Because politicians, whether local or national, sometimes commit crimes of stupidity, California’s Mayor Osby Davis, of Vallejo, northeast of San Francisco, managed to tell a reporter that gays are “committing sin and that sin will keep them out of heaven. But you don’t hate the person. You hate the sin that they commit.” Oh dear.
The comment came after Davis was asked about his mayoral Gary Cloutier, who is openly gay, and who was asked at a public forum before the election whether he would “bring the Folsom Street Fair to Vallejo,” a scary notion to a God-fearing town that’s seeing an influx of gays from nearby SF. And while Davis says that question was “really, really unfair,” it didn’t manage to keep his homophobia to himself. (Davis won the election. By two votes.)
Which is why he’s now making the apology tour: “I apologize if my words were offensive, they were not intended to be offensive,” he tells local news station KGO. He’s promised not to talk about his faith publicly again. That’s probably for the best.
But let’s not placate Davis’s wish to make this a non-scandal because of “bigger issues” that abound. Ya said it, Davis. Own it.
FakeName
Another non-apology from a moron. What a fucking dumbass.
GimmeABreak
This from the mayor of a city that had to declare bankruptcy. Learn to manage your own house before you worry about your neighbor’s house.
Chris
broken link
Wonka
He is actually correct,,,gays will not go to heaven,,but neither will any one,,for it is just an imaginary place.
chris
yeah the link is broken :[
oh well, I’m sure he’s just another dumbass
Chris
“Comments were taken out of context.”
Oh.. well.. okay. Then of course those statements aren’t offensive.
Since when did that phrase become the safety net for bigots?
Jason R.
I hope every gay person in that area shows up to the slated protest and has their voices heard. So beyond disheartening that two votes seperated justice and bigotry, but this can’t be tolerated…not in this era, and certainly not in the bay area. I wish we could really grasp the importance of being involved in our community via activism. It does not take much effort, but the results are forever tasted and significant for many generations to come. Two people and now a city will go two decades backward. I wish our community was known for for it’s community involvement and activism rather than the party circuit scene.
schlukitz
It’s the new PC operative.
Call anybody anything you like no matter how foul, gross or dishonest it is.
As long as you say you’re sorry afterward, all is forgiven so far as the shit-slinger is concerned.
Own what they said???
Amelia Earhart will make an appearance before that ever happens.
Don
you people are a bunch of hypocrites. you believe in freedom of speech until someone says something you dont agree with, what you cant seem to understand is that if you follow a religion, regardless of the year we live in or the city etc.. you dont change your religion/beliefs to appease the rest of the world, you stand up for what you believe in, and stand firm, no perverting the religion, etc. And for you atheist out there who also are offended by this, why should you care??? you dont believe in a God anyways! point is you believe what you want to and let everyone else do the same no matter who they are or what position they hold.
Don
for Jason: maybe we should protest you
Don
and for all of you goodie-goodies from San Francisco,(or the midwest) just go back, you’ll be happier.
Steve
I remember listening to sermons in church, fifty-ish years ago, in which the preacher said, essentially:
“There are no black people in Heaven. All black people are evil. They are all going to hell. But, even black people can repent. If they repent, God can make them white and let them into Heaven.”
(That quote is not exact — but the sense is clearly what he said. It has been fifty years. I just want to be sure everyone understands I am only repeating what an old preacher said, and not saying it myself.)
Reading that sermon through the lens of history, it would now be considered extremely offensive. At that time, a lot of white people thought it was a good and proper sermon.
Preachers should be careful what they say about gay people. I have recently heard preachers teach sermons that say, essentially:
“There are no _gay_ people in Heaven. All _gay_ people are evil. They are all going to hell. But, even _gay_ people can repent. If they repent, God can make them _straight_ and let them into Heaven.”
I expect that, before fifty years from now, that will be considered extremely offensive. But, at this time, a lot of straight people still seem to think it is a good and proper sermon.
I sometimes wonder whether God is going to let hypocritical preachers into heaven. I suppose that even hypocritical preachers can repent. If they repent, God might make them sincere, and let them in.
schlukitz
Excellent post, Steve.
naghanenu
Saying that blacks are going to hell is not supported by any biblical passage. If it is i’d like to know where ur racist preacher got that from, i certainly havent seen it before.In its context or implication.
Unfortunately there are actually passages in the bible where homosexuality is cited an abomination. Many passages actually.Both in New and Old testament.
