Support NeoGAF

[JohnsonUT]

A few of the posts in this thread got me thinking. Wouldn't being a gay Christian really suck? You're basically repressing your sexuality until you die.

Some denominations recognize gay marriage (Presbyterian, Episcopal, United Church of Christ). More will follow.

So yes I imagine it can suck for a variety of reason beyond just "it is a sin to be gay", but I have hope that it will get better within a generation.

 

[Koppai]

What the fuck is this shit? I've seen it floating around Facebook a bunch recently and I don't get it. How can you love and accept your friends if you completely disagree with their lifestyle? How is this not still bigotry? I don't get it.

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle my friend. Yes, these are just bigots trying to justify what they say, it's the equivalent of people using the N word and saying it's okay because they have black friends. Really sad...don't understand why people have such hatred.

 

[Coldsun]

Should I list all the comments STILL being made by the current crop of righties?

Why do people bring this up? When did she even say that?

2004 when she was a senator. Youtube it. It doesn't take much effort.

 

[The Beard]

I'm a man, I'm 30

I do not believe in your Bible, nor do I want to hear you cherry pick shit from it and try to deny other human beings their rights.

 

[Dude Abides]

Hillary Clinton said it best she she said, "“Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman."

I say the same thing about beating my kids but those damn caseworkers just won't listen.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Why do people bring this up? When did she even say that?

She said materially the same things when she was running for president.

 

[genjiZERO]

I don't get people who have this shit on their facebook pages. There is literally not a single person on mine who has posted anything negative about the ruling.

The same is nearly true for the Confederate flag thing too. The only exception is this extremely opinionated girl I knew from working on my MS who is smart, but incapable of seeing anything beyond her myopic viewpoint.

 

[ryseing]

That Not Alone video is absolutely fantastic.

This has been said a million times before, but "having a gay friend" is the new "having a black friend". Acts like it gives them an excuse to be homophobic.

 

[Not]

Don't worry. First off, I'm a Christian, and I believe the Bible.

I bet you're starting to feel at ease.

But seriously: quote, unquote,

"homosexual marriage?"

Ha! Is that even a thing?

Despite your definitively fake and invalid feelings of "sexual attraction" and "empathy," I still "love" you.

And I'm not a homophobe. I mean, gay friend and all. (Note: we ARE still friends).

If I were really judging you or felt the least bit intimidated by my society starting to treat you like a human being, do you think I would have spent thirty minutes putting this graphic together? Even with my knowledge of the "vibrancy" setting in Photoshop, the background was really hard to get just the shade of dark violet I wanted.

Also, I had to convert it into a "J-peg" using like, twenty different programs before Facebook let me upload it. It may not look as clear as it did when I made it, but I think it's still good enough for you guys. Guys = gay people. Just the men, though. I don't believe "gay women" or whatever they called, are a big issue. And you think I'm not tolerant!

I am not for one second condemning you to the very, very real and inescapable literal place called Hell, where God will abandon you for eternity with no third chances.

Now that I've got THAT out of the way, time for the most important, often overlooked actuality in this day and age: evangelical Christian persecution.

You see, when you kiss other guys, it's far worse for me than it was for say, Harvey Milk or Matthew Shepard. I doubt they ever felt as uncomfortable as I did when I accidentally saw a trailer for Brokeback Mountain when I was eleven.

So I guess all I'm saying is, we have a right to disagree with your very existence, change the subject when you want to bring up matters relating to your sinful lifestyle in casual conversation, and actively endeavor to alter and influence the federal laws governing 310 million people until things can just go back to the good old days. You know, 3000 BC to 2003.

I hope you'll come to see things my way, and Christians will finally be seen as equal to gay people. Until then, you're welcome to come to church with me anytime. Maybe bring Heather along? I know you guys talk sometimes. I think she wants to hang out with you. What the heck, give her a call. Maybe you guys can go see that new movie, Audacity. I hear it's pretty righteous!

 

[Nephtis]

I'm a Christian who believes in the Bible.

I am completely ok with, and wholeheartedly support, gay marriage.

It's not a lifestyle, it's not a choice -- you love who you love, and no one really knows your feelings more than you do.

Do unto others as they do unto you.

