Why are Rainbows Gay?
 

Why did gay people have to take the rainbow from the straights? Sorry, that isn't correct. Why did the Gay-Lesbian-Bi-Trannies take the rainbow?

I must have missed when the rainbow was owned by the straights in the first place.

In fact, the only "ownership" of the rainbow I remember is the story of the flood in the old testament where the rainbow after the storm was a sign of god's covenant with man to never kill off all of humanity again.

So really, god owned the rainbow before the gays, et. al. took it. And as a fan of irony, I totally support gays stealing symbols from a god that hates them.

You should start a movement to take rainbows back. You should start by wearing rainbow t-shirts everywhere from here on out.

And ask as many guys to help you as possible

Hmmm...I wonder if there are any Christians in here who would find this assumption about their God a little offensive...oh, yeah, that would be me.

Okay, let me rephrase more accurately, since your sense of humor and/or understanding of the actual source of anti-gay rhetoric comes from appears to be broken:

"I totally support gays stealing symbols from a religion that claims to follow the teachings of a man who encouraged love for our fellow man while treating homosexuals as second class citizens who, even though they are as god made them, aren't allowed to participate openly in the church, all while perpetuating this injustice and hate outside the church as some twisted family values rhetoric that somehow still gets a pass in the secular nation at large even though the discrimination against gays is about as blatant as the discrimination against women and blacks ever was."

But seriously, I'm not implying that god hates gays, when really all the hate stems from the teachings of homophobes that run various churches (and I'm not just talking about Christian religions... basically any religion born in the middle east has the same taboo on homosexuality because they all come from the same base religion(s) of the area).

I do find it a little funny that as a Christian, you're offended I might imply that god hates gays, because the teachings of Christ actually say nothing about gays. Everything anti-gay in the Bible is actually from pre-Christian believes (seriously, how much of Leviticus does anyone actually follow any more, aside from the whole "being gay is bad" line?). Which is why I always wonder why so many "Christians" are against gay rights whereas a true follower of his teachings would embrace equality for gays the same way Jesus reached out to lepers and prostitutes who were the shunned people of his time. The whole WWJD crowd never seems to actually apply their motto to the situation.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -Ghandi

I don't really understand this statement. Are you saying that homosexuals are a shunned people? That might have been true years ago but, today society feels that if you don’t accept homosexuality, you are the one with the problem. Also, Christianity is a very broad term. There are thousands of groups who claim to be “Christian” yet they all believe something different and have a wide range of standards.

You also mentioned that Jesus reached out to prostitutes. You imply that by doing this he accepted a prostitute’s way of life. This is not true. Just because someone may currently be living a life of sin, does not mean that they can’t change and leave their former way of life. Rahab was a woman mentioned in the bible as being a prostitute that abandoned her former way of life and was forgiven because of her faith backed up by her actions.

I also don’t understand why you brought lepers into the equation. Leprosy was the most intense disease someone could have and it needed to be controlled so it didn’t spread. They were not shunned because of a lifestyle. It was Israel law that a person with leprosy be isolated so as not to infect others.

Are you talking about the Christian groups that accept homosexuality or those that reject it? I agree that hypocrisy abounds in most religions and that is the biggest reason most people are turned off from organized religion. Some churches have very lax standards because they want everyone’s money. As you stated, some Christians say one thing and do another but, the bible is pretty cut and dry on the matter.

(1 Corinthians 6:9) What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men,

Going back to what you said about Jesus reaching out to prostitutes and lepers. Luke 8:1 says “…he went journeying from city to city and from village to village, preaching and declaring the good news of the kingdom of God.” He also gave this command to his disciples. (Matthew 28:19) “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations.” In that time period those people were viewed as sinners(prostitutes) and unclean(lepers) and were “shunned” by the religious leaders. Jesus was showing that all people (sinners included) could have a relationship with God if they changed their actions and lived according to godly standards. This holds true today. The bible is not a-la-cart. You are either living by God’s word or you are not.