As a Christian it is always hard to reconcile this with what is in your heart. I do not believe in hypocrisy or hate mongering but the teachings of the bible cannot be cast aside easily. I really apologise but my stand is if you are a Christian the bible is supposed to be ur guide. I will not apologise for its teachings as i really do believe it was through God’s inspiration
However, the mayor of Vallejo is in a public office. He does not have the right to make such remarks. He is meant to represent all peoples..whether they be gay, straight, white, black, whatever. He must pay for his words. The church is allowed to have its teachings and as such should be respected for them. He however crossed the line when he brought the church into his public service duties…..this is utterly unacceptable
Steve
Naghanenu,
There are indeed passages in certain ENGLISH “translations” of the Bible that can be interpreted as condemning homosexuals. The word “homosexual” even appears in a couple of “translations”.
But each of those passages says something entirely different than the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Most of the passages condemn temple prostitution, which was practiced by a competing religion. None of those languages even had a word that meant what “homosexual” means in modern English. The translations are just incorrect.
For the technical language issues, reference, (Helmeniak, 2000, “What the Bible really says about homosexuality”. Alamo Square Publishers. ISBN 188636009X.) For a history and politics of why the mistranslations were done, reference, (Boswell, 1994, “Same-sex unions in premodern europe”. Vintage Books. ISBN 0-679-75164-5.)
As for passages condemning black people as evil — we now understand that there are none. But the preachers of 50 years ago found several that the interpreted as such. Again, it was a case of bad translation and bad interpretation. The preacher started with a desired interpretation (his hatred of black people), and found some passages that he could misinterpret to support his position.
Some preachers now are starting from their desired interpretation (hatred of gay people), and finding some passages to misinterpreted to support that position. The fact that certain passages are _traditionally_ mistranslated and misinterpreted makes it easy. But, those traditions are only a few centuries old, not original. The meaning is just not present in the original language texts.
naghanenu
Steve,
You have a point. Interpretation can often be wrong or misleading. But outside religion I really, maybe im being naive here, cannot see the reason for people disliking the gay situation. After all, the only logical reason to frown at homosexuality is because of religious reasons. I don’t think people just woke up one day and started on homosexuality….there was a source and i believe that source to be the religious texts. Which does not mean that because people choose to adhere to the teachings of their faith, they should be called bigots….that is unfair.
However i would really saddened and easily repentant if it can be proven that the bible was intentionally misinterpreted when it spoke against homosexuality. There have been books that address this but not convincingly enough.
1EqualityUSA
Naghanenu, If it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was a physiologic component to our orientation and we were, indeed, “born” gay, would that shade this opinion of yours. Ancient scholars might not have been aware of the biological concepts of sexual orientation. Science explains many ancient afflictions.
“Church Fathers like Clement of Alexandria (220 A.D.) said that plagues were caused by demons. Lactantius (325 A.D.) believed that demons entered men and injured them through the viscera, producing diseases and mental distemper but that the sign of the cross would drive them away.
St. Augustine claims that miracles cured a blind man at Milan; a personal friend of his, named Innocent, had been miraculously cured of an ailment, and he had seen it done with his own eyes; a lady had been cured of an incurable cancer; a man in the town of Curubis was miraculously cured of paralysis and hernia by being baptized, etc.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1270 A. D) affirmed that diseases and tempests were the direct work of the devil; and Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Tatian, Cyprian of Carthage, Tertullian, Origen, Jerome, Lactantius, Eusebius — in fact, all the early Christians believed in demons.”
http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/religion_and_science.html
Steve
Naghanenu,
Read the two that I referenced, before you reject them as not convincing or not authoritative. Both are written by highly respected PhD’s. Boswell was a tenured professor at Yale, department of history, specializing in this area. Helmeniak is also a Catholic priest. Both are very careful scholars. Both have traveled to inspect the originals of historical documents that they cite, and many of their pages are half-full of footnotes.
If you do not even bother to read, no citations or references will ever seem convincing. It is easy to dismiss out-of-hand a book that you have not read, especially when it presents a thesis that conflicts with your prejudices. It is far more difficult to identify particular errors in a book that you have read, especially books that are as carefully researched and referenced as those two.
Chitown Kev
@Naghaneau
Maybe, but aligning the curse of Ham with black people has a very, very long history in Christianity going back to the third century.
Origen (circa 185-c. 254): “For the Egyptians are prone to a degenerate life and quickly sink to every slavery of the vices. Look at the origin of the race and you will discover that their father Cham, who had laughed at his father’s nakedness, deserved a judgment of this kind, that his son Chanaan should be a servant to his brothers, in which case the condition of bondage would prove the wickedness of his conduct. Not without merit, therefore, does the discolored posterity imitate the ignobility of the race [Non ergo immerito ignobilitatem decolor posteritas imitatur].” Homilies on Genesis 16.1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham
So stop pretending that according to Biblical interpretations that the subjugation of black people has not been justified. Please, don’t insult my intelligence.
naghanenu
Hi Everyone,
I appreciate ur feedback really. It is good to have a healthy and mature discussion about all this without the name calling.
I assure u 1EqualityUSA, that i have read and continue to read texts that help explain the truths and falsehoods of the bible. I admit that there are some parts of the scripture that i have had explained to me that have caused me to raise my eyebrows …i do not think you can be a true Christian if you do not sometimes question the authenticity of your faith and the way people choose to interpret it.
Of course, there are people, evil people, that the bible has warned about who have intentionally misinterpreted the Word to suit their excesses…racists, sexists, false holy men and others. These people will be judged by their consciences and God, it is not my place.
At Chitown, you insult your own intelligence when you refer to Ham being about black people….can you scripturally prove this to me? Can you? Have you even read a bible before? Please do not seat there and talk like a secularist in a religious matter. Its annoying.
Chitown Kev
I never said that it was scriptual. I said that the identification of Ham as black had a very long history in scriptual interpretation, not that it was a part of scripture itself. That’s a very big difference, you attempted to twist my words. Epic fail.
The identity of Ham as a black man has a long history specifically in the history of Christianity and it ultimately resulted in the religious justification for slavery (and Islam is not all that different in this regard). The Bible is as much about interpretation as it is about what it literally says (and without knowledge of Koine Greek, ancient Hebrew, and Aramaic, you DON’T know what the Bible literally says either)
Chitown Kev
by “the justification of slavery” I mean, of course, the justification for having black slaves.
Of course, the ancient Romans had slaves and some of them were black. But those slaves were not selected because the color of their skin. Big difference.
Gabriel
Another religious nut job, big surprise. Vallejo’s a fucking pit anyway. I’m suprised any gays actually live there.
Chitown Kev
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm
See, in the New Testament it’s all about the translation (probably dictated by your own ideology).
Just as the nature of the “love” that David and Jonathan had for each other…noone knows what that is because the ancient Hebrew only had one word for love which covered everything from erotic love to a love of deer meat. You don’t know any more about the love that David had for Jonathan than I do.
schlukitz
@ No. 10 – Naghanenu:
The church is allowed to have its teachings and as such should be respected for them.
Let me see if I have this correctly.
The “Church” took away the right of LGBT people to marry in California and more recently in Maine. Both were places where gays had legally won the right to same-sex marriage, before the Church took a stand on the issue and involved itself in politics, which is a clear violation of the separation of Church and State and their tax-exempt status.
Now, are you trying to tell us that we should respect the church for having demonized us and voting our civil-rights away at the polls?
Only a masochist could “respect” any person or organization who zealously condemns LGBT people with such a fierce passion and determination.
Chitown Kev
@schlukitz
“The church is allowed to have its teachings and as such should be respected for them.”
I actually agree with this. But…(you knew the but was coming)
If the church chooses to bring its’ teachings into the public square and into a debate on civil law, then I will treat it as I would treat any other idea. If I like it, fine. If I don’t, fine.
I live in a democratic republic, not a theocracy. And in the venue of a public square (and Queerty, in this case, is a public square) I can tell you to take your religion and shove it far up your ass.
I respect your right to practice your religion, but I have a right to reject the attempts of religion to govern me, a non-believer.
Chitown Kev
@schlukitz
Of course, a portion of that comment was aimed at Naghanenu.
The nerve of her to come on this site and to flaunt religious privilege.
schlukitz
@ No. 27 – Chitown Kev:
I think you may have misread my post, unless, of course, you were speaking third-person.
Let me be very clear now that I am quoting you, as follows:
“I respect your right to practice your religion, but I have a right to reject the attempts of religion to govern me, a non-believer. I can tell you to take your religion and shove it far up your ass.”
First of all, I am NOT religious. Like you, I am a non-believer and totally share your views and sentiments.
