3 ms·

Yeah, but the bible also is disapproving of premarital sex between straight people, but I don't remember seeing people fight over whether fornicators should be

by abeppu 6y ago

Yeah, but the bible also is disapproving of premarital sex between straight people, but I don't remember seeing people fight over whether fornicators should be allowed in the military, or could adopt children. The Bible also disapproves of people who contact swine, but no one fights for the rights of employers to fire pork-eaters based on their religious convictions. Or people wearing clothing of mixed fibers, etc. And Jesus said it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god, but no one really debates whether Christians in the bible belt would be willing to vote for a rich guy. All this is to say, I don't think "the Bible condemns it" is a sufficient explanation for some straight people's fixation with gay sex. That preoccupation seems downright unhealthy. Maybe someone should put it in the DSM.

runsWphotons 6y ago
Just because you don't remember doesn't mean it didn't happen. The conversation needs more specification here. Are we talking about the US? Europe? I'm not faulting your comment, the whole chain seems totally mixed up. Like the Bible has been brought into it, but in a weird way---just because something is condemned somewhere in the Bible doesn't tell us the teaching for Christians. The rule about wearing of mixed fibres has an underlying symbolism and purpose. Christians are exempt from most dietary laws in the Bible. Adultery is technically punishable by dishonourable discharge in the modern US military (idk how often it's enforced). They don't seem to worry about fornication now, but in some places and times that debate has been had. Allowing "fornicators" to adopt children is probably very new (and even difficult still). I am commenting just to express my confusion at this change and to say that I think there is a coherent way to make an argument based on Christian tradition and teaching which is not sunk by the supposed inconsistencies pointed out here. If you want to fight the idea that some of the opposition is truly religious (as opposed to some underlying disorder), it would be more interesting to fight a stronger argument. [edit: change --->charge].

by abeppu 6y ago

runsWphotons 6y ago

Just because you don't remember doesn't mean it didn't happen. The conversation needs more specification here. Are we talking about the US? Europe? I'm not faulting your comment, the whole chain seems totally mixed up. Like the Bible has been brought into it, but in a weird way---just because something is condemned somewhere in the Bible doesn't tell us the teaching for Christians. The rule about wearing of mixed fibres has an underlying symbolism and purpose. Christians are exempt from most dietary laws in the Bible. Adultery is technically punishable by dishonourable discharge in the modern US military (idk how often it's enforced). They don't seem to worry about fornication now, but in some places and times that debate has been had. Allowing "fornicators" to adopt children is probably very new (and even difficult still). I am commenting just to express my confusion at this change and to say that I think there is a coherent way to make an argument based on Christian tradition and teaching which is not sunk by the supposed inconsistencies pointed out here. If you want to fight the idea that some of the opposition is truly religious (as opposed to some underlying disorder), it would be more interesting to fight a stronger argument. [edit: change --->charge].