Why single out homosexuality?

[it's just me]

Don't even get what you are talking about, here's a church that baptizes even if the parents of the child are gay: Orlando Episcopal Cathedral Will Baptize Gay Couple's Son After All | Advocate.com
But the point is clearly lost on you, which is that there are plenty of Churches to go to that accept gay people.

Actually, I am way ahead of you, and no, I am not surprised that you don't get it, nor am I surprised that you think I don't get it, but I know some churches will do anything to fill the pews, especially the Episcopal church.

But this baptism isn't about the "parents" anyway, no baptism is. It's about the kid.

 

[Binary_Digit]

You can blame the press. If you followed Church news you'd know that the issue of divorce and remarriage is very much at the forefront of debate.

Jesus explained this to you, The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Besides, it is a sin to miss Mass on Sunday's and holy days of obligation, you must go to confession if you knowingly and purposefully neglected this duty.

That ain't the judge to administer punishment on, Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord.

This one is ridiculous.

Not all sins are the same. A sin isn't a sin. That's heretical poppycock.

No one has said this, if they have, they're ignorant or ill informed.

1. Some Christians want to legislate anti-homosexuality sins but not anti-adultery sins. And you blame that on the press?? Wow...

2. "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it." - James 2:10

 

[Ancient Herald]

yes but most hypocrisy doesn't have such dire consequences as it does for victims for religious persecution. That's what makes it so hateful

Oh no?

Many radical groups that are based on hatred of things such as gender often hurt and marginalize and dehumanize people through their own hypocrisy.

Not just violent groups like the KKK or the Black Panthers either.

Such as, and certainly not limited to, those who believe they aren't being racist while saying that black people are too stupid to succeed in America in order to help them they have to have the government take care of them.

 

[it's just me]

1. Some Christians want to legislate anti-homosexuality sins....

I have heard of no such legislation. Please provide the house or senate bill number and sponsor.

 

[winston53660]

I have heard of no such legislation. Please provide the house or senate bill number and sponsor.

Well there was the Federal Marriage Amendment that was a part of the Republican Party platform. And Texas did take Lawrence vs Texas all he way to the scotus

 

[it's just me]

Well there was the Federal Marriage Amendment that was a part of the Republican Party platform. And Texas did take Lawrence vs Texas all he way to the scotus

Do you mean DOMA, which was passed by both house and senate with veto proof majorities and signed by that rotten Republican Bill Clinton?

 

[it's just me]

Well there was the Federal Marriage Amendment that was a part of the Republican Party platform. And Texas did take Lawrence vs Texas all he way to the scotus

This is why most leftwits hate the Church, they think it's synonymous with "Republican".

 

[ChezC3]

1. Some Christians want to legislate anti-homosexuality sins but not anti-adultery sins. And you blame that on the press?? Wow...

2. "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it." - James 2:10

1. did I say that?

2. Right, inshallah, adulterers and homosexuals are going to taste the fire. That is your wish, right?

 

[roguenuke]

Do you mean DOMA, which was passed by both house and senate with veto proof majorities and signed by that rotten Republican Bill Clinton?

Veto proof means he was either going to sign it or have it vetoed, which could have led to more discussion of a Constitutional Amendment, which had a strong chance of passing at that time defining marriage within the Constitution as between only a man and a woman. He made the right choice for that time.

 

[Ancient Herald]

I don't recall that being any part of the argument. Pointless statement noted.

Then you obviously missed the quote of the post I was specifically referring to.

The guy was singling out Christians. And if it's not okay for conservatives to single out an entire group, it is not okay for anybody else.

Hypocrisy is rampant in America, and to say one group is while another isn't is just childish and asinine.

 

[CrabCake]

Homosexuality and adultery are both sins according to the Bible. So why is there so much opposition to gay marriage, but virtually no opposition to heterosexuals getting re-married after divorce?

This isn't considered adulterous or otherwise sinful by most Christian denominations.

It's a sin to work on the Sabbath Day.

For Jews and 7th Day Adventists. Virtually no other Christian denomination considers it a sin.

with absolutely no controversy or uproar from the Christian mainstream?

Right. Because mainstream Christians don't actually consider either of those things you mentioned a sin.

It's a sin to take the Lord's name in vein. But how many times have you heard of a Christian judge adding punishment because the suspect said G* D* during the commission of the crime?

God is not God's name. It's his title.

It's a sin to lie. But how many driver's licenses have been denied by Christian DMV clerks because the applicant is a lawyer?

The idea that lawyers are liars is a pop culture stereotype that comes from the realm of comedy, not an actual fact. The actual fact is that the American Bar Association has fairly strict ethical codes that put lawyers who lie at risk of losing their license and thus their livelihood.

Is anyone able to help me understand this?

I don't think it is a religious issue as much as it is a cultural issue. It's not Christianity as a whole that is reacting in this way. It's a certain segment of conservative Christianity which sees an existential threat in the rising progressive tide. They hate to see their country changing in such a way and will fight tooth and nail to keep their country from going down this route.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Eating broken glass is not forbidden. Perhaps you should try that.

