Christian: Gays should be marked

thaiboxerken said:

Both are based on ignorant hate, they only differ in severity of action.
Click to expand...

I think people of good will can differ on this.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Who are these people?
Click to expand...

Joe Lieberman John Kerry.

How can you generalize so if you don't know who is in opposition?
 
Ed said:
Joe Lieberman John Kerry.

How can you generalize so if you don't know who is in opposition?
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about?! The christian majority are the opposition.
 
bzimmer4 said:
20:10 "If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death."
Click to expand...
This is an interesting chunk of Leviticus, because it ties into a chunk of the new testament, when Jesus gives his little "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" bit. They had found an adulturess, and were going to stone her to death and one of he priests asks Jesus what they should do with her, knowing that he has to say she must be put to death.
Jesus responds by writing something in the dirt, history does not record what but was probably the prest's name. Then he says, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Everybody mills around for a minute, then goes home. The priest doesn't push the matter, proably because Jesus has some dirt on him.
The reason that this passage is so important is not because Jesus did something clever, but because he basically said "don't take that stuff in Leviticus to seriously". That's why it got remembered. That's why it got written down.
So the next time some Bible-thumping homophobe throws Leviticus in your face, respond by saying that Jesus himself had disagreements with Leviticus, and if they are not open to discussion on the matter they are defying the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Then ask them if they are really Jewish.
You probably won't change their minds, but you might get their brains to seize up.
 
bzimmer4 said:
Twice that I know of, both in Leviticus, and none at all in the New Testament. Leviticus 18:22 says "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." 20:13 says "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death."


BZ MD
Click to expand...

This says nothing about sex or gays?

You could also interpret it to mean every Military Barracks meets this. Is that not a bunch of guys that lie with each other? Some in the same bed (well bunk bed). Or Navy ships with “hot” bunks.

So I guess the military according to the OT is an "abomination". :)
 
Random and Daylight, i think you are trying to debate a person who is on the same side that you are. Zimmer was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the christian coalition because they pick and choose which parts of the bible they will defend and which parts they will choose to ignore.
 
joe1347 said:
Possibly the religious right would like to expand the warning label list:

1. Yellow Star of Davids for Jews - sound familar?

2. Black triangle was for 'social misfits'.

3. Green for common criminals.


Put me down for a black triangle. Is it me - or does the religious right seem more "facist" almost every day.
Click to expand...

And maybe an "A" for adulterers? While we´re at it, let´s also introduce an "L" for liberals and an "E" (as in EEEEVIL) for atheists.

If you feel like moving, there´s always a place for you in Europe.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Christian Coalition: Gays Should Wear Warning Labels
Click to expand...

Eh. I think that's a very uncharitable interpretation of what he actually said: "We put warning labels on cigarette packs because we know that smoking takes one to two years off the average life span, yet we 'celebrate' a lifestyle that we know spreads every kind of sexually transmitted disease and takes at least 20 years off the average life span according to the 2005 issue of the revered scientific journal Psychological Reports."

The science is undoubtedly bollocks and the rethoric "spreads every kind of STD" is evil-minded (as if "the hetrosexual lifestyle" doesn't spread all the STDs as well,) I'd say that the mental leap from "warning labels on cigarette packs" to "warning labels on gays" must be attributed to the reader's imagination.


(Edited to fix tags.)
 
Christian Coalition was quoting Psychological Reports from the Cameron group, of which it has been said:

In summary, behavioral and social scientists have virtually ignored the Cameron group's data. Other than the Cameron group itself, researchers have not cited their empirical studies as a source of ideas for new research on sexual orientation. Nor have scientists cited the group's papers to support assertions about the dangers to society posed by homosexuals.
Click to expand...
 
Really, Rev. Bill Banuchi is talking out of his arse. Simple question: How do you FIND all the homeosexuals in order to mark them? Ask everybody to tell you their sexual preferences? Poll door-to-door? Trawl gay-bars? I'm betting there's a LOT of gay people who would very much rather remain closeted, thanks all the same, and would be impossible to locate for this stupid branding exercise.

In fact, if something WAS forced on gays who were outed or "discovered", it may strike this hardline conservative Christian community VERY hard to find that they probably have the same percentage of gays in their very own community as the community at large does. Perhaps even a few of their rabid leaders may be among them! Oh dear...

Nope, sounds like windbag rhetoric to me.
 
Shall we place a warning label on the Bible?

"Warning! Believing the items herein lead to torture, mass murder, wars, and extermination. It's possible, though not likely, The LORD will hand someone who believes in this book a weapon of mass destruction or some other civilization-destroying item. Such may take the shape a horn, an animal's jawbone, a fruit of some unspecified type, the dust of ground up tablets, or some as yet unrevealed artifact. For the sake of all of us, please leave this book alone."
 
Re: Re: possibly the source

LostAngeles said:
Headline: "Christian Coalition grieves over today's gay price rally"
Click to expand...

Prices of what, I wonder?
 
yet we 'celebrate' a lifestyle that we know spreads every kind of sexually transmitted disease and takes at least 20 years off the average life span according to the 2005 issue of the revered scientific journal Psychological Reports
Click to expand...
If STDs are the problem, then lesbians have the right idea. What does Banuchi think about them? (Aside from what is in his VCR that is.)

And if life expectancy is a problem, then all males are clearly inferior. I guess lesbians who clone themselves are the answer for salvation.

CBL
 
We put warning labels on cigarette packs because we know that smoking takes one to two years off the average life span, yet we 'celebrate' a lifestyle that we know spreads every kind of sexually transmitted disease and takes at least 20 years off the average life span

These "being gay spreads disease" stuff is almost certainly nonsense, but I don't see how what he says here means he wants gays to be marked like cigarette packs. He simply says that the gay lifestyle should be discouraged as unhealthy just like other unhealthy lifestyles (i.e., smoking) should.

Let's change the metaphor: supposed he said: "We put airbags in cars because that adds a few months to the average lifespan of car crash victims, yet we 'celebrate' a lifestyle that we know spreads every kind of sexually transmitted disease...". Would that mean he wants gays to go around carrying airbags?

In the article itself, he is quoted as saying "Despite using the analogy of cigarette labels, Banuchi tells 365Gay.com that he is not advocating gays specifically be labeled."

The key word is, "analogy". Stupid, perhaps--a call for marking gays with anything, no.
 
I think he is somewhat being dishonest with his message. I would not be surprised if he really feels that gays should be marked, and that he simply wanted to be less abrasive with his message.

It's sort of like saying "Gays should not live in the USA, but I don't advocate deporting them."
 
t's sort of like saying "Gays should not live in the USA, but I don't advocate deporting them."

No it's not--that's not an analogy. If he said, "Gays should be marked, but I don't advocate marking them", THEN I'd agree with you.

Clearly, in this case, his mention of "marking cigarette packs" is merely another way of saying, "we disapprove of smoking because of the health risk".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom