Jesus on Gays

Steven Shepard is correct in almost everything he quotes about Jesus. Clearly, love was His message and clearly, we should love our neighbors. Steven gets off track when he assumes that Jesus tolerated sin. Make no mistake, Jesus loved the sinner and, in fact, gave His life for the sinner. But His constant message was to keep the commandments. (see, for example, Matthew 19:17). Jesus’ designated spokesmen, the Apostles, were clear in their condemnation of homosexuality. (see, for example, Romans 1:27). So, we can simultaneously, love our neighbors and condemn the sin.
But Prop. 8 was not exclusively about whether or not you agree or disagree with homosexuality. It was about marriage and rights. A civil right is not granted for a "behavior". There is enough scientific data now to make a convincing argument that homosexuality is a behavior and a person is not "born that way". How else do you explain the tens of thousands who have been "cured" of homosexuality and are living in happy heterosexual relationships. Same sex attraction is certainly present in humans in a very small percentage of the population. Acting on that attraction is a choice. It is not equivalent to skin color or gender. I am completely aware of the fact that there are also a number of studies that conclude the opposite, that there is a genetic predisposition to be gay. Even if true, acting on a predisposition is still a choice one makes and does not rise to the level of being granted a “civil right”.
I have learned by sad experience that to hold views opposite to those of the gay community subjects oneself to all kinds of abuse that is entirely unfitting a group whose mantra is tolerance. For a group that is so quick to accuse others of "hate", I have seldom been around a group that outwardly expresses more hate than the "No on 8" crowd. Why all the name calling? Reasonable people can have a debate without calling each other names. I have yet to discuss the issue with a single "No on 8" supporter, who did not resort to name calling. I have many gay friends, I am not intolerant, I am not a bigot and I don't hate anyone. We just disagree. Am I allowed to explain why? Apparently not.

Loveforall is correct that it is about civil rights. I would disagree with him/her concerning "A civil right is not granted for a "behavior.”"

Your religious beliefs are protected. And you chose those beliefs; you are not born with them. Further, the practice of your religious beliefs is protected. In other words, your behavior concerning your beliefs is protected.

But more importantly, California law protects people in a number of categories from discrimination, including sexual orientation. So, while we may disagree about the origins of sexual orientation, the state of California already recognizes sexual orientation as an inherent trait the same as race. And that is why Prop 8 will be overturned.

Yee haw, StevShep. And, Loveforall, how many gay people have you met who admitted to "choosing" to be gay? Sheesh. And, to your (dubious) figure of "tens of thousands who have been "cured" of homosexuality", I counter with the MILLIONs who are out, and proud, and happy with the way GOD created them.

Loveforall, good post, I am encouraged that you have many homosexual friends but can still maintain your views. I would argue however that the preponderance of scientific evidence points towards homosexuality NOT being a lifestyle choice. All but a few psychiatrists and psychologists would agree with that statement. "Tens of thousands who have been cured"? I don't think so. How do you explain the very real tens of thousands who lived in heterosexual relationships for a large part of their lives but then "chose" homosexuality? You need to do a little research here, brother (or sister).
There is plenty of hate on both sides, and I agree with you that the No on 8 crowd (amongst which I count myself) are sending the exact wrong (and contradictory) message by focusing on the haters that do exist on the opposing side.

It always strikes me as odd, when the "it's a choice" issue arises in a discussion (slash-argument). Sure, there are some places where it would apply, such as "choosing" to be a cannibal, when trapped on a mountain in the winter, but I think it usually fails on principle: The "choice" or not is irrelevant to the results, in that some people are gay, and some are not, and I seems that division is reasonable enough, to consider them as a group of people whose rights are being infringed upon by legislation such as Prop 8.

Now, the Prop 8 thing has already been done to Hitler many times on this site, but let me add this: The Constitution of the United States of America, is the very document that allows people to practice their religious beliefs without persecution. The Constitution of California, also provides for anti-discrimination. So, both of these documents allow the practice of religious beliefs that hold homosexuality to be wrong, but because that power is actually granted by the agreement of the People--meaning ALL citizens--then gay people are also part of that agreement, and therefore stand on equal ground as others. They are not subject to opression by another group, be it division by race or religion.

Furthermore, the Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . . ." And, while the mention of a Creator would seem to subject this idea to God, it doesn't specify one--which is actually beside the point. The part about "among these" is important, in leaving the interpretation open for there to be more rights than what's stated, which should be a governing idea, when considering any legislation which would curtail the rights of a sub-group of Americans. [And let me be the first to mention that the Declaration affords no rights to anyone, but was a statement of reasons for divorce from Great Britain--pardon the pun, if you wish.]

Now, one might argue that Prop 8 only restricted the term "marriage" to apply to the joining of a man and woman, but I have read that the amendment to the State Constitution would read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," which to me means that any rights of being married (regarding medical decisions, child-custody, or inheritance) would not be extended to gay couples, because the would not be considered married, in the eyes of the state. To my knowledge, civil unions do not provide such rights, so even the argument of "separate but equal" fails, because 'civil unions' are not considered equal to 'marriages'. And that is even assuming that "separate" was acceptable.

I strongly agree with 'equus_posteriori'. The only reason that the Courts of California and other States have allowed Gays to marry is because of how our Constitutions are written. We want OUR rights to NOT be infringed but we want to infring on other peoples rights. GAYS should be allowed to marry and be reconized as per the Constitution. I am Str8 but I also understand Gays flight from persecution ragarding their rights. Religion, will continue to be the arguement of those who wish to deny gays of their Constitutional rights of equallity in OUR Country but they themselves must understand, that if they remain silent, they will be passed over. Gays need to band together and push the legal, Constitutional rights as Americans and fight those's who would push them back to being just deviants. Living in "Backwards", Virginia. The LAW is the CHURCH. Those who are the State Congress, are GOD fearing HOMO-phobes who are terrified of GAY people and have already squashed their rights in this State. California Gays, must fight on to secure their Rights or end-up like the Virginia Gays; deviants to be persecuted.

My views on Prop 8 aligns with Steven Shepard and his take on Jesus.

I think this issue demonstrates how tricky it can be to incorporate elements of "religious standards" into law, whether they come from Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. While there are popularly held core beliefs that may be applicable to secular law, the problem is that there aren't standards for every situation. The Bible, Koran, etc. are interpreted differently by different followers.

Taking the Bible as an example, I don't think of it as a book of statutes. Its more a set of teachings, allegories, and philosophical ideas to guide one's thinking. What results from that thinking is very personalized.

. . .they're not rules, exactly. . .more like guidlines. . . .

Thanks for the comments. For those interested in what else I have to say on the subject (or just a have a morbid curiosity) check out my blog at: http://do-not-get-me-started.blogspot.co...

When you get right down to it, there is no greater injustice that one individual can inflict on another than to force his own beliefs on that individual.

Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. Romans was written by Paul who was never designated as Jesus's spokesperson. Paul was a self-appointed apostle regardless of how you intepret his conversion.

It is odd that so many Christians follow Paul;s teachings since many of them do not jive with those of Jesus. These Christians would be more aptly called Paulians in my opinion. Haha.