 

[Black-Wind]

What I'm asking people to do is follow this logic through to its natural endpoint and see what the problems are. Maybe there aren't any, but maybe there are.

The idea here is that this person believes that behavior X is morally wrong. It doesn't have to be homosexuality; it can be anything you want. Further, this person isn't trying to convert others or loudly condemn them, and is willing to be friends with them, just as I'm willing to be friends with a person who is sometimes selfish. No one is perfect.

But still, they believe X behavior is wrong. If that is unreasonably and cruelly judgmental, then it's important to note that we effectively object to the entire concept of religious belief, because a central part of virtually every major religion is that there are good behaviors and bad behaviors, and that the morality of these behaviors should be taken as an article of faith.

Pretty much how I feel about this ...

Read the image again, It's not supporting homosexuality or the right for marriage at all. It's just basically a very long-winded and passive aggressive way of saying "be tolerant of my intolerance".

But it reads more as "be tolerant of my tolerance".
Mainly cause tolerance is disagreeing with someone or something but ending it by saying "We're still friends/ we can still get along".

 

[Kevyt]

I'm an Atheist who believes in Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and I support Christian marriages!

That is to say, that I support the union between two consenting adults who are Christian, with equal protection under the law.

 

[Aaron Strife]

"I still love you but I will actively vote and campaign against your right to be. We're still friends though! Right? Right?"

 

[Coldsun]

"I still love you but I will actively vote and campaign against your right to be. We're still friends though! Right? Right?"

Where exactly does the image state that? You're inferring quite a bit from the image. Unless you're lumping absolutely everyone of a group together because of a vocal portion. If that's the case, wow, are you really any better than them?

 

[Daingurse]

Passive aggressive bigotry, ugh.

 

[Speevy]

EDIT wrong topic

 

[excelsiorlef]

Where exactly does the image state that? You're inferring quite a bit from the image. Unless you're lumping absolutely everyone of a group together because of a vocal portion. If that's the case, wow, are you really any better than them?

Are people posting that image voting Democrat do you think.

And for the record not I'm no saying all GOPers are anti-gay but the majority of anti-gay folk are GOPers and the GOP is the only party with pretty much all their presidential candidates openly slogging this.

 

[Khalifa Jayy]

I get the metaphor, even if the camel translation is kept, and, for the record, I don't find that verse to be ridiculous. It's mostly the Old Testament law that drives me crazy, especially when someone states the Bible must be taken as truth. Nearly the entire book of Leviticus is just...insane in terms of modern society.

Here's the thing: it was written by someone from that society for that society. You can breathe now, friend.

 

[Coldsun]

Are people posting that image voting Democrat do you think.

I know of a fact that a few are, yes. So, once again, why use such broad strokes to paint such people.

Additionally, don't try pulling the whole 'democraft vs republican' thing on this particular topic because uhh, last I checked, Hillary was a Democrat.

 

[truly101]

I will still never ever understand with all the completely awful shit that goes on in our world, a man loving another man (or woman loving another woman) is the breaking point to where the world is going to hell. These people mobilizing at their local government offices to protest this could be handing out food to the needy, or helping people that have absolutely nothing.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I know of a fact that a few are, yes. So, once again, why use such broad strokes to paint such people.

Additionally, don't try pulling the whole 'democraft vs republican' thing on this particular topic because uhh, last I checked, Hillary was a Democrat.

Yeah and Hillary in 2015 was absolutely against gay people and gay marriage....


OH WAIT

 

[Coldsun]

Yeah and Hillary in 2015 was absolutely against gay people and gay marriage....


OH WAIT

She has held a stance up to and including when she was running for president. You think she changed her stance now? Really? She's merely adopted the popular belief because she's planning on running again.

If you really believe her view changed, then... well okay, congrats on believing every flipflop that a politician makes.

 

[Dude Abides]

Again the Clinton card. You can tell conservatives are really looking ahead to 2016 - they've forgotten all about poor Obummer.

 

[excelsiorlef]

She has held a stance up to and including when she was running for president. You think she changed her stance now? Really? She's merely adopted the popular belief because she's planning on running again.

If you really believe her view changed, then... well okay.

She ran for President 8 years ago, no viable candidate was brave enough to support same sex marriage then.

Yes I do believe she changed or mind or lied back then, see people grow

So your big defense just for the record is yeah sure every GOP presidential candidate has spoken out against the ruling in 2015 but Hillary in 2008 was just as bad QED

 

[Coldsun]

Again the Clinton card. You can tell conservatives are really looking ahead to 2016 - they've forgotten all about poor Obummer.

Not a conservative. Thank's for trying though, but perhaps try and address the 'clinton' issue instead of simply dismissing it as a conservative tactic.

She ran for President 8 years ago, no viable candidate was brave enough to support same sex marriage then.

Yes I do believe she changed or mind or lied back then, see people grow

Perhaps you're right regarding that she has changed. I can't say for sure as it would be quite presumptuous of me to state that she's absolutely lying. As far as her lying in the past? Doubt it as her statements were consistent throughout various statements on the matter over the course of more than just running for president.

 

[Coldsun]

Dbl post, my bad.

 

[Dude Abides]

Not a conservative. Thank's for trying though, but perhaps try and address the 'clinton' issue instead of simply dismissing it as a conservative tactic.

Thanks for trying what? To point out a silly gotcha attempt? Why does it matter what Hillary thought then or thinks now?

 

[Coldsun]

Thanks for trying what? To point out a silly gotcha attempt? Why does it matter what Hillary thought then or thinks now?

Why?

Because it was proposed that those who linked that picture or had those beliefs had to of been republican.

Hillary was a very easy instance of a democrat sharing that belief.

It is irrelevant what her belief is at this point in time (and it'd be impossible to qualify if her presented belief is authentic or not). She was/is merely an example of democrats (she was a democrat at the time that she made the statement) that have held the belief as depicted in the topic.

"Thanks for trying" was a means at making light at how you dismissed an opinion simply because of an incorrect inference on one's political affiliation. You failed to address the topic and instead tried to attack the messenger.

We'll never change peoples' minds through attacking them but instead addressing the issues which are brought up through productive discourse.

So your big defense just for the record is yeah sure every GOP presidential candidate has spoken out against the ruling in 2015 but Hillary in 2008 was just as bad QED

Holy shit, no. What is with the amount of inferences being made. My stance is this: Don't paint all of a group with broad statements when it's so easy to show there being exceptions.

This isn't a republican vs democrat issue. It's a conflict between a vocal section of people who hold an religious ideology created incredibly long ago and our modern day society.
There are in fact republicans who don't hold these views. There are of course republicans who do hold the views. Likewise, there are democrats who hold and don't hold the views.

 

[Rajack]

Whoever made that piece of shit image should be ashamed of themselves even though I know they're proud of themselves. Anyone who would deny me the right to marry whoever I love; I can't be friends with that person.

 

[Khalifa Jayy]

As someone who works at a place that plays Christian radio all day (and it is a practice in patients not to flip my shit daily) I can tell you that they don't or shouldn't throw out the old law. Jesus pretty much straight up says he isn't here to throw out the old law but to reaffirm it. And that the mind of God is unchanging throughout all of human history. So anyone that says the are throwing out the old commandments and are just listening to grace don't understand the bible. Which is why I just chunked the thing 5 years ago.

Actually Jesus came to fulfill the law, which is quite different than reaffirming it. He came to live up to it because nobody before or since could.

Also, through Jesus, God established a new covenant, which is noted in scripture as a better covenant for our sake, so - though the mind of God and his moral standards are unchanging - the means of walking in his righteousness have become much more attainable for the Jew first and then the gentile.

 

[Dude Abides]

Why?

Because it was proposed that those who linked that picture or had those beliefs had to of been republican.

Hillary was a very easy instance of a democrat sharing that belief.

It is irrelevant what her belief is at this point in time (and it'd be impossible to qualify if her presented belief is authentic or not). She was/is merely an example of democrats (she was a democrat at the time that she made the statement) that have held the belief as depicted in the topic.

"Thanks for trying" was a means at making light at how you dismissed an opinion simply because of an incorrect inference on one's political affiliation. You failed to address the topic and instead tried to attack the messenger.

We'll never change peoples' minds through attacking them but instead addressing the issues which are brought up through productive discourse.

You're right in that the poster should not have said voting democrat. The question should have been if people posting that image are voting for or against gay rights, and the answer would be the latter. That's kind of what the image says, at least with respect to the right to marry. Though I think it's a bit silly of you to pretend as though in general Democrats are not more in favor of gay rights than Republicans.