As a matter of fact, I DO know where the "anti-gay rhetoric" comes from, and my sense of humor works just fine...just not when it comes to someone totally misrepresenting my God. I am not actually offended by your coment specifically, but I am offended that, once again, an aspect of Christian beliefs is being misunderstood by people who actually know little about it. I am also a bit offended that you, as the primary forum moderator, would make a comment like that and assume that a Christian would find it humorous. This forum does not seem to have the same kind of rules that I find in other places, but having respect for another persons religious views are usually high on the list.

Now, that being said, a real Christian (not just someone who says they are one) understands that the entire bible is God's word...both new and old testaments. The NT didn't even exist yet when Jesus was around so of course Christian beliefs are based on the Old Testament...including Leviticus. Also, to our point of view, Jesus IS God, so whatever God said about things in the OT, Jesus said it as well (Read John 1:1-14 to see why we believe this).

You are correct on one point...Christians should not be singling out gays as targets for criticism. That was not Jesus' method and it should not be ours either. However, God Himself spoke out against homosexuality as a lifestyle, as well as many other issues. We go by a principle...love the sinner, hate the sin. We do not view homosexuality as any worse or better than any of the other sins listed in the bible. We accept people as people, but we do not have to accept a sinful lifestyle as "normal". Churches are not supposed to allow ANYONE with a sinful lifestyle to participate unless that person is willing to turn away from that lifestyle. Doesn't matter if they are gay, or an adulterer, or a thief, or a habitual liar. The entire concept of being a Christian is being willing to recognize and abandon sinful lifestyles.

The bottom line is this....God does NOT "hate" gays, and that was never taught in any part of the bible. God "hates" sin, because it is destructive. Also, if you are going to make incorrect staements about Christian beliefs, expect that at least a couple of people in here aren't going to appreciate it. You of course have the right to your own opinion, but as a forum moderator, you should be a bit more sensitive to other members beliefs.

I had a big old reply typed up to 100%'s post, but I decided not to post it because it was too long winded.

But I will post a little of my thoughts in response to Highdesert.

First, I was raised Catholic, and while it was a long time ago that I did any Bible study, I'm not totally ignorant of the concepts therein. The primary reason I stepped back from the church was my inability to overlook the contradictions that come up from religion's supposed message to love one another, and the reality of persecution and outright murder that occurs in the name of god.

As far as being the "primary moderator"... IMO that has no bearing on my right to say what I believe. I let everyone else here say what they want as long as it doesn't come to personal attacks. If you feel personally attacked because I pointed out that gays get their rights stepped on by people who hide behind the Bible to justify their prejudice, that's more on you than I because my statement was never directed to you personally. I will apologize for being a crass with my joke, as I honestly did not intend to imply that god hates gays (ironically, the joke there that you missed is the absurdity of god hating gays). I could have phrased it better to more correctly make my point.

As far as the rest, all I'll point out is that the Bible is a collection of documents that can't all possibly be the literal word of god. The individual documents that make up the Bible were never even initially considered the word of god when they were written. Not until 100's of years later after much circulation and eventual acceptance by the general population and religious leaders were they were canonized as god's word. If they are literally the word of god, then god is one confused and contradictory guy that wants people on earth to argue over the nuances of how he thinks we should live. If god actually wrote the Bible, it would be clear as day to anyone and everyone. But it's not, it's the writings of a bunch of people inspired god over about 1600 years, then edited and translated a bunch of times. To take it literally is, IMO, to miss a whole lot of what's cool about the Bible, and that's all the perspective and history about the people that wrote it and the times that they lived in.

And finally, take a step back and consider your statement about hating the sin and not the sinner if perhaps being gay isn't a choice. In fact, just replace "homosexual" with "black" and see just how silly the rest of the modern world sees religious folks that act like they're morally superior by being willing to accept gays as long as they stop their gay behavior. You wouldn't suggest accepting and forgiving black people as soon as they started being white would you? Of course not, since the idea is nonsensical.