Secondly, I did not make the comment “The church is allowed to have it’s teachings and as such should be respected for them.”
Naghnenu made that statement and I put in italics to show that I was quoting HIS statement, not making one of my own. Perhaps I should also have enclosed it in quotation marks to clarify my intent.
Be that as it may, I fail to understand how you might have thought I was supporting that statement or pushing religion? I would have thought that by now, I would have earned the reputation of being a, ah, oh…terrible atheist. 😉
You followed-up on your post no. 27 by saying, and here again, I quote you verbatim…
“Of course, a portion of that comment was aimed at Naghanenu.”
Umm…I think he deserved 100% of it, with no portion whatsoever aimed at me. 😉
schlukitz
@ no. 9 – Don. You wrote:
And for you atheists out there who also are offended by this, why should you care??? You dont believe in a God anyways! Point is you believe what you want to and let everyone else do the same no matter who they are or what position they hold.
There is a very significant difference here, which you fail to observe or take note of, Don.
We atheists, at least here in America, have not collected funds, campaigned for or voted away any of the rights of one single American citizen, as the religious right has done…and continues to do. How do you explain your blatant ignoring of that simple fact?
You also wrote: you dont change your religion/beliefs to appease the rest of the world, you stand up for what you believe in, and stand firm, no perverting the religion, etc.
If you truly believe that, you must also believe in and support the public burning of heretics, witches and homosexuals and would like to see that practice revived. Oh, and did I mention the Church’s requirement that nagging women be forced to wear a Scold’s Bridle when seen in public?
And while we are at it, why not bring back the Spanish Inquisition? While the torture of heretics and witches is no longer acceptable or allowed, people like the President of Uganda would be more than happy to supply them with their homosexual population as subjects for torture. For their own good, of course and to give them a chance to repent before being set on fire.
Should we not stand up for and stand firm for what he believes in as well? I am certain that he too believes that he is simply echoing God’s words.
Sick people like that, always believe that God is telling them what they should be doing…and approving of it, no matter how heinous the deed!
naghanenu
Ok fine..Chitown and Schulitz
I apologise. I wont preach to you(not what i intended to do anyway). But i feel if you must argue religion you have to actually be religious and/or at least know what you are talking about. Do not argue a religious question with your secularist atheist views…it is annoying and it is an utter unconvincing waste of time.
I have never said anyone should shove anything down anyone throats. I do not support that. How you choose to live your life is for God to judge so i wont waste time on that.
What i did say is the church is an independent part of society with its beliefs and its right to exercise it as it sees fit. I also said that people like the mayor have no right to bring their religious beliefs into their public office duties. I stand by this.
Teresa
Bottom line; separation of church and state. If Mayor Davis can’t do that, we need another mayor who can.
schlukitz
@ No. 230 – Naghanenu
I apologise
Apology accepted.
But i feel if you must argue religion you have to actually be religious and/or at least know what you are talking about.
Apology apparently taken back. I don’t have to be insane to recognize insanity when I see it or be able to talk about it.
Do not argue a religious question with your secularist atheist views…it is annoying and it is an utter unconvincing waste of time.
Let’s turn that one around 180 degrees and see how it sounds.
Do not argue a political question with your theocratic religious views…it is annoying and it is an utter unconvincing waste of time.
How you choose to live your life is for God to judge so i wont waste time on that.
My my. How pious and dripping with self-righteousness. Despite the fact that you are addressing two self-avowed non believers, you just can’t resist slipping the “God will judge you” remark in. Typical religious rebuttal.
You may not be shoving anything down anyone’s throat, but with slipping that getting-the-last-word-in comment into your reply, you leave no doubt that you do not respect one’s right to be a non-believer, however, subtle the comment might be.
What i did say is the church is an independent part of society with its beliefs and its right to exercise it as it sees fit.
And exercise it muscles as it saw fit, the church did, as we witnessed in California and Maine. Please note that I substituted the word “muscles” for the word “right”, because the Church clearly overstepped it bounds and did not in fact, have the right to vote LGBT rights away.
And, furthermore, who was to stop them? Not even Mr. Obama has had the balls to stand up to these monsters to inform that what they did was unconstitutional and that such gross contempt for and desecration of our American Constitution will not be tolerated under any circumstances.
I also said that people like the mayor have no right to bring their religious beliefs into their public office duties. I stand by this.
