Support NeoGAF

[Opiate]

Using religion as a shield to promote intolerant beliefs should not be tolerated. Either the religion evolves or we turn it into a relic of the old days like Greek myths.

I definitely agree with you if the person in question is trying to make the behavior they don't like illegal. There really isn't a place at the discussion table for such people.

But let's use a comparison here to my best friend, who happens to be Hindu. He believes that eating meat (not just cows, but all meat) is immoral, because his religious beliefs tell him so.

However, he has no interest in forcing others to agree with him, and certainly no interest in seeing this behavior made illegal. He's still my best friend even though I regularly engage in behavior he deems sinful. Is that okay? Are you allowed to think someone is wrong or that someone is engaging in evil behavior, as long as you don't try to make that behavior universally outlawed? Or is my friend wrong, too?

Please note these are honest questions intended to further discussion.

 

[Speevy]

I dunno, I see 60% as 'we're so divided we need a single person to be a tie breaker so as not to appear in favor of disgust'.

"6 out of 10 young Muslims in favor of pork."


I'd say that's progressive!

 

[trixx]

I'm completely with you as I find so many parts of the Bible to be ludicrous, but, as it turns out the "camel through an eye of a needle" text is probably a mistranslation. It should be "rope through an eye of a needle."

http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/camelneedle.htm

I love that passage, it's kind of in line with my philosophy on material wealth.

You can still be a Christian and support gay people. It's not like how they live their life has an effect on you.

Pretty much

 

[SpiralZilla]

"I will not let anyone bully you."

So, denying civil rights to people is what, exactly?

 

[anotherVegan]

The bible also prohibits eating shellfish. Do they believe in Red Lobster?

Next time you see that post, just troll them with that fact.

 

[Gnome]

Marriage should be between a Squid and a Kid.

 

[Speevy]

The bible also prohibits eating shellfish. Do they believe in Red Lobster?

Next time you see that post, just troll them with that fact.

I love shellfish, but I do not believe in Red Lobster.

 

[Air]

Yes. Deaming something as immoral is a judgement.

Yes, but I think what opiate writes in this post is important too. If they're willing to compromise, but still believe something is immoral, if that would be unreasonable and cruel.

I don't really think it would be, I'm sure everybody has friends whom do things they may be morally against.

What I'm asking people to do is follow this logic through to its natural endpoint and see what the problems are. Maybe there aren't any, but maybe there are.

The idea here is that this person believes that behavior X is morally wrong. It doesn't have to be homosexuality; it can be anything you want. Further, this person isn't trying to convert others or loudly condemn them, and is willing to be friends with them, just as I'm willing to be friends with a person who is sometimes selfish. No one is perfect.

But still, they believe X behavior is wrong. If that is unreasonably and cruelly judgmental, then it's important to note that we effectively object to the entire concept of religious belief, because a central part of virtually every major religion is that there are good behaviors and bad behaviors, and that the morality of these behaviors should be taken as an article of faith.

 

[Kinsei]

I definitely agree if the person in question is trying to make the behavior they don't like illegal.

But let's use a comparison here to my best friend, who happens to be Hindu. He believes that eating meat (not just cows, but all meat) is immoral, because his religious beliefs tell him so.

However, he has no interest in forcing others to agree with him, and certainly no interest in seeing this behavior made illegal. Is that okay? Are you allowed to think someone is wrong or is engaging in evil behavior, as long as you don't try to make that behavior illegal? Or is my friend wrong, too?

Please note these are honest questions intended to further discussion.

The problem with that comparison is that people make a choice to eat meat. In this case your friend doesn;t agree with the persons choice. When it comes to gay people there is no choice. By not accepting homosexuality you are not disagreeing with someones choice but rather you are disagreeing with who they are. as such it becomes impossible to claim you don;t hate gay people as a whole, which is obviously problematic.

 

[leadbelly]

the ones screaming for tolerance of their intolerance

This is just a little pet peeve of mine. We need to move back to the traditional meaning of 'tolerance'.

tolerance
ˈtɒl(&#601r(&#601ns/
noun
noun: tolerance; plural noun: tolerances

1.
the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with.

People seem these days to view 'tolerance' as a kind of nonjudgementalism or as an acceptance of a person's opinions or behaviours.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Using religion as a shield to promote intolerant beliefs should not be tolerated. Either the religion evolves or we turn it into a relic of the old days like Greek myths.

It should be noted that many feel forced by said religion/texts to state a view that they personally don't agree with or don't give a damn about and spend approximately 0 time entertaining. They're not using it as a shield and stating what their religious text says doesn't make them feel better than anyone or feel good about anything at all. It may even make them feel downright sad.

I'm not sure what those people can do outside of leaving a religion entirely over a single issue which is a non-starter for most people. All they can do is continue to love people the best they can.

 

[Liamario]

He's confusing opinions with facts. Me saying the earth is a sphere, is not the equivalent of someone saying that oranges are really bananas in disguise.

 

[boiled goose]

I definitely agree with you if the person in question is trying to make the behavior they don't like illegal. There really isn't a place at the discussion table for such people.

But let's use a comparison here to my best friend, who happens to be Hindu. He believes that eating meat (not just cows, but all meat) is immoral, because his religious beliefs tell him so.

However, he has no interest in forcing others to agree with him, and certainly no interest in seeing this behavior made illegal. He's still my best friend even though I regularly engage in behavior he deems sinful. Is that okay? Are you allowed to think someone is wrong or that someone is engaging in evil behavior, as long as you don't try to make that behavior universally outlawed? Or is my friend wrong, too?

Please note these are honest questions intended to further discussion.

What does your friend think the consequences of meat eating are?

 

[Red Mage]

The bible also prohibits eating shellfish. Do they believe in Red Lobster?

Next time you see that post, just troll them with that fact.

And if they're not idiots, they'll point out what I posted on the last page: Dietary restrictions do not apply to Gentile Christians.

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

One of the more polite sentiments. I don't have an issue with this at all, as nobody is asking Christians to support gay marriage.

 

[ThankYouDaletech]

Opiate is doing a better job at using critical thinking and flexing his empathy muscle than a lot of the people in this thread.

 

[berzeli]

What I'm asking people to do is follow this logic through to its natural endpoint and see what the problems are. Maybe there aren't any, but maybe there are.

The idea here is that this person believes that behavior X is morally wrong. It doesn't have to be homosexuality; it can be anything you want. Further, this person isn't trying to convert others or loudly condemn them, and is willing to be friends with them, just as I'm willing to be friends with a person who is sometimes selfish. No one is perfect.

But still, they believe X behavior is wrong. If that is unreasonably and cruelly judgmental, then it's important to note that we effectively object to the entire concept of religious belief, because a central part of virtually every major religion is that there are good behaviors and bad behaviors, and that the morality of these behaviors should be taken as an article of faith.

They're not condemning behaviour they're condemning an inherent part of who I am. That is one of biggest issues with this argument. And the part about "loudly condemning" brings me back to what I wrote in the first post; Does using nice words somehow lessen the impact of their judgement? And if so, how and why?

And I don't see how objecting to a specific aspect of a person's faith is objecting to the entire concept of religious belief, that's quite the leap. Not all Christians stand behind this belief so effectively we're not even criticising all Christians or all of Christianity. I find it baffling that this is the argument that you're trying to make, people have in the past condemned those who have used the bible to justify their opposition to interracial marriage and other acts of hatred and I don't think that it is generally held that in doing so people were attacking the concept of religious belief.

I do not see your argument as "follow this logic through to its natural endpoint", but "follow my own sense of logic through a convoluted series of hoops". It is possible to condemn aspects of a whole without condemning the whole, homosexuality isn't just a behaviour, and earnest belief is not an excuse for bigotry.

Yes, I strongly suspect a hidden agenda here, but I'm not sure it applies to literally every person who posts it.

That doesn't make it better. It is basically the same argument as "the confederate flag is about southern heritage to me", it may be true for that person but I think it is disingenuous to just take that person's view of it in a vacuum and ignoring all other factors.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Opiate is doing a better job at using critical thinking and flexing his empathy muscle better than most of the people in this thread.

I think it's fair for the LGBT community to be tired of being empathetic and patient. I think that's perfectly understandable for reasons that should be obvious.

 

[canoli2006]

Don't get me started with this shit. One of my Facebook friends plastered herself with the confederate flag on Saturday. I kept my mouth shut and unfollowed her.

 

[Opiate]

The problem with that comparison is that people make a choice to eat meat. In this case your friend doesn;t agree with the persons choice. When it comes to gay people there is no choice. By not accepting homosexuality you are not disagreeing with someones choice but rather you are disagreeing with who they are. as such it becomes impossible to claim you don;t hate gay people as a whole, which is obviously problematic.

I definitely agree this is problematic, and is a central reason why there has been such push back against the increasing evidence that homosexuality is not a choice.

That would seem a fairly esoteric point for clinical psychologists and geneticists to hash out, but it managed to penetrate the public consciousness where other scientific pursuits haven't. There's usually a reason for that; typically, when some otherwise seemingly banal aspect of scientific research widely enters the public debate, that scientific research is challenging some longstanding cultural belief that rubs people the wrong way.

Clearly, "homosexuality is not a choice" rubs some people the wrong way, because it makes it more difficult for them to hold the positions they do.

 

[TheOctodad]

The bible also prohibits eating shellfish. Do they believe in Red Lobster?

Next time you see that post, just troll them with that fact.

As much as people like to use this it just makes them look uninformed.

People throw out Old Testament laws as "old law." They use the New Testament as reference. The argument doesn't hold much water for the group of Christians you are arguing with.

 

[NimbusD]

It's coming from the mind of someone who harbors the cognitive dissonance allowing them to believe cherry picked parts of a religious text verbatim that do not jive with modern day morality while ignoring others that would actually negatively affect their life.

They're able to believe that their own beliefs hold them impervious from criticism from those who participate in modern day society without holding themselves to random moral values passed down from ignorant peoples of hundreds and thousands of years ago.

 

[SocksAndShoes]

There's a pretty easy way to shut down these types:

Mention divorce and how many times it's condemned in the bible, and then how easily it's been accepted by most modern day Christians.

Shuts them right up.

 

[Liamario]

But let's use a comparison here to my best friend, who happens to be Hindu. He believes that eating meat (not just cows, but all meat) is immoral, because his religious beliefs tell him so.

Well, he's not wrong. Morality can be quite subjective and ever-changing. I don't agree with him personally, but it's difficult to argue against his personal morality system. That said, religious beliefs aren't morally right if you have thought them through yourself as to why they are wrong. You need to form your own opinion as well.

However, he has no interest in forcing others to agree with him, and certainly no interest in seeing this behavior made illegal. He's still my best friend even though I regularly engage in behavior he deems sinful. Is that okay? Are you allowed to think someone is wrong or that someone is engaging in evil behavior, as long as you don't try to make that behavior universally outlawed? Or is my friend wrong, too?

He/She can think what they want, but that doesn't give their opinion any weight or relevancy beyond their own personal world view.

There's a pretty easy way to shut down these types:

Mention divorce and how many times it's condemned in the bible, and then how easily it's been accepted by most modern day Christians.

Shuts them right up.

As far as I'm concerned, as soon as you start picking and choosing parts of the bible to follow/ignore, your declaration of your Christianity has very little validity for me.

 

[Buddha Beam]

The current problem I'm facing is people saying that they believe whole-heartedly in the teachings of the Bible yet cherry-pick the content that fits their perception, blatantly ignoring the content that makes their faith look archaic.

The truth about religion – any religion – is that it reflects who you are as a person. What you see in and take from a holy text like the bible is entirely a reflection of you and your values.
It's entirely possible to read the Bible and come away being the "ideal" tolerant, accepting, non-judgmental Christian with an almost zen-like attitude towards life and others. But the people who come out thinking that way are already most likely predisposed to being that way anyway.
Similarly, it's entirely possible to read the Bible and come away thinking that homosexuality is a sin, people with dark skinare bad, slavery is acceptable, women should be subjugated yadda, yadda yadda. Those people are also more than likely going to be... very tribal in their thinking already, so reading a Holy text is just going to be what they see.

Religion self-validates one's world view. Always has, always will.


With regards to the OP... I'd be ok with that, except the only real basis in the Bible for opposing homosexuality is in Leviticus... and we ignore everything else in Leviticus because there is no other way to describe it as anything other than insane. I can't take seriously anyone who takes Leviticus seriously.

Really, I can't take seriously anyone who takes the Old Testament seriously. The entire narrative in the Bible boils down to "God used to be a spiteful, vengeful douchebag (OT), then he had a change of heart and made the ultimate sacrifice to prove it (NT). The end."

 

[jmdajr]

There's a pretty easy way to shut down these types:

Mention divorce and how many times it's condemned in the bible, and then how easily it's been accepted by most modern day Christians.

Shuts them right up.

The whole premarital sex thing isn't a big deal either!

 

[Novocaine]

Whatever. If all Christians are doing now is making silly shareable Facebook jpegs as opposed to what their book says they should be doing (stoning gays to death) then I think we will be okay.

 

[Shao Kahn on the Lawn]

You can be disappointed in someone, or have an issue with a fundamental part of their being and still like or respect them, and not judge them for it. This should not be a difficult concept.