So far all I am getting from this thread is that girl on girl action is OK if not heartily endorsed. :)

Well, back when that was written, women were little more than property, so who cares what they did with each other.

I don't know why you keep illustrating sexual preference as synonymous with choice of race. A person may not be able to change the way they feel inside but, we always have a choice when it comes to our actions. What if you are talking about a man who keeps cheating on his wife. Would you say "oh well he can't help it, he didn't choose to be a heterosexual male."? Obviously not. Yet you refer to homosexuality almost as if it is a condition inherited from birth.

Some people feel that they would prefer to have sex with children or animals. Our current society doesn't tolerate that so does it mean we are all imposing our beliefs upon those individuals?

When is a person even considered gay? When they say they are? When they hold hands with someone of the same sex, kiss them, have sex with them?

Sperry...

You of course have the right to your opinion, and it was not that opinion that I had an issue with. I do however have a very dfferent viewpoint about the bible than you do. I do not judge the worth of the scriptures based on what ignorant people have done with them, or by how people have "interpreted" them over the years. Nor do I see any "contradictions" in the bible that cannot be reasoned through with some in-depth study. I have had lots of discussions with other people about the whole "contradiction" issue, and there are none. That can be seen if you are wiling to thoroughly study the bible with the idea in mind that it was not originally written in english.

I also was not trying to imply that, being the moderator, that you could not express your opinion...just that it could be done in a way that is more sensitive to other people's beliefs, especially on the subject of religion. I understand that the comment was not directed at me personally, but because it was an apparently unjust criticizm of the God that I believe in, and you holding the position within the club that you do, I found it a bit rude. You apparently intended it as a joke, but to me it didn't come off that way...and being sensitive to other beliefs, you might have realized that it would appear that way.

Lastly, IMO being gay is not something that you are born with, but it is a lifestyle choice based on giving in to a specific kind of temptation. Therefore, your replacing "homosexual" with "black" analogy won't work for me. I also do not consider there to be any difference between a "black" person and a "white" person (it's just skin pigment anyway)...being dark skinned isn't a sin, but homosexuality is a sin according to the bible that I believe in. I do believe that gays can stop being gay, just like a thief can stop stealing, and an adulterer can stop being unfaithful. I believe this based on what the scriptures teach about the nature of sin. Even though I am a Christian, I have never considered myself to be "morally superior" to anyone else. My life has had more than it's share of mistakes and bad decisions, so I am no different than anyone else out there. It is very unfortunate that many so-called Christians do feel that they are somehow better than others, because that is not what is taught in the bible. "Christians" who try to twist and misinterpret scripture to justify their hatred are not true Christians, nor are they actually following anything taught by either Jesus or God directly.

If a person inside feels that they want to be with people of the same gender, then why wouldn't they act upon it?

Imagine this. A gay person tells you that you weren't actually born as a heterosexual, you are just choosing to be that way. They tell you that if you weren't so sinful you could choose to have sex with people of the same gender.

How would that make you feel having someone tell you something like that. How would you even feel about the thought of having sex with someone of the same gender?

Now how do you think your ridiculous intolerant attitude makes a gay person feel?

MikeK, couldn't the same arguments be used by pedophiles? Or rapists? James Biela was just acting on what he felt. What's wrong with that? What if someone "feels" like they should be with animals? Can they have sex with a willing dog, or horse?

[tangent]

Homosexuality proves creationism.

If Darwin was right, homosexuality would have been weeded out of the gene pool early on. It is a self annihilating trait.

Either that or it is not genetic and you cannot be "born" gay which is far more likely IMHO.

Or it is entirely possible that all women are gay and only wooden clubs, money and liquor get them to have sex with men. :)

Discuss.

Its mostly due to informed consent from both parties. Children and animals cannot provide proper consent. Rape victims also do not consent to their attacks. That is why they are immoral (in my opinion) and illegal.

The difference is, homosexual partners can consent with each other. Therefore it is moral and should be legal (in my opinion).

Yes. Exactly! Only laws and socialization act as a deterrent, not a prevention.

