Ok i havn't read all the posts yet, so if someone already said this i'm srry, but hey let's roll! Ok this makes me mad how people could dislike gays, has anyone ever thought of this, why gays? it's like saying "hey i'm christian and i think we should kill jews" now do you think anyone who says that would have friends for long? idk about where you live but here NO THEY WOULDN;T!! i don't believe in god, and i've been questioned by kids in classes why, and teachers have said they thought i answered good, and i'm like no i answered how i feel. and so far no kid has harmed or hurt me. BUT if i said i was gay i would maybe be unharmed for 3 seconds at max. so next time you think about saying gay are bad r whatever why dont you say "i hate (whatever reliogin you are)" cause buddy it's the same exact thing!!!
This is specifically addressed to Joey, but also to others who agree that it's all right when homosexuals are prevented from entering private organizations.
What if the Boy Scouts prevented, say, Jews from being scout leaders? Or blacks? Would that be wrong? If so, why is it all right to discriminate against homosexuals in the same way? Here's an even better example: suppose the Boys Scouts prevented, say, whites, Christians and heterosexuals? Would that be wrong? If preventing homosexuals from joining is OK, then preventing heterosexuals from joining is also OK.
Even if I were accepting of discrimination in private organizations, I would still get very angry about discrimination on the workplace. You have said several times that firing someone based solely on their sexual orientation is OK. What if someone fired you from a job, Joey, because of your sexual orientation? Would that be wrong?
I think that pple should respect the way others feel towards same-sex couples. If a lesbian couple wishes to get together and date, then they have as many rights as a straight couple. They have the same right to walk into Denny's and order, they have the same right to privacy, and most importantly, they have the same right to respect!!
quote:I'm trying to respect your views Joey, even though our views are polar opposites, but frankly it's very hard.
i don't respect a lot of joey's views because they further social divisons and intolerance while relying upon, in my opinion, oversimplified perspectives.
but i do respect him for 1) being open and honest with his opinion, and 2) seeking an open exchange of ideas - even though his mind is quite made up, he at least promotes on-track discussions.
heh, dante, that's a pretty funny bryan pun of yours...
Discrimination: To show prejudice by treating someone in an unfavorable way. I strongly advocate a gay friendly environment. It's blatantly clear that you, JoeyDauben, do not. I'm trying to respect your views Joey, even though our views are polar opposites, but frankly it's very hard. You're so dogmatic. You remind of William Jennings Bryan, whose rationality was impaired because he was so dogmatic.
I can't feel complete empathy with gay people because I'm not gay. However, discrimination against them is wrong. I would hate to see my gay friends hurt in any way, especially by means of discrimination. No one deserves to be tormented for who they love. And that's essentially what homosexuality is about.
Hello LifeIsGood, I am glad to hear someone in here who doesn't think with someone else's thoughts. This is the first time that I have been in here and I was surprised to hear someone who has the same views as me. Personally, I think that bisexual people are just open-minded people who have the ability to look beyond gender. I think that anyone can fall in love with the opposite sex if they can just look beyond what is between their legs. There really is no difference. Love is love and it is so hard to find it just from the opposite sex, why not broaden your horizons and try to find it with the same sex. Maybe it could be your best friend. I think that if we all just looked past gender, more people would be happily in love.
But anyways, I just wanted to thank you for your insight. I love hearing people views on different issues, it opens my mind just that much more. Thanks!
-A 17 year old bisexual (not confused) female from California
About David and Jonathan: when it comes down to it, you are reading stuff into the scripture that is plain and simply not there. (Key phrase: "I assume..") Why must everybody assume that love must involve sexual feelings? I can't change your opinion on this issue, only God can.
About the 10 commandments: this argument is worthless. Just because a sin is not listed in the ten commandments doesn't mean that it is not a sin. There are tons of others listed throughout the Bible that aren't one of the 10 commandments. (unrighteous anger, hatred, impatience, etc. etc. etc.)
It's bad enough that you liberals distort the Bible's true message, but it's also another thing that the website that you pull this trash from is a GAY church!
Metropolitan Community Church, based right in ultra-liberal Hollywood, California.
Man, I tell ya, talk about *the* most liberal place in the country...