Also aggressively forcing your views upon people and attempting to marginalize their beliefs and opinions because they are not your own is exactly what is happening right now across social media. Pro marriage equality folks are using the fact that their opinion will be on the right side of history as an excuse to do the exact same thing they claim religious conservatives do.

So I guess what I'm saying is that everyone is being a smug douchebag and everyone is wrong.

This is a false equivalence. The expectation of evangelicals is that the LGBT community be satisfied with being less than equal. The expectation of the pro-equality movement is that evangelicals can believe whatever they want to believe but will no longer be able to use the government to discriminate against our citizenry.

 

[idlewild_]

What does your friend think the consequences of meat eating are?

Probably that it violates Ahimsa and thus begets negative karma.

 

[Red Mage]

As much as people like to use this it just makes them look uninformed.

People throw out Old Testament laws as "old law." They use the New Testament as reference. The argument doesn't hold much water for the group of Christians you are arguing with.

It's not really about throwing stuff out. The first Church Council was held in Jerusalem and discussed Gentile believers in general, and what restrictions they should be held to:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+15

There's a pretty easy way to shut down these types:

Mention divorce and how many times it's condemned in the bible, and then how easily it's been accepted by most modern day Christians.

Shuts them right up.

...what Christian groups are you guys talking to that think divorce and pre-marital sex isn't a big deal. ;

 

[Ovid]

I choose to be ignorant, therefore I got rid of Facebook.

 

[Opiate]

They're not condemning behaviour they're condemning an inherent part of who I am.

The "inherent parts of who you are" are behaviors. I may be hugely genetically predisposed to being heterosexual, but that doesn't make heterosexuality not a behavior.

That is one of biggest issues with this argument. And the part about "loudly condemning" brings me back to what I wrote in the first post; Does using nice words somehow lessen the impact of their judgement? And if so, how and why?

Because it suggests a different approach to the topic. There is a meaningful difference between "I think what you do is bad, and I will tell you so, and I will try to make what you do illegal, and I will try to publicly shame you," and "I think what you do is bad, but you may not believe in the same God I do." As another example given above, my best friend happens to be Hindu, and he believes eating meat is evil. I eat meat. He manages to still be my friend and still think I am on balance a good person, even if I have some particular flaw (from his point of view).

 

[Toa TAK]

Christianity's primary message is that every human being is flawed, and without the sacrifice of a sinless being (JC) it's impossible to come to reconciliation with God. It repeats the point that actions and deeds alone will not allow one to get into God's good graces, and only the belief in JC will be able to cut it.

Within that context, singling out one specific form of sin (homosexuality) is meaningless, as all sin is equally bad in God's eyes. Making a statement about how you don't approve of actions of gays/lesbians is nothing but hypocrisy, since that comes with the implication that you're standing on a moral high ground for not committing such a sin. The problem is that nobody has the moral high ground, so nobody has the right to explicitly state what people should or shouldn't be doing to be "lawfully" correct in this religion.

Every Christian by themselves are still sinners. But JC did not come to judge them but to die for them so that they could live. To really follow in that example, Christians should not be making statements about what people shouldn't or shouldn't do, but rather to show that they really love these people by talking directly to them, trying to work out their differences, and showing support for them regardless of what they feel about their actions. Supporting an image like this mostly shows how much these people care for their own appearances rather than how much they actually care for their own religion.

Nailed it.

The bible also prohibits eating shellfish. Do they believe in Red Lobster?

Next time you see that post, just troll them with that fact.

lol Don't forget about stoning people who work on Sunday. They're quick to handwave that one.

This thread and the gay marriage salt thread make me feel a little bit better that there are Christians out there who have some sense. This image in the OP makes me sad that people really think that way.

I love shellfish, but I do not believe in Red Lobster.

 

[Arkeband]

Whatever. If all Christians are doing now is making silly shareable Facebook jpegs as opposed to what their book says they should be doing (stoning gays to death) then I think we will be okay.

That's not all they're doing, they also go to third-world countries and get bills like "Kill the Gays" passed into law.

And the people behind that are sitting members of our government, that these nimrods posting memes on Facebook vote for, because Jesus.

 

[krypt0nian]

I think it's fair for the LGBT community to be tired of being empathetic and patient. I think that's perfectly understandable for reasons that should be obvious.

Exactly. They really don't matter anymore. Let them scream and cry. Pout and throw things.

Their views on my life and my ability to marry now are moot. I mean this week it's kinda fun to point at them while they thrash on the floor and beg for toys, but in the long run they will be relics at best.