Actually what struck me about your post was that it was the 1000th invocation of Hillary in some kind of partisan gotcha on this issue. Obama did the same flip flop but somehow Hillary is the go to for this particular argumentative tactic.

So instead of continuing off topic, what are your thoughts on the image in the OP? Do you think the belief that there is something inferior or morally wrong about gay people's relationships shouldn't be cause for criticism so long as the person is polite about it?

 

[excelsiorlef]

This isn't a republican vs democrat issue. It's a conflict between a vocal section of people who hold an religious ideology created incredibly long ago and our modern day society.
There are in fact republicans who don't hold these views. There are of course republicans who do hold the views. Likewise, there are democrats who hold and don't hold the views.

How is not GOP vs Dem issue

Not a single GOP presidential candidate supported the ruling, a bunch of them overtly are calling for a US Constitutional amendment to undo the ruling.

The two main Dem candidates? Well one is Bernie fucking Sanders and Hillary has come out with 100% support of the ruling.

 

[Jawbreaker]

The idea is that God is perfect, the Bible is the blueprint, and there are specific sins that Christians must avoid because God detests them. One of those sins as interpreted by the majority of Christians is a man sleeping with another man. As Christians, it's their duty to follow the word of God and shun that which He detests, so while they don't agree with homosexuality or same-sex marriage, they still follow the Golden Rule. You can debate whether these two positions can coexist without being contradictory, but from a Christian's point of view, they're simply following what they genuinely feel is God's will, which always takes priority.

Of course, there are Christians who try to legislate morality and get heavily involved in politics, but then there are others like Jehovah's Witnesses for example, who are apolitical.

 

[Coldsun]

You're right in that the poster should not have said voting democrat. The question should have been if people posting that image are voting for or against gay rights, and the answer would be the latter. That's kind of what the image says, at least with respect to the right to marry.

Actually what struck me about your post was that it was the 1000th invocation of Hillary in some kind of partisan gotcha on this issue. Obama did the same flip flop but somehow Hillary is the go to for this particular argumentative tactic.

So instead of continuing off topic, what are your thoughts on the image in the OP? Do you think the belief that there is something inferior or morally wrong about gay people's relationships shouldn't be cause for criticism so long as the person is polite about it?

Hey, now that's the type of discourse that I like .
Yes, I do feel that those posting this image are much more likely than not to vote against gay marriage. Unless they're more aligned with libertarian beliefs in which case it'd be a case of them disliking homosexuality but not mandating/forcing their beliefs on other people. As evident by the lack of any real libertarian presence outside of the Pauls though, I must admit that the huge majority would likely be voting against it.

As far as mentioning Hillary of Obama, well to be quite honest it's because I had recently re-seen the you-tube clip of her statements so they were still quite fresh in my mind. In the event that the statement was challenged, I felt quite confident that a) I knew it was relatively recent and b) I could find it again to support my referencing her. While I vaguely recall Obama also making statements going either way, I wasn't confident I could find such statements in a timely fashion. I do see how you could see it as merely a means of throwing Hillary under the bus, but this was not the case.

As far as the image? Great question. At face value, I'd assume that nib95's (here) interpretation of the image to be a fair assessment where it's a case of hating the sin not the sinner, which means the poster could and likely did still love their friend. I also see that even in this (i think most unbiased stance) that it would still be offensive to the LGBT community as it's still saying 'your sexuality is wrong' which of course is incredibly hurtful. This neutral position of course can't inferer if they're saying 'I'm going to stop it' but it definitely states 'I don't accept it'.

Do I think the belief that there is something inferior or morally wrong about gay people's relationships shouldn't be cause for criticism so long as the person is polite about it? Nah, I think criticism in all aspects of life is not only valid but should be cherished. I think my issue is the fact that people have an issue with criticizing the view and tend to attack the individual.

And to avoid the notion that I'm beating around the issue trying to hide how I personally affiliate with the issue:
Personally, I think religion has no place dictating laws nor restricting peoples rights. Ever.
I think religions are free to practice whatever they want as long as they are not actively harming someone else. They are free to believe what they want. As long as their actions are not directly suppressing their opposition, fine, whatever, let them say what they want. I don't have to listen to them.