Moderator's Warning:

Knock it off.

 

[Jerry]

Homosexuality and adultery are both sins according to the Bible. So why is there so much opposition to gay marriage, but virtually no opposition to heterosexuals getting re-married after divorce? How many marriage licenses did Kim Davis cheerfully issue to heterosexuals who were actually marrying for the 2nd, 3rd, etc. time? But she'd rather go to jail than facilitate the sin of homosexuality (and somehow threaten her own standing with God?) by someone else. I don't get it.

It's a sin to work on the Sabbath Day. But how many government permits have been granted to businesses that fully and openly intend to be open on Saturdays and Sundays, with absolutely no controversy or uproar from the Christian mainstream? How many of these government adjudicators were themselves Christians, who didn't even bat an eye at the prospect of enabling someone else to violate a Ten Commandment in the eyes of God?

It's a sin to take the Lord's name in vein. But how many times have you heard of a Christian judge adding punishment because the suspect said G* D* during the commission of the crime? Pretty much none, the idea is laughable.

It's a sin to lie. But how many driver's licenses have been denied by Christian DMV clerks because the applicant is a lawyer? That would be outrageous.

But for some reason I cannot understand, when it comes to The Gays, suddenly it's treated like a serious crime - not only a sin like adultery or swearing, but a crime that requires laws and regulations in the government to try and prevent. The only reason gay rights is considered a "controversial issue" (as opposed to, say, a no-brainer) in this country is because of the large number of Christians who are intent on legislating sin prevention.

I've heard most of the "sanctity of marriage" arguments before, but they have never explained why gay marriage threatens the sanctity of marriage while post-divorce marriage does not. (FTR I don't think government should be directly involved with "marriage" anyway, I say make everything a civil union for tax/legal purposes and let the churches/people decide the definition of marriage for themselves, but that's another argument.) I just don't get why so many Christians seem to have singled out homosexuality over other sins (that don't involve someone else being a victim, that is). Is anyone able to help me understand this?

So you're arguing that our nation follow Christian teachings more closely?

 

[Divergent]

Homosexuality and adultery are both sins according to the Bible. So why is there so much opposition to gay marriage, but virtually no opposition to heterosexuals getting re-married after divorce? How many marriage licenses did Kim Davis cheerfully issue to heterosexuals who were actually marrying for the 2nd, 3rd, etc. time? But she'd rather go to jail than facilitate the sin of homosexuality (and somehow threaten her own standing with God?) by someone else. I don't get it.

It's a sin to work on the Sabbath Day. But how many government permits have been granted to businesses that fully and openly intend to be open on Saturdays and Sundays, with absolutely no controversy or uproar from the Christian mainstream? How many of these government adjudicators were themselves Christians, who didn't even bat an eye at the prospect of enabling someone else to violate a Ten Commandment in the eyes of God?

It's a sin to take the Lord's name in vein. But how many times have you heard of a Christian judge adding punishment because the suspect said G* D* during the commission of the crime? Pretty much none, the idea is laughable.

It's a sin to lie. But how many driver's licenses have been denied by Christian DMV clerks because the applicant is a lawyer? That would be outrageous.

But for some reason I cannot understand, when it comes to The Gays, suddenly it's treated like a serious crime - not only a sin like adultery or swearing, but a crime that requires laws and regulations in the government to try and prevent. The only reason gay rights is considered a "controversial issue" (as opposed to, say, a no-brainer) in this country is because of the large number of Christians who are intent on legislating sin prevention.

I've heard most of the "sanctity of marriage" arguments before, but they have never explained why gay marriage threatens the sanctity of marriage while post-divorce marriage does not. (FTR I don't think government should be directly involved with "marriage" anyway, I say make everything a civil union for tax/legal purposes and let the churches/people decide the definition of marriage for themselves, but that's another argument.) I just don't get why so many Christians seem to have singled out homosexuality over other sins (that don't involve someone else being a victim, that is). Is anyone able to help me understand this?

The "End of the World Word" says there will be gays. It's scary to watch the Christians that weren't supposed to judge, judge in hopes they can CONTROL the end of times because it almost looks like they are forcing them. It's hard to sit back and watch Christians JUDGE gays. Because in the end of the world, ....DO NOT JUDGE OR BE JUDGED. :golf

 

[CLAX1911]

Then you obviously missed the quote of the post I was specifically referring to.

I was responding to your statement.

The guy was singling out Christians. And if it's not okay for conservatives to single out an entire group, it is not okay for anybody else.

Well it's okay for anybody, that's a right in the first amendment, so you are preaching to the choir.

Hypocrisy is rampant in America, and to say one group is while another isn't is just childish and asinine.

Who said the other group isn't?