However, to make it fair, I'm going to continue reading my Bible and the statements made on the MCC website ( http://www.ufmcc.com/ )
...you know, just to cover all sides and not try to take things out of context.
jstar555: David is considered the "best" king even though he sinned serveral times; lusting after Bathseva and then killing her husband, and so on.. and god still repays David's son after he sins because of how great David was. David was so great because he never stopped believing in god, despite his sinds. Since he commited most of the sins in the bible, declared his love for Jonathan, and keeping in mind that everything in the bible is supposed to have a deeper meaning, I assume David was gay or bisexual and there was more going on between David and Jonathan than the bible comes right out and says.
Another thing, being gay isn't adressed in the ten commandments. So basiclly, as long as you believe in god, he shouldn't care who you're in bed with.
Overall, the way the website you used talked about the Biblical stories discussed in my previous post didn’t really bother me. I will say, however, that “some important questions” bothered me quite a bit. There is no basis for them…and I don’t see how anybody could possibly try to argue them. 1)eunuchs---What?!?! What is said about eunuchs that could possibly be misconstrued to show that they are homosexual? Rockergrl, I need to ask you, do you know what a eunuch is? 2)woman and lost coin---a great example of people wanting to see symbolism that is simply not there. I do, however, think that it is interesting that the website called homosexuals “leaven in the loaf of every culture,” as yeast represented sin to the jews (which is why they were supposed to eat unleavened bread.) hmmm, ironic. 3)slave boy--- “Pais” might have been used to describe a homosexual relationship, but only in some cases, not all. There is absolutely no indication that this boy was anything more than its literal definition---“slave boy.” 4)Paul---of course his life would be centered around men! Women simply were not missionaries back then. Paul would have gotten to know his fellow workers that traveled with him and he was many times responsible for. And what is his “stormy relational life”? Once again, no indication that any homosexuality is present. You have read what you want to believe into the text. 5)Jesus and love---this is the one that bothered me the most. Any attempt at drawing lines between Jesus’ love for individuals and sexuality is faulty and quite ridiculous. This website totally overlooks the fact that you can love somebody without sex being part of it! Jesus loved his mother. Jesus loved the disciples. Jesus loved Mary and Martha. Jesus loved that needy stranger. This has absolutely no connection whatsoever to sexuality. Instead, it is further testimony to Jesus’ great love for all…the rich young ruler, the needy stranger, me, and you. 6)Lydia---so a woman who is independent, involved in business, childless and husbandless is automatically a lesbian? Try telling a feminist that! (Be prepared to get head bitten off.) Once again, absolutely no indication to homosexuality is found here. 7)Purple---this is just a color which homosexuals have recently claimed to be symbolic of homosexuality. I don’t know who ever got that idea, but okay, whatever. The color purple has no homosexual connotation to it, pre-20th century. As far as Jesus wearing purple to the cross…all the aforementioned symbolic connections make sense. Royalty- (King of the Jews); Suffering (hello, he’s about to have nails pounded through his wrists and feet); Passion (he’s about to die so that we may receive salvation and be with God); Transformation (He’ll die, but “transform” when he rises from the tomb and later ascends to heaven.) I don’t see why those connections were listed, as they only contradict the later statement that purple has homosexual connotations.
One more thing…the 10% statistic. Here’s a quote from www.exodusinternational.org: “The 10% figure began as a misinterpretation of studies done in the 1940s by sexologist/entomologist (student of insects) Alfred Kinsey and his associates. Scholars like Dr. Judith Reisman and Edward Eichel have challenged Kinsey’s research methodology as flawed (he used an unspecified percentage of college student volunteers and convicts with sex offenses) and his statistics as therefore faulty. A series of recent studies from 1989 through 1993 all show similar figures for the real proportion of exclusively homosexual individuals in America: about 1% to 2%.”
All claims of scripture condoning homosexuality is false. These claims are just examples of homosexuals reading what they want to see into the Bible in an effort to gain acceptance from a religion that rejects their lifestyle. Although I will add this…Christianity rejects only the lifestyle, not the life.
Let me know your response to this. I'd like to know what you think...not a website.
Topics 