I think it's a wonderful thing that the supreme court is treating everyone equal and affording everyone the same rights.

 

[Aaron Strife]

wow, are you really any better than them?

Yes

 

[Coldsun]

How is not GOP vs Dem issue

Not a single GOP presidential candidate supported the ruling, a bunch of them overtly are calling for a US Constitutional amendment to undo the ruling.

The two main Dem candidates? Well one is Bernie fucking Sanders and Hillary has come out with 100% support of the ruling.

How? Because, as I've already stated, there are tons of examples where partylines were not a solid indicator of their stance on same-sex marriage. Period.

"Oh times have changed". According to TheHill (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/291097-bucking-the-trend-the-house-democrats-who-oppose-gay-marriage]Here as recent as 2013, there were 11 senators who opposed it and 9 who didn't make a stance. Are you saying the whole party got in line and shifted in under 2 years? Really?

 

[Aaron Strife]

How? Because, as I've already stated, there are tons of examples where partylines were not a solid indicator of their stance on same-sex marriage. Period.

"Oh times have changed". According to TheHill (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/291097-bucking-the-trend-the-house-democrats-who-oppose-gay-marriage]Here as recent as 2013, there were 11 senators who opposed it and 9 who didn't make a stance. Are you saying the whole party got in line and shifted in under 2 years? Really?

Every elected Democratic senator as of 2015 (the year we are currently in) supports gay marriage with the exception of Joe Manchin so yes actually

 

[Coldsun]

Every elected Democratic senator in 2015 supports gay marriage with the exception of Joe Manchin so yes actually

So there are exceptions in the highest ranks of the democratic party (as I stated). Likewise, it'd be a fair assertion there is a notable (but obviously not a majority) sub-population of voting democrats who also are not of a unified mind. The inverse of republicans as well.

As such, no, it isn't clean lines. If we're simply going with 'the majority feel X, so I classify all of X as believing Y' may be fine for you, but I instead try to keep from classifying too broadly. Otherwise, you'd be okay with stating the white voting males are against same-sex marriage because the majority of them voted republican. As a rational human-being you'd never make that inference though.

 

[Frozenprince]

But a Christian should have 0 need to speak or hate homosexuals. There's one reference to homosexuality, anywhere in the New Testament (the only book that should matter to Christians) and it's from Paul. Paul A) hated fucking everything and everyone, and B) the original verse and it's intended meanings are long since lost to time. As with all of the Bible itself.

Which is why it's not meant to be taken literally or as anything but allegory and a basic moral guideline for how to live your life in accordance with God.

 

[excelsiorlef]

How? Because, as I've already stated, there are tons of examples where partylines were not a solid indicator of their stance on same-sex marriage. Period.

"Oh times have changed". According to TheHill (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/291097-bucking-the-trend-the-house-democrats-who-oppose-gay-marriage]Here as recent as 2013, there were 11 senators who opposed it and 9 who didn't make a stance. Are you saying the whole party got in line and shifted in under 2 years? Really?

So you're just going to ignore what I said reagrding 100% of the GOP Presedential candidates being against the ruling to varying extremes while 100% of the main Democrat Presidential candidates are in favour of it and go yeah but 11 senators!

Oh you got me it's completely unfair for me to say the GOP is by in large the party that is anti gay, you found 11 Senators that prove it.

2012:

In all, 61 Senators have signed onto at least one pro-LGBT bill — every member of the Democratic caucus and eight Republicans. Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) were the most pro-equality Republicans, co-sponsoring three bills each.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/07/03/510108/the-11-most-pro-gay-us-senators/

All of them vs 8

 

[Aaron Strife]

So there are exceptions in the highest ranks of the democratic party (as I stated). Likewise, it'd be a fair assertion there is a notable (but obviously not a majority) sub-population of voting democrats who also are not of a unified mind. The inverse of republicans as well.

As such, no, it isn't clean lines. If we're simply going with 'the majority feel X, so I classify all of X as believing Y' may be fine for you, but I instead try to keep from classifying too broadly. Otherwise, you'd be okay with stating the while voting males are against same-sex marriage because the majority of them voted republican. As a rational human-being you'd never make that inference though.

Yes, on every issue there is some dissent in the ranks. Joe Manchin is 1 of 46 senators in the Democratic caucus. They're as unified on this issue as nearly anything else.

When talking about elected officials it's a fair assumption to make that if ~98% of Democratic senators support gay marriage and ~94% of Republican senators oppose gay marriage then one can draw the conclusion that yes generally speaking Democrats overwhelmingly support gay marriage while Republicans oppose it. We are talking about elected officials here, not the voters themselves, and this is important because it's the elected officials who determine policy.

There is no social issue in American politics where there is a sharper distinction between the two parties than gay marriage. None. Any attempt to blur that line is lazy nonpartisan balleyhoofle.

 

[Coldsun]

But a Christian should have 0 need to speak or hate homosexuals. There's one reference to homosexuality, anywhere in the New Testament (the only book that should matter to Christians) and it's from Paul. Paul A) hated fucking everything and everyone, and B) the original verse and it's intended meanings are long since lost to time. As with all of the Bible itself.

Which is why it's not meant to be taken literally or as anything but allegory and a basic moral guideline for how to live your life in accordance with God.

Great points. I really can't argue with the stance and definitely agree that the Bible and the religion should really return to being a source of moral guidelines. I think it would most certainly behoove those who identify as christian to really sit down and read the bible and not derive it's supposed meaning through word of mouth (which often comes with their own slants, mis/deliberate interpretations, and omissions)

 

[Coldsun]

So you're just going to ignore what I said reagrding 100% of the GOP Presedential candidates being against the ruling to varying extremes while 100% of the main Democrat Presidential candidates are in favour of it and go yeah but 11 senators!

Oh you got me it's completely unfair for me to say the GOP is by in large the party that is anti gay, you found 11 Senators that prove it.

2012:



http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/07/03/510108/the-11-most-pro-gay-us-senators/

All of them vs 8

At the moment, okay sure, I'll relent and admit that the odds are definitely drawn as such and you're correct.

Here is my followup question (and I'm not being argumentative and realize it isn't related to the OT, but then this whole subdiscussion isn't), I legitimately want to hear your stance:

I last read that the difference between Christians identifying (or at the very least that the Bible is correct) as republican or democrat wasn't as huge as we (including me) would of presumed to believe. Something like 40% democrat, 60% republican (off the top of my head but I'll gladly look up the report). If this split is true, why are we seeing the electorate so polar opposite? Are the non religious (or non-imposing their religious beliefs on others) not voting? Are they simply voting republican for other issues and dismissing the same-sex issue? The inverse for democrats as well (if you have any proposition as to why). Personally, I'm wondering if those who are of a secular nature of the democratic party are more likely to vote and in turn giving us much more well-rounded individuals. As for republicans? I can't but wonder if it's the old-guard culling anyone who walks off the beaten path.

Don't get me wrong Excelsiorlef, I'm not arguing with you. The thinkprogress link is hard to refute and im simply looking to discuss the topic further.

(Added: Looks like while the split was quite close in 08, since '10, the gap has widened quite a bit according to the Pew Research polls and the gap is quite large for most christians (especially mormons obviously) outside the protestants which is a 51~R%/39%~D split)

 

[excelsiorlef]

At the moment, okay sure, I'll relent and admit that the odds are definitely drawn as such and you're correct.

Here is my followup question (and I'm not being argumentative and realize it isn't related to the OT, but then this whole subdiscussion isn't), I legitimately want to hear your stance:

I last read that the difference between Christians identifying (or at the very least that the Bible is correct) as republican or democrat wasn't as huge as we (including me) would of presumed to believe. Something like 40% democrat, 60% republican (off the top of my head but I'll gladly look up the report). If this split is true, why are we seeing the electorate so polar opposite? Are the non religious (or non-imposing their religious beliefs on others) not voting? Are they simply voting republican for other issues and dismissing the same-sex issue? The inverse for democrats as well (if you have any proposition as to why).

Don't get me wrong Excelsiorlef, I'm not arguing with you. The thinkprogress link is hard to refute and im simply looking to discuss the topic further.