But what about the people that are only into rape fantasies, or children?

Also, i've seen entirely too many videos of willing animal participants to agree with you there. If it is a male dog having sex with a female human, the dog is consenting by participating. That being said, what the hell kind of videos am I watching online? Oh, the beauty of the Internet...

To argue the other side of the coin: if those feelings are so evil, then why did god create them in people?

Well, like Juice said above, its comes down to actions. Obviously, I disagree on his stance homosexuality, but he is right on the topic of people's actions. People can't really chose what they are attracted to, but they can choose to act on it or not act on it. Strange as it may seem, there are pedophiles out there that know its wrong and chose not to participate, or even view child porn because it exploits children. It's true they may always be attracted to children, but as a society we only prosecute on actions, not thoughts. If no actions take place, then there is no issue.

And you can definitely have rape fantasies with a consenting adult. Actual rape, though, is altogether another story.

Regardless, this isn't the same as homosexuality. Homosexuality is practiced between consenting adults. And in my mind, that's all that matters (morally). Just "being into it" isn't an excuse if there isn't consent between adults.

This assumes people born gay never procreate. Since there are so many closeted gays, it's quite obvious that those genes, if there are any, would be quite widespread. If all gay people were permitted and encouraged to live openly, then yes, hereditary homosexuality would dwindle to almost nothing in just a few generations. And thereby add to the pile of evidence in favor of Darwinian evolution. :lol:

No, any gay gene would have been eliminated fairly quickly long before socialization much less the human race. Only if it is a relatively new trait would it still be around, but that would not explain why other mammals that participate in homosexual activities.

Rob probably has videos/links if you are curious. :)

From a purely intellectual arguing on the internet perspective you are absolutely right, you found the loophole :)

However, back in reality I believe you actually understood the point I was making, and can actually see the difference between two gay people having sex and some guy raping and murdering a teenaged girl.

I take it all back. You win the argument. Please don't ever visit me, especially if you own a hockey mask. :eek:

Obviously, I'm merely arguing for the sake of the conversation, but we aren't arguing legality, we're arguing morality. If homosexuality were illegal, it wouldn't change your view, would it? And if consent is all that it takes, why can't a girl get effed by her german shepherd on her kitchen floor? Or a horse?

Morality of an action comes from the effect that action has on another. Cheating on your wife is immoral because it hurts your wife. Gay sex is moral because it's consensual and doesn't hurt anyone. I don't need the word of god to tell me what's moral and what's not... if that's what the Bible is supposed to be for, then it's extremely poorly written, as demonstrated by this very conversation. The golden rule of simply treating others the way you wish to be treated is all you really need in order to determine morality of an action, or more accurately, the golden rule should be "treat others the way they wish to be treated". Outside of that, all the other rules and laws in the Bible are essentially detailed enumerations of actions stemming from the golden rule, or stuff tossed in there because it was common practice of the era and religion was the de facto mechanism for government/societal norms, so it got written down too.

I'm sorry if I sounded like I almost said that. Because it was my intent to exactly say that. Sexuality/sexual preference is just something hardwired into you at birth, and it's not a cut and dry straight/gay... some people are way off to either side, some are somewhere in the middle... it is quite literally the same mechanism that results in all the variations in skin tone you see in the people all around you.

It's the right of society to impose limits on behavior when said behavior harms those that can't protect themselves. Human society is our greatest achievement and the reason why we're the dominant animal on the planet... we have the ability to protect those that would otherwise fall to the anarchy that comes without morality.

If a person says they're gay, that's good enough for me, after all who's in a better position to decide if someone's gay than the person themselves? Being gay isn't defined by action. It's an inherent trait of a person. At least that's what the science points to, and that's what gay people themselves say. And you can make the argument that rapists, molesters, etc. too are inherently what they are... but again the difference is their actions are harmful. Plus the science tends to show that people with those sorts of deviant behaviors have a history of abuse that made them into a person like that, whereas gay people come from all walks of life, all backgrounds, and appear to be about 10% of the population regardless of environment/society/background/race/etc.