 

[Red Mage]

That's not all they're doing, they also go to third-world countries and get bills like "Kill the Gays" passed into law.

And the people behind that are sitting members of our government, that these nimrods posting memes on Facebook vote for, because Jesus.

...what?

 

[ThankYouDaletech]

I think it's fair for the LGBT community to be tired of being empathetic and patient. I think that's perfectly understandable for reasons that should be obvious.

There are people who are in all reality nice, good, caring, open-minded people who for reasons kind of outside of their control have a belief system which involves disapproving of gay relations. It's wrong they think this way, but it wasn't a decision they made, it was an effect their environment had upon them.

Those people just had their government, with which they may have an unhealthy belief in, tell them that one of the things that make them who they are is wrong.

Sounds familiar.

Maybe give these people some time to be reeducated and adjust to the new reality. If they're still posting something this dumb in a bit of time, then by all means shout down their bigotry.

I know people are happy, I am too, but maybe sometimes it's better to act like you've been there before, even if you haven't.

 

[Wyndstryker]

Christianity has several different viewpoints. Just saying you're a Christian just doesn't cut it. Which denomination does your beliefs tilt to?

That image is just added more fuel to the hate fire. It's wrong on so many different levels.

 

[TheOctodad]

The issue really isn't gay marriage that most Christians need to change, it's fundamentally a problem of how they perceive the Bible. This is the major difference between fundamental Christians and more progressive ones.

Fundamental Christians view the Bible (mainly the New Testament) as a set of "timeless truths" removed from any sort of influence of culture, worldview or scientific understanding. The text is not bound by time and is perfect just the way it was created. Obviously this a broken way of understanding the Bible as anyone can tell you that in simply translating the Greek into English you are already making a great number of leaps in understanding. Additionally all language is time and culture bound, especially letters to communities that made up the early church.

Progressive Christians generally read the Biblical text as a library of books that document people's experiences with God. The writings and viewpoints of the Bible reflect the cultural understanding of God, but also seem to reflect a God that is constantly calling these individuals into new and deeper ways of understanding. The journey isn't as fast, or quite like we as moderns would prefer, but it is progressive and moving. So the progressives refer to the trajectory of the Bible being increasing levels of love and freedom for the oppressed. Slowly, but surely the minorities are given more and more of a voice. So even though slavery is not directly spoken against in the New Testament, there are many old and new testament verse about freeing slaves and everyone (regardless of status) being equal in the eyes of God.

So for them homosexuality being shunned in the New Testament isn't something to be debated. Sure they may have said it, but the trajectory of God and the Bible is towards more freedom for the oppressed, just as it was for the Gentiles in the New Testament.

 

[Servbot24]

I think drugs are bad for you but I don't really give a shit if people do them

^ I think that's how a lot of Christians view it. Not really sure though.

 

[krypt0nian]

...what?

Scott Lively + Uganda = Christian lobbying to sponsor "Kill the gays" bill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Lively#Anti-homosexuality_activism_in_Uganda

 

[SocksAndShoes]

It's not really about throwing stuff out. The first Church Council was held in Jerusalem and discussed Gentile believers in general, and what restrictions they should be held to:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+15



...what Christian groups are you guys talking to that think divorce and pre-marital sex isn't a big deal. ;

How often do you hear outrage about divorce and pre-marital sex? There's your answer.

 

[Gnome]

I definitely agree with you if the person in question is trying to make the behavior they don't like illegal. There really isn't a place at the discussion table for such people.

But let's use a comparison here to my best friend, who happens to be Hindu. He believes that eating meat (not just cows, but all meat) is immoral, because his religious beliefs tell him so.

However, he has no interest in forcing others to agree with him, and certainly no interest in seeing this behavior made illegal. He's still my best friend even though I regularly engage in behavior he deems sinful. Is that okay? Are you allowed to think someone is wrong or that someone is engaging in evil behavior, as long as you don't try to make that behavior universally outlawed? Or is my friend wrong, too?

Please note these are honest questions intended to further discussion.

I find this example hard to follow because my immediate urge is to explain to your friend that meat was made to be immoral in his religious views because of archaic health reasons and that he should seek to educate himself on the matter. And if he already has but still chooses to hold to his beliefs, then I would consider his views wrong objectively and cognitively dissonant, but since he chooses not to use his belief as a way to infringe on other peoples rights then its a non-issue.

 

[Thatonemoor]

As much as people like to use this it just makes them look uninformed.