Simple is this there are religious progressives and religious conservatives

It's why I said that image is likely from anti GOP folk because Dem folk generally are not anti-gay even the religious ones. It's why we're able to say not all Christians because there is a swelling tide of religious folk who are openly pro gay in all facets, those that are anti-gay marriage are the GOPers

Also you're numbers are a little off it's 42% and 69% GOP at least on 2012

 

[Coldsun]

Simple is this there are religious progressives and religious conservatives

It's why I said that image is likely from anti GOP folk because Dem folk generally are not anti-gay even the religious ones. It's why we're able to say not all Christians because there is a swelling tide of religious folk who are openly pro gay in all facets, those that are anti-gay marriage are the GOPers

Also you're numbers are a little off it's 42% and 69% GOP at least on 2012

Hey the numbers were pretty close in the original post from going off memory, but thanks for reaffirming them . As far as your reasoning, it most certainly is sound and relatively fits the cases that come to mind off the top of my head. Thanks for the followup reply, I appreciate it.

 

[quesalupa]

I'm a Christian and I just can't stand crap like this. Like, the same book says not to eat friggen pork. I'm gonna go on a limb here and say that the person who created this shit eats pork. The Bible has alot of crazy rules in it but everybody just wants to focus on the gay thing while they go off and break all the fricken rules they want. It's not even like the Bible harps on being gay. I think it gets a passing mention every now and then like not eating oysters, which I'm sure all these self-ritous rednecks go to plenty of oyster roasts. And tbh I wouldn't be surprised if some dude just came up with all those crazy rules in Levitacus (Yes I'm aware that's what most of you think that of the entire Bible). Man I can't stand double-standerders. And it really pisses me off that people use the Bible to fuel and argue their own hatred. Of course you can't argue with people because they'll just say that having a shaved chin is perfectly cool but being gay is the end of the fricken world. I'm sorry but who the hell gave you the authority to say which passages are important and which ones aren't? Especially when the passages are fricken next door neighbors! Sorry for the rant but I just see way too much stupid shit like this and had to throw my two cents in.

 

[Hylian7]

Where exactly does the image state that? You're inferring quite a bit from the image. Unless you're lumping absolutely everyone of a group together because of a vocal portion. If that's the case, wow, are you really any better than them?

? It states that pretty clearly. "I still love you." "I don't support homosexuality" I have seen this attitude by people on my Facebook and I always call them out for it. I have a strict "no-unfriend" policy and would rather call out people's garbage than just let them spread it everywhere.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

Great points. I really can't argue with the stance and definitely agree that the Bible and the religion should really return to being a source of moral guidelines. I think it would most certainly behoove those who identify as christian to really sit down and read the bible and not derive it's supposed meaning through word of mouth (which often comes with their own slants, mis/deliberate interpretations, and omissions)

I would hope people don't actually use the Bible as a moral guideline, we are much better off deriving our morality from honest dialogue and reflection.

 

[Coldsun]

? It states that pretty clearly. "I still love you." "I don't support homosexuality" I have seen this attitude by people on my Facebook and I always call them out for it. I have a strict "no-unfriend" policy and would rather call out people's garbage than just let them spread it everywhere.

Not supporting same-sex is different than actively trying to hinder it. That was my point in that reply. I could see how you might of missed which point I was arguing, my bad.

As far as the 'no-unfriend' policy, I think that's great and depending on how you call out their garbage, can definitely work to hopefully make our society a better place overall.

I would hope people don't actually use the Bible as a moral guideline, we are much better off deriving our morality from honest dialogue and reflection.

Yes, I do strongly agree that we should be forming our morality through public discourse/dialogue and reflection. However, there are people (not on GAF) who are stating that they get their stances from specific passages in a text. If that is indeed the case, I'd prefer they focus on the overall message and use that for their morals, not blindly follow each verse verbatim.

 

[thetrin]

A good friend of mine and I were talking about gay marriage, and he basically said "I don't believe in gay marriage because it's a union under god".

I then said "Let's say I'm dating a relative of yours. We're really in love, and we want to get married. Would that be okay?"

And he of course, he said "yeah, that would be totally fine."

And I replied "Dude, why? I'm not Christian. I don't believe in your god. You shouldn't let me do that. I'm Hindu, man! That's a total violation!"

Weeks later, he came to me, and said he'd really thought about it, and really didn't know why he didn't want gay people to get married, and as a result, found it unfair that he even think that way at all.

I was really proud of him. I wish more people could be that open-minded.