I guess all I can say is that I'd rather err on the side of allowing gay folks to live their lives as they choose, than to try to force a different morality on them, since they don't seem to think they're doing anything immoral and they're not hurting anyone with their lifestyle. Certainly I'm not going to change your mind on this, and there's nothing you can quote from the Bible that will change mine because, while I view the Bible as an interesting document from both a historical and moral point, I don't believe it's more relevant to determining the way anyone should live their lives than letting people determine for themselves what it means to be a good person.

Really if god wrote the Bible to instruct his people, why would he make it so hard to understand? Why would he only tell people in the middle east and then expect them to convert everyone else on the planet? Why would he stop talking directly to people 2000 years ago (or 3500 years ago if you're Jewish, or 1300 years ago if you're Muslim, or 180 years ago if you're Mormon)? I just don't see the evidence that the Bible is anything more than an assembled index of documents about morality inspired by god but written by man, some of which is timeless and guiding, and some of which is dated and useless as anything but historical reference. I'm not trying to dump on the Bible, I'm just pointing out that I think it's counterproductive to try to interpret the whole thing literally because you get lost in the act of trying to account for all the discrepancies rather than focus on the spirit of the document. One error in the Bible does not invalidate the whole thing, except to folks that buy into the idea that the Bible is supposedly the literal word of an infallible, omnipotent god.

Animals don't really have the mental capacity for consent. I disagree with your assertion that an animal acting on instincts is the same as proper informed consent. But, if you can actually prove conscious consent, then as long as you don't make me watch it, what you like to do is your own deal and none of my business.

The world today has the "if it feels good, do it" and "don't tell me what I can and can't do" mentality.

Nothing is wrong with having a strong relationship with a person of the same sex. I have male friends that I love and would give my life for. It is natural to have love for a person of the same gender. It is unnatural to have sexual intercourse with them. It all comes back to a persons actions. Everything you do in life has consequences. For those that believe the bible, homosexuality has serious consequences.

For those who don't believe the bible, take God out of the equation. Medically speaking there are numerous risks involved with same gender sex. Not only that but, the human body is not designed for it.

I don't think I have ever told anyone how to live their life or imposed my own belief on them. There are however, many that do. Look at it from a different angle. Think back to when you were a kid. I am sure that at one time your dad told you not to play in the street. Did he say that because he wanted to suck all the fun out of your life? No, he probably said it to keep you safe from harm.

As children we don't always understand our parents rules and guidelines. As we grow older and mature it becomes clear that many of the things our parents did were for our benefit.

As imperfect humans it is impossible to understand all of God's thoughts. We do however have his word that is filled with guidelines to help us live a happy fulfilling life. 2 Peter 3:9 tells us that God "does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance."

I could be a real pain in the butt when I was a kid. There were many times that I disobeyed my dad and he would discipline me. Some times I even got spanked for the crap I did. Did that mean my dad didn't love me? No, quite the opposite. My dad cared about me a great deal and wanted me to grow up to be a good man. This is the same as our relationship with our heavenly father. Hebrews 12:11 says "True, no discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but grievous; yet afterward to those who have been trained by it it yields peaceable fruit, namely, righteousness."



hows that for long winded.:lol:

I will give $20 to anybody for every quote they can find from the Bible attributed directly to Jesus of Nazareth that mentions homosexuality specifically.

Quotes by Paul of Tarsus do not count. He never even met Jesus.
.. and he was probably gay...

Medically speaking, it's all just nerve endings getting stimulated, and reportedly it feels pretty good. And, just like heterosexual sex, there aren't any risks that can't be mitigated with proper protection and techniques.

That's not new. As long as humans have had advanced language and "society" there have been those in power, and those who think they suck.

What does "unnatural" mean?

Does it? Many churches believe otherwise.

Done.

Those risks are identical to heterosexual sex... if you account for specific sex acts. The "not designed for it" line is bullshit too. There's a right way and a wrong way of doing anything you want to do to your body.


