because you want to believe it is. Because that allows you to reach your predetermined conclusion that “those people” are awful horrible people and that you are pure and good.

I am very much in favor of gay marriage, and indeed the right of any consenting adults to enter into a legal contractual relationship, or to have consensual sex. We do ourselves, no favor, though, when we make invalid extrapolations like this one:

When you tell a gay person to “resist” being gay, what you are really telling them — what you really mean — is for them to be celibate.

What you are truly and actually saying is that you want them to condemn themselves to a life devoid of love.

Sorry, no. That’s not what the anti-gay Christians mean.

Consider the case of a man sexually attracted to children. Telling him to resist his impulses is not telling him to be celibate, to live a live devoid of love. It’s telling him to give his love to a more appropriate partner. The anti-gay contingent see homosexuality as another form of “inappropriate” sexual attraction.

Consider, too, the case of a man attracted to a woman who is happily married to another man. Telling him to give up on her is, again, not telling him to be celibate, to give up on love. It is, again, telling him to find somebody more “appropriate” to love.

The anti-gay contingent needs to learn that homosexuality is different from these cases because it involves a relationship between mutually consenting adults, not because homosexuals are somehow less capable than the rest of society at resisting “inappropriate” urges. It’s simply nobody else’s business. It doesn’t matter if that couple walking down the street is in a relationship that differs from the “standard” one in any of a number of ways, including being same sex, being widely different ages, having certain levels of common ancestry, having certain combinations of ethnic or religious backgrounds, or possibly being more than a couple. If they are all consenting adults, if nobody is being abused or betrayed, it’s not the business of outsiders.

“Homophobia is a gloss which is overlaid onto Biblical interpretation. Once one rids oneself of prejudice one’s perception of prejudice as inherent in the text disappears. It was never present in the text in the first place. You discover that you were just projecting your own prejudice onto the text.”

Excuse me:

“The things I disagree with are a gloss which are overlaid onto Biblical interpretation. Once one rids oneself of prejudice, one’s perception of things I disagree with as inherent in the text disappear. It was never present in the text in the first place. You discover that you were just projecting your own prejudice onto the text.”

There.

Christians have been doing that for centuries, and not very surprisingly their interpretations always match their own political and social values.

Why do I have to keep referring atheists to Religious Tolerance dot org? Because you are just as intolerant and bigoted as any other absolutist.

We don’t deny homosexuals their rights.

Here’s something I don’t understand. I’m always hearing the “love the sinner hate the sin” mantra, which means we should hate homosexuality. But why is that? Why should I give a ***k if two persons of the same sex find each other attractive and start a relationship? Right now I honestly just don’t care about what they do.

Why should I hate what they’re doing? Is any harm done that I’m unaware of?

Right now I honestly just don’t care about what they do.

I would put that as “I don’t care if they do harm or not to others or themselves”

What christianity teach us is to care for the other, love them.. ( Not HATE! ) but try to explain that what they do is hurting them or the other more than they can superficially see.

However, I sadly can say that many people forgets this objective and turn their own rules as judgement to others. We are not to Judge (That’s Gods responsibility), but rather we are to help understanding our actions and become better persons and a greater society.

Uh, Hemant, don’t make blanket assumptions of all Christians. There are Christians and churches who would love to wed gay couples but are prevented from legally doing so. Rev. Lynn of Americans United is always remarking that his church is one that allows it and he is not only open to marrying gays, he is and has performed nonreligious weddings for nonbelievers.

Fundie Troll, you so funny. The expression seeing what you want to see comes to mind. Rev. Lynn, mentioned above, is one of my greatest heros and I’m far from the only Atheist who admires him. Dickens is one of my favorites authors and he infuses one hell of a lot of the Christ this Christ that stuff in his writings. One reason we get on is we share a hatred of hypocrites. Somehow I doubt you get on with Dickens as well as I do. And, of course, I’ve always had Christian friends. Who the hell doesn’t?

Okay, now I have to qualify the rant I’m about to go off on because I’m deeply offended about the stereotyped assumptions about celibates with the disclaimer that I’m currently celibate by choice with and that’s not what they’re asking of gays and that’s where it’s wrong. They have no right demanding gays live life alone and unmarried. It’s a personal choice.

