Why are Rainbows Gay?

[100_Percent_Juice]

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?

[sperry]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

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.

[Nick Koan]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

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?

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

[tysonK]

Originally Posted by Nick Koan

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

[Highdesertsuby]

Originally Posted by sperry

And as a fan of irony, I totally support gays stealing symbols from a god that hates them.

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.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

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.

[Kevin M]

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

[100_Percent_Juice]

Originally Posted by sperry

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.

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.

Originally Posted by sperry

The whole WWJD crowd never seems to actually apply their motto to the situation.

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.

[Highdesertsuby]

Originally Posted by sperry

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.

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.

[sperry]

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.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

(1 Corinthians 6:9)...nor men who lie with men...

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

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Dean

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.

[100_Percent_Juice]

Originally Posted by sperry

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.

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?

[Highdesertsuby]

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.

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

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.

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

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

I do believe that gays can stop being gay, just like a thief can stop stealing, and an adulterer can stop being unfaithful.

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?

[bigrobwoot]

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?

[Dean]

[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.

[Nick Koan]

Originally Posted by bigrobwoot

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?

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).

[Dean]

Originally Posted by bigrobwoot

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?

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

[bigrobwoot]

Originally Posted by Nick Koan

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).

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...

[bigrobwoot]

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

[Nick Koan]

Originally Posted by bigrobwoot

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

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.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by Dean

[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.

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.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by Kevin M

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.

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.

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by bigrobwoot

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?

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.

Originally Posted by bigrobwoot

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...

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