You're quoting the Bible to support anti-homosexual views. So this statement is patently false- you are indeed telling people how to live their lives, because if they don't do it you're way you think they're going to hell.

Also nothing new.

Erroneous application of your analogy. It assumes that homosexuality is "bad" and "wrong."

Not sure what your point is here. Anybody that wants to modify your behavior is a "parent" and has your best interests at heart?

You can't use the Bible as an argument when debating people who don't fully believe in the Bible as the the true Word of God.

I still don't believe in the Bible the way you do, so your point is still invalid in this arena. As I don't believe that God is sending people to hell for crap like loving one person who happens to also have a penis, and I see no other negatives to me personally or society at large for their relationship, I therefore see absolutely no reason to discriminate against them.



Not particularly so, by the standards of debates on this forum. :lol:

Quote by Paul (fka Saul) in his letters to the Corinthians, not a quote by Jesus. Paul never even met Jesus and converted to Christianity after Jesus was long gone. Anything he says is secondhand at best.

See also...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Then you would be basing your morality of gay sex on an individual basis? You say that adultry is immoral because it hurts your wife(emotionally). What if your wife never finds out, is it then moral because she was not hurt? How many gay people have supportive parents? If their actions hurt their parents(emotionally) then does it become immoral? Most importantly you are forgetting about God. It goes against God which would be hurting his feelings.

You have made it clear that you do not believe the bible is the word of God and that's fine. I am not trying to sway your view. The original conversation started with God which takes you into the bible, that I believe. So that's where I am coming from when I post. We are having a discussion and the last thing I want is to make anyone upset. So I am fine with continuing this as long as we keep it a discussion and it doesn't turn into a shouting match.

I would disagree that it was poorly written but, I would add that it has been poorly translated and twisted by many people. There are many versions and translations resulting in much false information.

What you are referring to is called the Platinum rule. I don't understand what you would do differently between the rules unless a person wanted you to treat them like a king and kiss their ring.

I agree that man has made many advancements but there are still extreme problems that man has yet to solve. 16,000 children die every day because of hunger. If this society was so great that statistic would not be there. There is enough food to feed those people but due to politics and government it can't reach them. Who is here to protect them?

I agree about not forcing belief or morality on another individual. However, I feel that there is nothing wrong with talking about beliefs like we are doing now. I personally feel that mankind ruled under a single government with a single set of rules for everyone would work much better than everyone just choosing their own definition of right and wrong. This is what the bible teaches and I do believe it. Again, this is just what I believe.

Medically speaking your rectum is designed as a 1 way street. It is not designed for things to be inserted into it. I think a lot of you just like to argue. "uh well a round peg fits into a round hole huh huh huh"

Natural means found in nature. A toilet plunger is designed to unclog a toilet but I guess you could use it as a soup bowl if you wanted to. You could also use a level as a hammer but it would be the unnatural use of that object.

I have never once mentioned hell. You are assuming what I believe rather than reading what I say I believe. I do not believe in a hell of everlasting burning torment for bad people. I am not telling people how to live their lives. I am telling people what the bible says and that I believe the bible. What you believe is your choice. I have said numerous times they are MY beliefs.

I don't feel that I have been arguing or trying to force my beliefs on others. I am sorry if that is what I have done.

Uh, anal sex isn't a strictly a homosexual activity.

If things continue the way we are going, that may happen, but the rules will be from the Qur’an, not the bible. :(

In nature you will find lots of Homo Sapiens - hairless (relatively that is) apelike m-f'ers. And so by definition anything they do and/or produce is natural, right? They do the kewlest things... like anal sex, oil spills, and VX nerve agent! Ooh, ooh... that thing with the atoms too!

Very true Nick. Did I say that heterosexual anal sex was any different? No. We have been talking about anal sex in general not "ghey anal sex vs. straight anal sex".

Exactly, and the important words are "anal sex" not "homosexual sex". Homosexual sex isn't inherently bad for the body, but certain sexual acts can be potentially dangerous for any two parties (although it's very easy to minimize the risks).