While I don’t agree with JC’s reason for ceibacy and do agree with Shore’s point, I too resent the implications about people who are celibate and I’m damned sick and tired of celibacy by choice being maligned.

Some of us are celibate by choice for perfectly sane reasons rather than the insane gawd frowns on that ones. I like being alone and I too have family and friends and love — though not romantic love. I simply don’t want the complications or risks of a romantic relationship and am not willing to put the work necessary into one. One night stands just aren’t safe plus I’m not a person who can do that sort of thing as I’d have to feel emotionally close to a person though I have no problem with consenting adults who are. Again, that’s a personal choice.

I’ve been celibate more often than not because I actually prefer the solo life. When I have been romantically involved, my fear of committment always outlasted theirs and I’m tired of it. I’ve never been a person who pines away for a significant other to spend my life with so seriously what do a need with a lover? I’ve already found that much as I love sex, I’m fine with or without it (and, no, people there’s no difference in my personality either way, that too is a stereotype. I was the same bitch when I was having sex daily or more.) How long I’ve been celibate is my own business but I will say this — it’s long enough to know you get horny and whether or not you do anything about it, it passes and the longer you decide not to, the less you get horny. (Sorry if the blunt language disturbs anybody.)

As for Shore’s assumptions about the celibate life:

What you are truly and actually saying is that you want them to condemn themselves to a life devoid of love.

Uh, no. I have every kind of love except romantic love. I have family love, I have the love of good friends, and I love myself. My favorite passions are no less loved because I don’t have a “significant other” (barf) supporting them.

Be alone, you’re demanding. Live alone. Don’t hold anyone’s hand. Don’t snuggle on your couch with anyone. Don’t cuddle up with anyone at night before you fall asleep. Don’t have anyone to chat with over coffee in the morning.

I don’t live alone. I live with my daughter and my grandson, thank you very much and miss living alone but am compensated with the benefits of having them there. (I love living alone but I am also loving being an in-house grandma and appreciate, especially with growing disability, the assistance my daughter gives me.) OK, since I know Shore means quite different than holding my grandson’s hand and snuggling on the couch with him, I’ll give him that but also state quite unequivocally that I don’t need that. If I felt need of that, I wouldn’t be celibate.

And I fall asleep quite well — as I imagine billions of single people do — without someone lying in bed next to me. In fact, it’s rather nice to have the bed and blankets, etc. all to myself. True, I wake up sooner than I used to years ago but that’s from the pain of arthritis as I’m likewise sure lots of people with lovers lying next to them in bed also do. And, yes, there is someone there to chat with over coffee. I often wish there wasn’t. I’m glad daughter and grandson usually wake up later than me since I prefer to read quietly over breakfast and that cup of tea (well, I hate coffee) in the morning. Thank FSM they do so I can get a chance to read undisturbed before the day takes over. I cherish that quiet time.

Do not bind your life to that of another. Live your whole life without knowing that joy, that sharing, that peace.

Been there done that and only the sex was all it was cracked up to be. Not worth everything else you have to sacrifice for that live-in, readily available (presumably) sex partner. Like your freedom, first and foremost. No thank you.

Just say “no” to love.

Yes, please. Romantic love anyway. I’ll pass, not interested. And it’d be some hell of a dude who’d even get the chance to change my mind.

Be alone. Live alone. Die alone.

Stop making assumptions. Not having a sexual partner does not make you alone, does not mean you live alone, does not mean you will die alone.

/rant Too bad there ain’t enough of us celibate by choice for other than religious reasons to really fight the GD stereotypes about us.

Don’t see them outlawing one night stands or sex outside of marriage or even trying.

Or, for that matter, demanding straight couples pledge to have or adopt children when they marry.

Humans have long outgrown their biological hardwiring. We don’t instinctively mate to make babies. That was the case even long before reliable contraceptives. We have sex for pleasure. Offspring is just the – sometimes undesired – side effect of that.

And not just humans. There are primates that have sex for pleasure. Either with others or by masturbation. It’s well documented in Bonbobos for example. In fact sex – including f/f and m/m sex – plays a huge role in the management of their groups.

Jose, my bad on not being clear. You should not hate homosexuality, but rather consider it as not good or that it hurts the soul of the person who practices it. I never attack a homosexual, if he asks me what is my stand point, I just say why I believe is wrong. Otherwise again I’m not to judge anybody.

Most people pick and choose their Christianity like they’re at a Chinese buffet. They agree with the parts that have little or no bearing on their life.

“Yeah I believe in Jesus and the cross…oh what? No premarital sex??? That’s just a typo!”

And, while we are on the matter of children… Same-sex adoption is in the “equality” boat. And, anyone who is against it is probably hateful too. As long as the parents can provide a safe environment… as long as they love the child… what is the harm? I can tell you first hand, that there is some harm to the child. I was raised by a single mother. I cannot tell you how many times there were questions I had growing up that I wished I had a dad to ask because there are just some things you don’t ask a mom. And, there are some things you just don’t ask a dad. And, to have a parent of both sexes makes it possible for a child to get answers they need. Adolescence is hard enough.

Excuse me, but there are actual people here who were raised by same-sex parents. I’m one of them. I have two lesbian mothers, and I could not disagree more with your assessment.

First of all, it is already legal for gay and lesbian people to adopt children (singly, if not jointly) in every state except for Florida, and the Florida ban is on its way out. This has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, and the religious right tries to confuse the two issues all the time. Failure to legalize marriage will not stop lesbians and gay men from adopting children, and it certainly won’t have any effect on them giving birth to children. The gayby boom has been going strong for over two decades now, and it shows no signs of slowing down.

If you disagree with single women or partnered lesbians having children, you’re free to have your opinion, but please do not pretend that this has anything whatsoever to do with marriage equality. I would also like to point out that over 30 years of research does not support your conclusions of harm being done to children. If you were really interested, you could do some research and look at the 100 or so studies that have been conducted since the 1970s, including the recent longitudinal studies of children born and raised in two-mother families. Here are two places to start.

If you think homosexuality is a sin, evil, wrong or ‘not good’ *whatever euphemism you use* than you are a bigot and we can thank you for the rash of suicides recently.

Thanks for this post, it really explains why one of their favorite arguments to try to justify their bigotry, er, ‘beliefs’ is BS.

Samiimas: Homosexuality is wrong, and not because I say so, Wrong is wrong and good is good.

Lets start with a premise theist have:
1.- There is God
2.- He loves us and wants us to have a meaningful life
3.- He is like a father that has rules for his house, so we all can live in harmony, and even though we disrespect him he still loves us.

Believing all of this as True, creates you a set of values and morality based on those premises. I know “Fear of God” you may say, but if you grow spiritually enough it becomes “Love of God”.

On the contrary, If there was no God, well I could understand that everybody would want to do what ever they pleased. Thank God for the Laws of Men as well, otherwise we would tear each other into pieces, what would happen without these laws for those don’t believe in Divine Justice (fear of God again :P) Sure sure… most atheist appeal to their “rational thinking” as if they had no impulses or feelings.. we are all humans, thinking that we don’t need rules is an utopia.

I believe that a person is intelligent, but the collective society can behave like animals.

If there was no God , I would still think that Homosexuality has bad implications.

I don’t hate any homosexual, I have a cousin, friends, teachers etc.. who are homosexual and I don´t try to punish them, but that does not means that I encourage homosexuality and believe that is good for them.

I realize now that without having the same premises, there can no be an agreement to the idea is OK or that is wrong Homosexuality, therefore, I just end up expressing my opinion and thinking behind this subject. BY THE WAY ! God Bless you all… I mean it. Oh and I’m not perfect nor you, so don’t hate us for thinking this way.

JC, I do not see where in your post you explain why you think that being gay is wrong.

This is where I come from when I make a moral decision: Does it cause harm? If it does then does the good outweigh the harm. If there is no harm done or the good outweighs the harm done then it is morally permissible. It is a pretty basic rule but I think you’ll agree that it is a sufficient starting point. Given that we don’t want to be hurt you could also look upon it as a variation of the golden rule too.

With regard to homosexuality can you demonstrate a harm? You see I can and Hemant has explained it in his original post. By denying the equal treatment of gay people we cause harm to them, we restrict their freedoms and deny them the same love that is available to straight people.