People throw out Old Testament laws as "old law." They use the New Testament as reference. The argument doesn't hold much water for the group of Christians you are arguing with.

As someone who works at a place that plays Christian radio all day (and it is a practice in patients not to flip my shit daily) I can tell you that they don't or shouldn't throw out the old law. Jesus pretty much straight up says he isn't here to throw out the old law but to reaffirm it. And that the mind of God is unchanging throughout all of human history. So anyone that says the are throwing out the old commandments and are just listening to grace don't understand the bible. Which is why I just chunked the thing 5 years ago.

 

[JustenP88]

...what?

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/1...aw-will-be-tried-for-crimes-against-humanity/

 

[ThankYouDaletech]

I find this example hard to follow because my immediate urge is to explain to your friend that meat was made to be immoral in his religious views because of archaic health reasons and that he should seek to educate himself on the matter. And if he already has but still chooses to hold to his beliefs, then I would consider his views wrong objectively and cognitively dissonant, but since he chooses not to use his belief as a way to infringe on other peoples rights then its a non-issue.

And then he'd be like "Beep boop beep I have been reprogrammed to see the error in my ways blip blop" and change immediately.

Oh wait we're talking about people and not computers.

 

[Air]

Scott Lively + Uganda = Christian lobbying to sponsor "Kill the gays" bill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Lively#Anti-homosexuality_activism_in_Uganda

This dude is trash. I'm pretty sure he's on trial now for that bill though.

 

[Bornstellar]

I find this example hard to follow because my immediate urge is to explain to your friend that meat was made to be immoral in his religious views because of archaic health reasons and that he should seek to educate himself on the matter. And if he already has but still chooses to hold to his beliefs, then I would consider his views wrong objectively and cognitively dissonant, but since he chooses not to use his belief as a way to infringe on other peoples rights then its a non-issue.

While you might be correct in this assertion, it is arrogant for you to to presume to know his religion better than himself. Especially when it appears you have no real interest in it whatsoever.

 

[boiled goose]

The "inherent parts of who you are" are behaviors. I may be hugely genetically predisposed to being heterosexual, but that doesn't make heterosexuality not a behavior.



Because it suggests a different approach to the topic. There is a meaningful difference between "I think what you do is bad, and I will tell you so, and I will try to make what you do illegal, and I will try to publicly shame you," and "I think what you do is bad, but you may not believe in the same God I do." As another example given above, my best friend happens to be Hindu, and he believes eating meat is evil. I eat meat. He manages to still be my friend and still think I am on balance a good person, even if I have some particular flaw (from his point of view).

You are incorrect at the top.
Heterosexuality is not a behavior. It is a preference.

Hetersoesxual sex or dating is a behavior.

Unless you consider brain states and physical bodily responses behavior, which would be really stretching the definition

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Christianity's primary message is that every human being is flawed, and without the sacrifice of a sinless being (JC) it's impossible to come to reconciliation with God. It repeats the point that actions and deeds alone will not allow one to get into God's good graces, and only the belief in JC will be able to cut it.

Within that context, singling out one specific form of sin (homosexuality) is meaningless, as all sin is equally bad in God's eyes. Making a statement about how you don't approve of actions of gays/lesbians is nothing but hypocrisy, since that comes with the implication that you're standing on a moral high ground for not committing such a sin. The problem is that nobody has the moral high ground, so nobody has the right to explicitly state what people should or shouldn't be doing to be "lawfully" correct in this religion.

Every Christian by themselves are still sinners. But JC did not come to judge them but to die for them so that they could live. To really follow in that example, Christians should not be making statements about what people shouldn't or shouldn't do, but rather to show that they really love these people by talking directly to them, trying to work out their differences, and showing support for them regardless of what they feel about their actions. Supporting an image like this mostly shows how much these people care for their own appearances rather than how much they actually care for their own religion.

this is both accurate and inaccurate.

the letters to the church in Corinth are a reflection of the opinion of the disciples that there have to be rules and guidelines for behavior within the context of the newfound freedoms of those who have become believers. It's not a free-for-all, do whatever you want to do experience, as your post suggests. In fact, as I recall, Paul had very real concerns about a whole list of issues and explicitly said to "expel immoral brothers' until they get themselves together and learn their lessons, after which they should be welcomed back with open arms.

So unless we're going to ask Christians to ignore the Pauline letters full stop, I'm not sure if your argument represents the end of the discussion.

How often do you hear outrage about divorce and pre-marital sex? There's your answer.

Relativism does not win an argument. At best someone will respond, "well yes, that should be more heavily emphasized too..."