 

[Jerry]

The "End of the World Word" says there will be gays. It's scary to watch the Christians that weren't supposed to judge, judge in hopes they can CONTROL the end of times because it almost looks like they are forcing them. It's hard to sit back and watch Christians JUDGE gays. Because in the end of the world, ....DO NOT JUDGE OR BE JUDGED. :golf

Think about that though...most Christians eagerly await judgment day...so of course they would eagerly judge.

 

[CriticalThought]

Considering how many times illicit gay sex is condemned in the Bible, I'm afraid your argument above lacks veracity.

Any sex outside of marriage is condemned in the Bible. Maybe you ought to address the actual argument.

 

[Logicman]

Any sex outside of marriage is condemned in the Bible. Maybe you ought to address the actual argument.

Like I said, I'm not seeing any 'adultery pride' or 'fornication pride' parades around or a special class of those people being created and crammed down the throats of Americans. It's mainly the pro-gay community which is offensive and glorifying itself. And that will not survive Judgment Day.

 

[Ancient Herald]

Like I said, I'm not seeing any 'adultery pride' or 'fornication pride' parades around or a special class of those people being created and crammed down the throats of Americans. It's mainly the pro-gay community which is offensive and glorifying itself. And that will not survive Judgment Day.

What does Arnold Schwarzenegger have to do with this issue?

 

[CriticalThought]

Like I said, I'm not seeing any 'adultery pride' or 'fornication pride' parades around or a special class of those people being created and crammed down the throats of Americans. It's mainly the pro-gay community which is offensive and glorifying itself. And that will not survive Judgment Day.

As I said, if you cannot see "adultery parades" then it is because you refuse to see them for what they are not because they do not exist. By Biblical standards, just about any sexual behavior outside of marriage could be considered adultery, or even things like viewing pornography if you are married.

 

[nota bene]

Homosexuality and adultery are both sins according to the Bible. So why is there so much opposition to gay marriage, but virtually no opposition to heterosexuals getting re-married after divorce? How many marriage licenses did Kim Davis cheerfully issue to heterosexuals who were actually marrying for the 2nd, 3rd, etc. time? But she'd rather go to jail than facilitate the sin of homosexuality (and somehow threaten her own standing with God?) by someone else. I don't get it.

It's a sin to work on the Sabbath Day. But how many government permits have been granted to businesses that fully and openly intend to be open on Saturdays and Sundays, with absolutely no controversy or uproar from the Christian mainstream? How many of these government adjudicators were themselves Christians, who didn't even bat an eye at the prospect of enabling someone else to violate a Ten Commandment in the eyes of God?

It's a sin to take the Lord's name in vein. But how many times have you heard of a Christian judge adding punishment because the suspect said G* D* during the commission of the crime? Pretty much none, the idea is laughable.

It's a sin to lie. But how many driver's licenses have been denied by Christian DMV clerks because the applicant is a lawyer? That would be outrageous.

But for some reason I cannot understand, when it comes to The Gays, suddenly it's treated like a serious crime - not only a sin like adultery or swearing, but a crime that requires laws and regulations in the government to try and prevent. The only reason gay rights is considered a "controversial issue" (as opposed to, say, a no-brainer) in this country is because of the large number of Christians who are intent on legislating sin prevention.

I've heard most of the "sanctity of marriage" arguments before, but they have never explained why gay marriage threatens the sanctity of marriage while post-divorce marriage does not. (FTR I don't think government should be directly involved with "marriage" anyway, I say make everything a civil union for tax/legal purposes and let the churches/people decide the definition of marriage for themselves, but that's another argument.) I just don't get why so many Christians seem to have singled out homosexuality over other sins (that don't involve someone else being a victim, that is). Is anyone able to help me understand this?

As I recall, nobody was saying anything about homosexuality until gay activists brought "gay rights" to the nation's attention. Then the nation began to respond. What I mean is that this seems to be a cart-before-the-horse situation as it evolved.

 

[winston53660]

Like I said, I'm not seeing any 'adultery pride' or 'fornication pride' parades around or a special class of those people being created and crammed down the throats of Americans. It's mainly the pro-gay community which is offensive and glorifying itself. And that will not survive Judgment Day.

Official Fantasy Fest Website - Key West, Florida

 

[Logicman]

Official Fantasy Fest Website - Key West, Florida

You still trying to justify illicit gay sex sin, Winston? It's not working for you.

 

[RAMOSS]

Like I said, I'm not seeing any 'adultery pride' or 'fornication pride' parades around or a special class of those people being created and crammed down the throats of Americans. It's mainly the pro-gay community which is offensive and glorifying itself. And that will not survive Judgment Day.

And, what exactly do you think the various Mardi Gras festivals that have gotten more elaborately sexual are??

 

[Logicman]

As I said, if you cannot see "adultery parades" then it is because you refuse to see them for what they are not because they do not exist. By Biblical standards, just about any sexual behavior outside of marriage could be considered adultery, or even things like viewing pornography if you are married.

The point is, gay sex is a damnable sin and should not be defended, promoted, or legitimized.