You can’t claim that gay people are breaking a divine law. Surely you don’t need it explained that Leviticus applies not at all to Gentiles because that part of the law was fulfilled in Jesus? Nor do you need it explained that the Leviticus laws are ritual rather social, do you? Furthermore as a Christian surely you are aware of the greatest commandment from Jesus in Matthew 22:36-40. Apply this to your attitude towards gay people. Scripture does not support your position.

You can’t even claim to be setting them right after they deviate from some moral course because you haven’t demonstrated a moral harm. Homosexual sex is at worse morally neutral. Being gay is entirely morally neutral because not one single moral action comes from simply being something. Gay marriage is actually morally positive because we are extending the same attitudes and social rule systems than straight people enjoy onto a group that has long been discriminated against.

I think that you and many other Christians have been taught that simply being gay is morally wrong without ever having it explained to you why. I think that you are parroting the justifications that you have been given but that these really aren’t explanations. The logic of your argument simply does not join up. That means that either you have made an assumption and not explained it or that your logic is simply wrong.

Name one damn way you’re different from them. They can use the exact same BS excuses you can, they can say they can just think it’s ‘sinful’ to be black and that they have nothing against blackness (note black people!).

You just don’t like having it pointed out that you’re a bigot who considers gay people to be inferior to straight people. Don’t even try to argue you don’t think they’re inferior, you wouldn’t think they were wrong or sinful otherwise. You are responsible for those poor kids being driven to suicide. Bigots like you ruined their lives with your insulting crap about them being ‘sinful’.

@JC, all of your premises are false and number three is outright sexist as well. I suspect there is also an underlying hatred of women within your notions as well. “Traditional gender roles” involve oppression and brutality against women. If queer people defy them, this is a good thing.

“On the contrary, If there was no God, well I could understand that everybody would want to do what ever they pleased.” A common anti-atheist slur and a basic 101 mistake that you should not be making on an atheist blog. Atheists do not commit crime at higher rates, and countries with more atheists actually have lower rates of poverty and violent crime in general.

“I believe that a person is intelligent, but the collective society can behave like animals” People are intellegent and they are animals. You are adding an unecessary negataive connotation to the term ‘animal’ and assuming animal-like behavior is bad. Animals do a huge variety of things, including caring for infants, grooming, etc.

“If there was no God , I would still think that Homosexuality has bad implications.” What are these, exactly? If you think I am evil, I would like to hear your reasons.

“I don’t hate any homosexual” This is patently untrue. You are saying that we are inferior and our lives are immoral, that is hate.

“I have a cousin, friends, teachers etc.. who are homosexual ” Well, the fact that you defensively mention this is pretty much proof positive that the shit you are saying is hateful. In any conversation about bigotry, when the bigot is called out and responds with “I have gay friends (black friends, etc.”, that pretty much proves they are being a bigoted ass.

“I don´t try to punish them” Denial of legal rights is punishment, treating people as inferior is punishment, treating us as evil is punishment, repression and oppression are punishment.

But those people in prison aren’t gay. It’s just a sexual release and power mechanics. You can find similar things in other places with strict gender segregation. Saudia Arabia for example. Plenty of same-sex activity among both genders there. But if they have the opportunity to be with someone of the same gender, they take it. In fact, homosexual identity is a new and western concept there. There are more in line with the traditional Roman/Greek view, which survived somewhat in the Arab world.

Are there people who claim to have chosen being gay? Yes. There are websites about that. But they are a tiny a minority. I think it’s save to say that the vast majority of GLBT people feel that they were born that way and struggled with it.
If it were just about love and sex – yeah, why not choose to be with someone if it makes you happy or gives you pleasure. But why would anyone choose to be discriminated against in so many ways?

However, it shouldn’t matter if it’s a choice or not. No one is harmed, so why does it matter why people do it?
The reason why the choice argument is brought up so often is to refute the Christian right’s claims that it’s bad behavior or that people can be cured. And to refute the idea that it’s unnatural by portraying is a normal facet of sexuality (both in humans and animals). And as reaction, some changed tracks to the celibacy line…

JC, I’m not really sure what you mean by “vane sex” but I’m going to guess that you mean sex as a kind of vanity or sex purely for fun. If that is what you mean then again I’m not sure where the harm is. Assuming that it is all consensual.

Thanks Steve,

I do think it makes a difference in the debate if it is a choice or not. Most of those in the gay and lesbian community argue that they have no choice and as such they are being discriminated against for who they are, just like those discriminated against based upon race. If on the other hand it is a behavior choice, then they don’t have that argument.

If the religious community is opposing behavior, it is not opposition based upon bigotry, it is based upon moral choices. Just as they should oppose prostitution or promiscuous sex.

On other point: I do encourage the traditional family concept. I have a loving father that respects my mom, and a mother that took care of us since childs. I’m grateful for that. I know circumstances may call for different approaches but I have this as the ideal family structure.

You can like and “encourage” your particular family structure without denigrating or discouraging other family structures. I have two loving mothers who respect each other equally and who took take care of us children equally, and I consider that just as ideal as having a “traditional” married mother and father.

I wouldn’t dream of trying to limit other people’s family options, but members of the religious right don’t treat people with LGBT families with the same respect. They think our families are inferior, and they’re bound and determined to lord their presumed superiority over us and enforce laws that stigmatize and delegitimize our families. Yet they would scream bloody murder if the same thing was done to them. Let’s introduce a bill that would forbid evangelical Christians from adopting children and you’d see how suddenly they’d be all for equal treatment under the law.

some of the Christian Identity movement’s followers hold that non-Caucasian peoples have no souls, and can therefore never earn God’s favor or be saved.[1] Believers in the theology affirm that Jesus Christ paid only for the sins of the House of Israel and the House of Judah and that salvation must be received through both redemption and race.

Totally not my philosophy Samiimas nor what a real Christian is about, it contradicts everything that the Catholic church teaches.

Here’s a quote from you: Homosexuality is wrong

You said that, it’s right up there for everyone to see. Go ahead and Ctrl-F it.

You’re a bigot who thinks gay people like us are inferior. You admitted it right there. I’m not gonna treat you any different than someone who says “racemixing is wrong” because you aren’t any different.

Robert

What you are describing the classic moral relativism.

I don’t think I am. I’m saying that there is no harm in simply being gay. I’m not saying that I don’t find it harmful but that it isn’t harmful.

What you consider having value and not being harmful others may find of no value and harmful to them. In such a case, do you still make the decision in light of opposition to your cost benefit analysis?

Not necessarily. It is certainly worth listening to advice and that may make me reassess my decisions. In this issue though I’ve just about heard all the arguments. Do you have any new ones?

In my opinion there has to be some basis of moral standards that are not subject to the whim of every individual.

Fair enough. What moral standard applies in the case of gay couples being granted equal rights to straight couples? On what basis would equality be denied?

Hoverfrog,

I wasn’t talking directly about the issue of gay marriage. I was referring to your general argument on making moral decisions.

On the issue of gay marriage I am against it based upon my religious principles. I think it goes against the sanctity of marriage (but then our whole society has lessened the sanctity of marriage).

There have been rules on who the government says you can marry for years even in heterosexual marriage. When I got my marriage license in Texas they asked if my bride was my cousin. So there is a public policy reason behind it, particularly if it is viewed as a behavior choice. So it could be argued that for public policy reasons the government will not lessen the sanctity of the traditional marriage between a man and a women by allowing gay marriage.

When I got my marriage license in Texas they asked if my bride was my cousin.

Was she? 😀

Sorry, man. Couldn’t resist. Just kidding!

I have been thinking about what JC said about vane sex. I haven’t fully understood what you mean by vane sex but am thinking it means sex for anything other then reproduction or to show your love of your partner. If love for another is an ok reason for sex then homosexual activity would be no different then heterosexual in that regard. if reproduction is all that is proper then do you tell all those loving couples who can no longer have kids to quit having sex?

JC you also brought up traditional family values. Which of the many different traditions in the bible are you referring to? They had several different styles of marriages and also had concubines. Do you mean the traditions of the 1700’s where the male children were sent to others for training in some field of study? Do you mean the type of family you grew in as a kid or saw others growing up in? Tradition isn’t a good justification for denying anyone the right to be complete.

I mentioned the rule on cousins as an example of governments making rules regrading who may marry who. These rules are for public policy reasons.

I understand where you got hung up on the word “sanctity”. That was a bad choice of words on my part. I was trying to convey the traditional family unit of a man and a woman. There is no doubt that there is a strong public policy for supporting and not degrading that union which has for centuries been between a man and a woman. It is the centuries long family structure across the globe, it is the most stable way that children can be brought into a family by their parents, it provides the necessary commitment for support for both parties and their children and it preserves the traditional role of the institution of marriage.

What arguments are there that it would be good public policy for gay marriage other then gay people want the right to get married. What is wrong with giving gay couples the right to a civil union as opposed to a marriage? Wouldn’t the same arguments being used to support gay marriage equally apply to plural marriages?

Robert let me get this straight for you (no pun intended). Your objections are religious based on the teachings of the church that homosexuality is somehow inherently “sinful” and the tradition that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is two traditions by the way so your argument is one of tradition.

If you look back at your bible and treat it as an historical record of social conventions of the time you’ll see that your “traditional marriage” was somewhat different than it is today. There are plenty of examples. Suffice it to say that society has changed since then. If you go back a little over 500 years the traditional form of marriage wasn’t sanctified by a church at all. If you go back less than a mere 100 years you’ll see that marriage between races wasn’t part of the tradition.

Traditions change. You don’t have to adapt to them but they’ll change nonetheless. At some point gay marriage will be accepted as mainstream. It will be part of the tradition of marriage just as mixed race marriage is today.

What arguments are there that it would be good public policy for gay marriage other then gay people want the right to get married.

Isn’t not having a reason to withhold the equal treatment of gay people enough? Isn’t treating people equally enough? Don’t we want an equal society?

What is wrong with giving gay couples the right to a civil union as opposed to a marriage?

What is wrong with giving straight couples the right to form civil unions as opposed to marriage? Personally I’d like to see all marriages to be civil matters but the name is important to people who want to be married for some reason. Can you see why? If a civil partnership is marriage by another name then why not just scrap the name and call it marriage?

Wouldn’t the same arguments being used to support gay marriage equally apply to plural marriages?

Sure. If there is no harm to the parties involved and all are consenting adults then allow it. Unless you have a reason to deny equal treatment to a group then don’t deny equal treatment to a group. Of course poly marriages at least have the support of “tradition” in your Bible.

As for the difference between civil unions and marriage. Watch this (especially the first one):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wnvMSIIiHc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwBsnklZpwM (from about 10:00 on)

They are reenactments of the testimony at Prop 8 trial. The real ones were unfortunately withheld from the public. But it’s something that everyone should see. More than that really doesn’t need to be said about the topic. Words have power. And they can mean a lot to some.
You’ll see that are some people with a more traditional view of relationships, who didn’t fully accept the 15-20 year commitments their children or friends made until they got married. And that video is hardly the only place where I heard/read that. It also shows once more that family means so much more than extremist Christians think. It seems that gay people know a lot more about family than some Christians.

Or this:
“separate but equal is inherently unequal”
Ring a bell? It has been tried before.

There are also far more tangible reasons. Civil unions with wide-ranging rights were enacted in New Jersey. Not all institutions and companies recognized them. People were still turned away in hospitals and companies still denied benefits. People simply don’t always know what it means legally. That’s all documented in legislative hearings. Even the politicians who enacted the law admitted that it was at best less than ideal and at worst a failure.

As for polygamy. I really have not much of a problem with it in theory. But in practice, polygamy is pure patriarchy. Show me a group marriage where everyone is equal (the TV show “Caprica” portrays one, but in reality it doesn’t exist. It’s debatable if it could even work given group dynamics). Or a marriage between one woman and several husbands. Even historically, polyandry was extremely rare and usually involved things like one woman and two brothers. So no, it sounds nice, but it isn’t.
There are also legal problems. What if the husband is ill or dead? Who makes medical decisions? Who inherits? What if there is a dispute among the wives? It just becomes very messy. Contracts between two people on the other hand are relatively simple.

But in the end, it’s just a slippery slope argument that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Even if ironically, “biblical marriage” is exactly what you are arguing against.

Let’s not get into this choice nonsense again, ok? That horse has been beaten to death.

The burden to uphold a discriminatory policy is on those wishing to uphold it. Not one those wishing to abolish it. Your side had the chance to bring forth arguments in court. All they could come up with boiled down to “procreation”. Which is patently absurd and was proven to be so by the judge.