Right. Sorry. I did not mean to imply that only homosexuals having anal sex was potentially dangerous. I guess I just ran with the assumption that when most people hear the term "homosexual sex" we would be referring to anal sex. I was not very clear.

Okay, I'm raising the bid to $40. Surely since this topic is so important to Christianity, that Jesus (aka. <whatever they actually called him in his time>) should have spoken frequently and in great detail about the subject and how vile it is.

Also will give $.01 for every Jesus quote about feeding the poor.

He isn't quoting the bible to support "anti-homosexual views". His views (like mine) are based on the scriptures because we believe it to be the word of God, no matter what anyone else thinks. You also misunderstand our point...we are not trying to tell people how to live their lives, nor are we trying to forceably impose our morals onto other people who aren't interested in them. That is not our job. Besides, it's not "our way" that we talk to people about...it is God's way. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Him when you see Him...don't shoot the messenger just because you disagree with the message.

Your challenge has a built-in fault that I will try to explain. No, you will not find a direct quote from Jesus in the gospel accounts saying anything about homsexuality...so don't worry, you won't have to fork out the $40. However, Jesus DID comment on sexual immorality, which would have included homosexual behavior according to the Torah (by the way, Jesus was a Torah-observant jew), so by His staement, Jesus was in fact condemning any activity that fell under "sexual immorality" as defined in the Old Testament. Here are the verses...

Matthew 15:18-20...18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' " Show me how "sexual immorality" did NOT include homosexual behavior as part of it's definition.

The other thing to consider is that Jesus WAS God in the flesh, as shown by John 1:1-14 and many other passages. Jesus himself made the claim so often that it was the primary reason the Jews tried to have Him killed (John 10:33 "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.") Jesus did not deny this charge, nor the claim from Thomas (John 20:28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!") So, based on this information...ANYtime the bible spoke out about homosexuality (or any other sin for that matter), it was in fact Jesus speaking. When God laid down the Law on Mt. Sinai, it was Jesus who was speaking to Moses...God and Jesus are the same.

How about that $40?

Actually, they can tell me anything they want to...it's a free country. I would expect them to give me some reasons for what they believe though, if they want to try to convince me of their point of view. Just a point of fact, I do not spend my time running around telling gay people that they are sinners. If you go back to my original post, you will see that what I had an issue with was Sperry's "god hates gays" comment. Do I think that homosexual behavior is a sin? yes I do, because my God says it is a sin. How does that make me to have a "ridiculous intolerant attitude"? Did it occur to you that, as a Christian, I am supposed to be intolerant of sin? Would you speak out against theft, lying, adultery, rape, murder? Of course you would. Are they sinful behaviors? yes they are. God included homosexuality in with that list of sins (along with many others). I am not going to stop seeing homosexuality as a sin just because many people don't agree with me (or God for that matter). You dissagree with my beliefs...doesn't that make YOU intolerant?

The subject of homosexuality is a really really small part in the bible. Normally I would wonder how something so small got blown this much out of proportion but, this is completely "natural" for seccs. We all have different beliefs and that is our right. Even though Highdesertsuby and myself have the same belief on this subject, I do not share all of the beliefs he does. Namely his belief of Jesus and God being the same. It wouldn't be right for me to criticize his belief anymore than it would be for him to criticize mine. We are all imperfect and have no right to judge one another.

No, that doesn't make anyone intolerant. No one has the same beliefs, so if that were true, everyone would be intolerant (including you).

Which was my point exactly...I got accused of being "intolerant" because my views were different. The term "intolerant" gets thrown out into the conversation anytime someone (usually a Christian) presents an opinion or viewpoint that is different from the mainstream. Once again, being called intolerant doesn't bother me, but the double-standard employed by those people doing the name calling is a bit troublesome, and more than a bit hypocritical.

I think life's too short. If you find someone you can connect with during the eyeblink you get, great. I find it unfortunate that people are willing to spend time and effort condemning same-sex relationships.