If you truly believe that, then tell it to Mayor Osby Davis. He’s the one who made the offensive and damning statement. Your derision should be directed at him, not we non-believing gays who never even heard of this idiot, until he opened his big, fat mouth.
But, most upsetting of all, is that his attack on LGBT people, is coming from a man whose own race was under similar attack and condemnation by the Church not so very long ago.
He, of all people, should know better and be thoroughly ashamed of his words.
naghanenu
@Schulitz.
Maybe if you were less confrontational, you will prperly understand me. I am not trying to fight non believing gays..no at all. You have ur stance and i have mine. I respect urs, that’s why i apologised so extend the same courtesy to me.
The church has every right to practice as it sees fit. Yes it does.In case u have not noticed many married people(straights) get married in a church or at least in the presence of a religious officiator. Whether marriage is a purely legal contract or not, you cease to make it so when you involve a religious body.
The religious officiator is meant to bless the union under God and pray for the success of your marriage.
naghanenu
It is unfortunate that marriage and its religious rites have been cheapened today but i believe this is why it was created. As you are not a believer, let me point out that there are prayers and blessings attached to marriage unions between a man and a woman in the bible. I say man and woman because the bible also specifically points this out.
This deep fusion of marriage and religion has given the church the right it needs to speak out if it does not support laws that may make it act outside its teachings. And rightly so. They do not want to be put in a position of officiating something they do not believe in and that makes sense.
Gays want to marry..swell, fight the laws that prohibit you. It is your right as a tax paying member of this country to do so. People that oppose you also have a right as tax paying members of this country to do so. If the church is able to drum up donations to join this fight…then it is their right to do so too. I do not call people bigots because they do not support my stand point..
Gays need to stop this fight against the church(I cant see where its going anyway) and focus that energy on new strategies that will actually help you win.
Charles
Does the Bible ever say that two men or two women CAN’T get married? The Genesis account, which straight people love to quote, describes an opposite-sex union but doesn’t go on to prohibit same sex ones, does it?
1EqualityUSA
Dear Charles, It really doesn’t matter what Genesis says, in regard to American law and the equality clauses therein. Separation of church and state. Join Americans United for Separation of Church and State. 25 bucks basic membership. We need our own watch dogs. The more queers who join this old organization, the bigger our dogs get. Some of the letters sent to the house, describing what the religious organizations are planning is enough to make the hairs go up on the back of the neck. They’re so creepy and out of control! Now they’re targeting Iowa to rescind gay marriage, even if every judge and every politician needs to be “replaced”.
1EqualityUSA
@#32–schlukitz, Right on. Burning the midnight oil, eh? Slam ’em.
1EqualityUSA
naghanenu, You never answered the first question in post #17. I noticed that when you are asked questions that don’t fit into your “Catholic retort” book, you avoid answering them. Americans are unlike any other country’s people. We don’t swallow a bunch of horse shit, just because men, “playing church”, say so. How do you think this innovative country became so powerful in the last 233 years? We question authority. The way the Catholic church has failed, they need to have their authority questioned, in a very public forum. It’s so unwise for them to wallow in politics, instead of relying on the Word to transform hearts. What fools these mortals be. Also, how does your writing style change so? At one time, you sound literate and intelligent and then, another, you sound as though you are a seventh grader. This is unnerving. It’s disingenuous, like the church leaders decisions you try so hard to defend. Are you answering the question in post 17 or not? I prefer you use your ‘grown up’ writing style. The other takes away from the content, as an extra second is spent trying to figure out what the Hell you are saying.
Peter
Naghanenu Gays are Not fighting the church. The church is fighting gay people. The laws of the church are for the people who belong to the church. The marriage laws you want to follow are for the people who belong to that church. Can you not comprehend that ???? The US Constitution clearly calls for the separation of church and state. And why????, because the people who came to this country were trying to escape the hundreds of years of wars caused by various religions(probably more that 95% of all wars ever fought on this planet).
YOU are the one who continuously puts religion into marriage. The Constitution does not.
The laws we are trying to fight, are the ones put in place by your church; therefor its is the church that is violating our rights. PERIOD!!
schlukitz
Thank you Charles, 1EqualityUSA and Peter for coming to my aid and defense.
I was beginning to feel like the old Jewish man who had been coming to the wailing wall for 60 years to pray for peace and happiness in the world.
When an intrigued reporter, who could retain her curiosity any longer, approached him to ask the old man how he felt about 60 years of praying to the wall, he replies…
“Like talking to a f**king wall!”
schlukitz
@ No. 33 and 34 – Naghenenu
Maybe if you were less confrontational, you will properly understand me.
Pot, kettle?
Whether marriage is a purely legal contract or not, you cease to make it so when you involve a religious body.
In the real world, where a good number of sane people live, marriage can and does exist and thrives without interference from the religious community whatsoever. It’s a fact. Deal with it.
The religious officiator is meant to bless the union under God and pray for the success of your marriage.
The success of anyone’s marriage, including my own seven year relationship, does not depend on or require the blessing of anyone, nor do I feel the necessity to pray for the success of my marriage. The success of our marriage is wholly dependent on how hard we both are willing to work on it. No one has any power over that.
Incidentally, there are many marriages outside of the church that have survived successfully for 50 or 60 years or more. Furthermore, if you will but take a look at the statistics, something like 50% or your church officiated and “blessed” marriage end in divorce. With half of all such marriages ending so badly, I would not be too proud of the Church’s success rate, much less touting the failed blessings of the church.
It is unfortunate that marriage and its religious rites have been cheapened today but i believe this is why it was created.
Perhaps the reason why marriage and it’s religious rites have been cheapened today, is because they never had much worth to begin with! As to why it was created, be informed that the church stole the institution of marriage, which existed long before the church got involved with the “rituals” of marriage. Read your history books. It is NOT the five-thousand year old “tradition” that the religious screw-balls claim it to be.
As you are not a believer, let me point out that there are prayers and blessings attached to marriage unions between a man and a woman in the bible. I say man and woman because the bible also specifically points this out.
Umm…the bible is your book, not mine. I don’t care what the bible has to say about marriage, it’s prayers or it’s blessings. Nor, do I care what Grimm’s Fairy tales has to say about anything either. In a democratic republic like America, we are all free to read what we like, believe what we like and reject what we don’t like. It’s the American way.
This deep fusion of marriage and religion has given the church the right it needs to speak out if it does not support laws that may make it act outside its teachings. And rightly so.
And that is precisely where the church put’s itself in grave danger of losing their tax-exempt status. The churchs’ jurisdiction and “deep infusion” (read intrusion)over marriage ends at their front door. It should kept inside the church, along with it’s believers. Let me remind you, as others on this thread have done but which you seem to choose to prefer to ignore, of our right to believe…or not to believe. Your church has no power beyond that which it is imbued with by it’s clueless members.
If members of your clan want to believe in witchcraft, demons and other such clap-trap, fine. You are fortunate that you live in a country where you are free to do that…within the bounds of your church, of course. But when members of your clan organize to come after the non-believers, as they are doing, then know that we are going to fight you, to the death if necessary, in order to protect ourselves and demand our inalienable right to live our lives as we choose.
It was the secular quarter of our nation that put an end to the Salem witch trails and the burnings at the stake, and rightly so, not the church who was doing the actual burnings.
Gays want to marry..swell, fight the laws that prohibit you.
Ah, but that’s the rub. It is your church that have changed the laws (DOMA for example) that prevent us from doing so. Take responsibility for your heinous actions instead of throwing salt in our wounds.
It is your right as a tax paying member of this country to do so. People that oppose you also have a right as tax paying members of this country to do so.
But, you overlook and avoid one very important fact, Monsieur.
Your church, via the exemption to pay taxes to the state, is using the tax money of LGBT people and non-believers alike to wage your wars against people whom you do not approve of or are unwilling to bend to your will.
That is not only sinful, it is stealing and misappropriating funds and subjects your church to the possible loss of it’s tax-exempt status. Get your facts straight.
Gays need to stop this fight against the church
And the church needs to stop this fight against LGBT people, who did NOT start it in the first place! The church has abused LGBT people for some 2,000 years now…including burning us at the stake along with witches and heretics.
How would you feel if the LGBT community had committed such heinous crime against members of your church?
Chitown Kev
@schlukitz-I apologize for the miscommunication 9I actually don’t know how to do italics, here.
@Naghenenu-
“But i feel if you must argue religion you have to actually be religious and/or at least know what you are talking about.”-
Let’s see, I was raised in a black church (uh, the kind of church where the 90-year old women start doing flips when they feel the spirit…that kind of church…) up until I was about 12 years old. I
went to Catholic Middle School and a Catholic University and I have taken university level coursework on various books of the Bible (as well as other religions) as well as my own reading of the Bible in various translations (and yes, I understand a little bit of it in Greek). I can tell you that the Gospels had anonymous authors, for example.
Don’t EVER assume what I know and don’t know and what my experiences have been.
Chitown Kev
@naghanenu -“I also said that people like the mayor have no right to bring their religious beliefs into their public office duties. I stand by this.”
Neither does President Obama.
FakeName
Naghenenu sez: “Unfortunately there are actually passages in the bible where homosexuality is cited an abomination. Many passages actually.Both in New and Old testament.”
This reminds me of a joke that lesbian comedian used to tell: There are seven proscriptions against homosexuality in the Bible, versus thousands for heterosexuals. This doesn’t mean God loves heterosexuals any less, just that they need more supervision.
The seven supposedly anti-gay passages have been reconstructed and deconstructed so often by so many that there’s no point in doing it again on yet another message board. The point still stands irrefutable that whatever one’s personal religious beliefs may be using them as justification for the secular recognition of anyone’s civil rights is supposed to be unconstitutional.
naghanenu
This argument is now ridiculous. I am saddened here today. I have a gay brother who came out to me 5 months ago. I LOVE HIM NO LESS AND SUPPORT HIS STRUGGLE. I came here becos i really hoped i could see how the other side thinks and sees issues. I am disappointed that you have proven anti gay groups right..again.
I donated to stop question 1 from passing becos i really believe in the principle of live and let live. However, i will not renounce my faith becos it does not cater to you neither will i tolerate being it being insulted. You gays do what u want. After all the success so far has been phenomenal.
Peter
Naghanenu
You do not have to denounce your faith; just the parts that you know are wrong. Keep the good parts that Jesus talked about. Ignore the parts that apply only to the particular peoples that were being admonished by persons with an adgenda; that is ancient history.
schlukitz
@ No. 46 – Peter
I have never, ever, made a secret of my negative feelings about organized religion and the church and those who regularly post on these Queerty threads are well aware of them.
That said, I only hope that you can hear the sound of my applause at what you just said to Naghanenu.
Truly words of wisdom. Well done, Peter.
schlukitz
@ no. 423 – Chitown Kev
No problem, my friend. No apology required. It’s easy to understand how it might have been confusing.
As to doing italics thing, perhaps this may be of help.
Type the following characters before making your quote.
Then follow it with your quote.
At the end of the quote, type the following characters.
And that, hopefully, should do it. 😉
scott ny'er
I’d like to thank all the peeps who discussed this issue, I learned something here. These types of discussions helps teach/illuminate what the opposition states and how LGBT peeps can defend our position. What arguments are needed.
@ naghanenu
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “proven anti-gay groups right, again”. My fellow peeps at some points in time did get a little offensive but then so did you. All in all tho I felt they point by point defended the arguments set forth and posed interesting questions back at you, which you did seem to ignore.
I think it must be hard when you are so brainwashed, for lack of a better word, by religion, to really step out of the box and see what the other side is thinking. It also seemed that you wrongly assumed that my fellow peeps don’t know anything about your religion, but you tend to forget that many of the LGBT people were/are followers of Christ. They might have been Mormons, etc. So, you can’t assume they are not schooled in the teachings of the Bible.
schlukitz
Oops…that clearly didn’t work. HeeHee
Let me try again.
Start by typing a backward karet ().
Now, type your quote.
To clsoe your quotation, type another backward karet ()
Note that the parentheses I employed are simply to highlight the characters that need to be typed. Do not include them in creating your italicized quotation.
Hope that this works.
schlukitz
Dang, Chitown Kev, that didn’t work either. Let’s go to the pros. 😉
See the second item on italics on the following site.
http://www.ironspider.ca/format_text/fontstyles.htm#italics
It give a whole host of things you can use on Queerty in additional to italics.
Chitown Kev
@ naghanenu –
I’m not insulting your faith. I am not at all opposed to your freedom to practice your religion.
I am opposed to attempts by various religious faiths to encroach on my civil rights via their religious beliefs.
Attmay
I’m sorry for all the racist remarks I made about this scumbag.
Oh wait, I didn’t make any. Unless assholes are a race.
schlukitz
No, Naghanenu, this argument is not ridiculous. It is called debate and debate is where opposing sides of an argument get to air their views and feelings on a particular matter, no matter how controversial the issue may be. And that is a good and healthy thing. it’s what democracy should be all about.
It should be understood, however, that a debate does not have to mean that one side must be beaten down into total submission and that there must always be a winner and a loser.
I have always strongly opposed competition. Competition requires that one side must be vanquished and that having been accomplished, the onus is now on the vanquished party to rise like a Phoenix from the ashes and redouble his efforts at winning. And that is the fly in the ointment.
I firmly believe that each party in a debate should leave the table feeling like a winner and this can only be accomplished when each side truly makes the effort to “walk a mile in another man’s moccasins”, as the old adage goes.
When there is no seeming willingness to do that, then each side merely brings their biases to the table and gets stuck in their “position”. And when that happens, they only dig their heels in deeper. No progress is made and both sides leave the table feeling angry and upset and more determined than ever to beat the other side down.
Obviously, you are straight…and that is a good thing. And the fact that you have a gay brother is also a good thing and it is very admirable, from what you tell us, that you support him without reservation.
It is also a fine thing that you donated to stop discriminating legislation from passing. That too is very admirable and we of the LGBT community appreciate that fact and thank you very much for having done so. It was the right thing to do and we applaud it.
However, no one here, that I am aware of, has asked you to renounce your faith. None of us have the right to even suggest that you do. Whether you realize it or not, we do respect your right to have have your faith, even if we do not agree with it.
All we ask in return for our respect, is that your faith does not get in the way of LGBT people obtaining their civil rights. And, if we are to believe what you say, you do seem to be in complete agreement with that premise.
To defend a faith, however, when it is clearly insulting gay people and creating hardship and misery for us, is contradictory to the support you claim to be giving to our community and that is where the confusion sets in and those of us who have been contributing to this dialogue can only scratch our heads by the seeming double-speak we are hearing from you.
The question is, how can you claim to support gay people, when you choose to support a faith that is clearly anti-gay, from the Pope on down?
To me, that is clearly an enigma. It would be like gay people saying to straights “We support your right to be heterosexual, but we do not support your right to opposite-sex marriage.”
Doh?
1EqualityUSA
Dear Naghanenu, I’m a Christian and have studied since 1985. Biblical interpretations are malleable, requiring diligent research. When in doubt, use this concept, you can tell what kind of spiritual soil one’s roots rest in by the fruit that they bear. So, Naghanenu, if you are kind, merciful, able to unconditionally support and love your brother who has recently come out to you, and if you deem discrimination unworthy of financial support, and deeply contemplate spiritual matters, then chances are, your roots are planted in pretty fertile, spiritually healthy soil. When you can love people without conditions attached, then that’s pretty solid evidence that you are on the right track spiritually. Nobody here is asking that you renounce your beliefs. Be smart and take the Bible down to its original language. It will save many from being hurt by misinterpretations. Jesus never said a word about gays. If Jesus thought so little of the matter, why are gays so vehemently pursued today? I believe there is a financial motive behind it. Not all church motives are holy. Not questioning authority is lazy and dangerous. Jesus questioned authority constantly and did a great job of it.
Attmay
There is no debate. There is one side to the argument (ours) and a bunch of provincial breederist yahoos trying to suppress us and making shit up to justify it in the name of a “Christian” god who is probably Satan in disguise.
All the facts on our side. We have the AMA, the APA, every peer-reviewed scientific study there is, and historical evidence from the Netherlands and France about what happens when they tried to circumvent the issue with civil unions for all; they destroyed the village (hetero marriage) in order to save it.
They have…an old book badly translated and gruesomely misinterpreted from the original Hebrew, written by men claiming to speak for a deity with no physical presence (even the prayer book in the synagogue I attended as a child said that “God is without form”).
jessi
@naghanenu “…is if you are a Christian the bible is supposed to be ur guide.”
My point exactly! Instead of praying to a God you might as well be praying to a book. Religion is essentially based on a book. Most religious people are so wrapped up in moral code and damning everyone else that they don’t really live a spiritual life. At least not a fulfilling one. Personally, I think to be spiritual would be to care about nature and all humans no matter what. The religious right with all their guns, greed, war mongering, and ridiculous ideas (contraception is evil) are more about destruction than creation and a higher being. The only thing they are worried about saving is unborn babies. It’s more about controlling woman than saving a life.
1EqualityUSA
#56 Attmay, right on.
Kumar
@Wonka: @Wonka: Excuse me, but some of like imaginary places – they are quiet useful when you are out of luck 😉 LOL