Tradition can never be an argument for anything. Tradition can’t be continued for its own sake. If we just did things because that’s how we always did things, nothing would ever change. That’s obviously not the case. Society changes ever more rapidly.
Tradition isn’t always good either. Slavery was common for thousands of years. Or absolutism. We got over that. We got over a lot of other things that weren’t good, but accepted as the normal way of life at one point or another.

And you have – for the umpteenth time – completely ignored that the nature of marriage has changed countless times over the last three thousand or so years. Modern western marriage is very different from what it was 500 or even 200 years ago. Both the secular and religious aspects of it.

You don’t even understand equality. It doesn’t mean that everyone can do what they want. It means treating everyone equally. Are you deliberately missing the point or is that really so hard to understand?

But isn’t the equality argument from the gay community really just another way of saying let me marry because I want to? If so, then it is their burden to show that what they want would not cause harm to the established norms of society.

No! No, no, no! In an inherantly free society it is not the burden of a subset of that soceity to prove that granting them equal rights would not cause harm to society. “Because I want to” is the DEFAULT position in a free society. Laws are enacted to prevent certain actions because they are shown to cause harm to members of that society.

Norms that have been established to promote what history tells us is best for society, that is a society that promotes and encourages the union of one man and one woman in the institution of marriage. It is not the burden of society to say and prove why not allow it.

Norms are not universal across the country. The gay community’s norms are different than your norms. The norms of the Y-Genration are different from the norms of the Baby Boomers. Norms vary across gender, age, class, community and other factors. And I am curious as to what history you are referring to. Clearly the one man, one woman marriage has been the prevalant model in US history, but what evidence is there that tells us that it is “best for society?” And again, yes, in a free society, it is the burden of society to prove why granting equality to a subset is harmful to that society.

If we are going in circles it’s because you constantly repeat yourself and don’t answer any questions.

but until the last few years it has always been between a man and a woman.

No it hasn’t.

First off, for much of human history it has has been one man, many women.

Secondly, there were cultures in the past that had same-sex marriages. Or cultures that were tolerant of some such relationships without necessarily giving them legal rights. Legal same-sex marriages existed in ancient Rome. There were even formal religious rights for it in early Christianity!

Or look at the two-spirit tradition among native Americans. That wasn’t so much about homosexuality, but about what we would call transgenderism today. Men who took on social female roles and women who took on male roles. In many tribes, those individuals were valued for their unique perspective and were shamans for example. And it wasn’t that uncommon for them take partners of the same gender. It was part of their culture and society until Christianity came along and screwed them up.

The established institution of marriage between a man and a woman has served our society well.

Yes. And your point is what exactly? That doesn’t mean that same-sex marriages can’t serve society equally well. Please explain how they have hurt Scandinavian and other European societies (without pointing at numbers that have no causal link to it)

In recent years this institution has lost its importance

That trend has been going on since the 60s and 70s. And your point is what exactly?

and there can be no mistaking that alot of our ills stem from this loss.

No. Low birth rates are a real problem for some western countries, especially in Europe. But that has been accompanied by an increase in cohabitation and single parenthood. People simply have families without getting married and have less children. The causes for that are very complex and not single-sourced.

To challenge that that norm even further

Explain how same-sex marriages directly impact opposite-sex marriages. Explain how straight couples are deterred from marrying. Explain how they are deterred from having children.

All you people can do is deal in the hypothetical. To quote the famous words of the pro-Pro8 attorney in CA: “We don’t need evidence” and “We don’t know”. (the judge really mocked that in the ruling)

hey also must show that there are no other less radical ways to solve the perceived prejudice that they claim exists.

It has been shown. The inequalities between civil unions or domestic partnerships compared to marriages were a significant part of the Prop8 trial in California. Remember that CA has DPs that offer almost the same rights as marriages on a state level. Prop8 was still found unconstitutional in the face of an overwhelming mountain of evidence. Have you read the ruling? It’s a very interesting read.

It has also been publicly debated and acknowledged in New Jersey. The New Jersey CU law was deemed a failure, even by some of the people who made it.

And again, you are simply repeating yourself. You didn’t address any of the points raised by others about this.

For example, during the civil rights debate, those in favor of civil rights were rightfully able to show that there was no separate but equal and and that discrimination did cause great harm.

So discrimination against the GLBT community causes no harm? Little harm? That has to be proven to you? The harm it causes is staring you in the face. Even mainstream media is picking up on it every single week now. Some of it anyways.

But gay marriage is not the only way to remedy that harm.

It’s the only simple and foolproof way. Every other way involves a mountain of small changes to countless laws that won’t trickle down to everyone and inevitable won’t cover everything. Making changes to thousands of regulations bit by bit is not the right way to solve any of these problems.

And if the solution is to have a law that creates CUs with exactly the same rights and obligations as marriage (which actually is the case in some states like Washington or Oregon), what’s the harm in calling it what it really is: marriage

Robert, I see that you’ve said that you won’t respond any further so I’ll add my comments for the benefit of silent readers.

If we are to talk about equality for the sake of equality, then that gets us to the idea of whether being gay is a choice or not. If in fact it is a choice then it differs from race.

Yeah, who cares? As the Stonewall adverts say: Some people are gay, get over it. It really doesn’t matter if they are gay because they were born gay or whether something in their environment made them gay. There are gay people, we should treat them as equals. You know why? Its because they are.

But isn’t the equality argument from the gay community really just another way of saying let me marry because I want to?

Yes it is. Absolutely it is. Two people want to get married. They aren’t hurting anyone. Let them get married. FFS is it that difficult to understand?

If so, then it is their burden to show that what they want would not cause harm to the established norms of society.

To be blunt, fuck the norms of society. Do they hurt any people? Do they actually, genuinely cause any harm by loving one another?

Norms that have been established to promote what history tells us is best for society, that is a society that promotes and encourages the union of one man and one woman in the institution of marriage.

Just like black people marrying white people you mean? “Society” thought that this was wrong, that it went against tradition, that it wouldn’t be best for any children? Well you’ve got a president who came from a mixed race marriage. The first one in American history. A break from a long line of white only tradition. Get over it.

It is not the burden of society to say and prove why not allow it.

Yes it is the burden of society to change. That is what society does from one generation to the next. It adapts and alters its perspective. It says “that was wrong then” and “this is right now”. That is what is beautiful and inspiring about living in a progressive society.

I do think that there is a strong public policy not to erode that traditional institution because once it is a free for all where will it stopHopefully it won’t ever stop. Who wants to live in a society that has stagnated? That isn’t your argument though is it? Your argument now is that if we allow same sex marriage now then we’re on a slippery slope to allowing people to marry goats and frogs and rocks. This same argument was used for mixed race marriages not that long ago. It was fallacious then and it it fallacious now. All they want is the same as you, to marry the person that they love and have that love recognised. Why is that wrong? Why?

Y’know, I don’t even care if it is a choice. I don’t care if they were born gay or something in their enviroment made them gay or if one day they woke & decided, “Hm…I think I’ll be gay today.” I don’t think that’s the point. We have freedom of choice in this country and that right should be respected.
I don’t think the “Murder is a choice” example is a very good one for why it’s important to understand that homosexuality isn’t a choice. Violence is harmful to society–there are more reasons than “it’s a sin” or “it’s a choice” that it’s illegal. The same cannot be said for homosexuality. Whether it is a choice or whether you are born gay, it does not harm society as a whole or bring non-homophobes unnecessary grief for someone to be gay.
It is, however, harmful to society to discriminate against any group. People are killing themselves because they’re being bullied for being gay. That’s what’s wrong with society–not the fact that there are people who don’t fit “the norm”.

Obviously there are way too many comments above me to read them all…so I just read the original article/post and skipped down to here, to respond to the original. Here goes:

Rest assured, I’m making a difference in any way I can. I used to be Christian…now I’ve gone atheist. I went through a homophobic phase, then a phase of bi-curiosity, but after realizing that I really was straight (women are too darn beautiful to me =P) I still supported those who were not. I’ve made an active effort to support the LGBT community, and I’m in a school organization for the anti-bullying efforts of said community. Please, don’t lose hope in us Allies. We are here, we will not be queit, and eventually you and we will laugh at what others said would never happen. Love is love is love, and as long as it is not unhealthy (i.e. spousal abuse…which traditionalist Christian society ignored for many centuries), it is a beautiful thing that I will never fight against…but will always fight for. <3