Support NeoGAF

[entremet]

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.

The dietary rules were rescinded, however.

This was shown in the Book of Acts, when Peter converted the first Gentile believers.

But you're right, murder is forbidden in the Old Testament and it's also, surprise surprise, forbidden in the NT.

Same with adultery and theft.

But you're referencing the Sermon on the Mount, which actually gave deeper meaning to the commandments. Hate being equivalent to murder. Not just loving you neighbor, but loving you enemy.

In terms of homosexuality, you have those who reject the writings of Paul, who forbade it, and say that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, which is true.

 

[TheOctodad]

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.

You're are somewhat correct, I was quick typing a response that was probably a bit too simplistic. Yes, there is more nuance to it than that. I hear where you're coming from (I have an Master of Divinity degree if that helps you understand my perspective at all).

The perspective you offer is ONE way people view it. But plenty of people don't see it that way. Luther talks about Law vs. Gospel (which is a false binary IMO, but still it's there). Grace vs. Works is a pretty popular perspective.

While some Christians claim that God's mind is unchanging, there are plenty that would disagree. Again, some view it that way, not all. It's not that they are misunderstanding the Bible, there ARE other ways to read it.

 

[Jaffaboy]

It's probably worth discussing this broadly, frankly.

That statement is about as unjudgmental as one can possibly be if you espouse the beliefs that person holds.

One might make the argument that it is not possible to be unjudgmental when you are against something like homosexuality.

Maybe that's true, but I'm not sure, so let's talk about it. As another example, many/most Christians also believe that not accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior is a mortal sin. Do you feel this is arrogant and judgmental as well?

Maybe it is, but then, we're basically objecting to the entire concept of religion at this point: they believe certain things are true as an article of faith.

I guess the problem is what exactly they're being judgemental about, and who they're expressing it to. One of my best friends is Christian and believes I will go to hell as I'm an Atheist. However this doesn't affect my friendship with him as I believe hell is a load of old tosh, and I'm not exactly oppressed in any way as an Atheist in my life (I'm not from the states). I also find his views on gay marriage disturbing, and he knows this, but I don't have any reason to cut him off as a friend just because of his views, and he is the same with me. I think the only thing we literally agree on is that political, social and religious views don't come between friendship which is the biggest reason why we can always debate freely and objectively (I hope) with each other.

I wonder if it'd be a different case if I was homosexual, or an American Atheist, but without being part of an oppressed group that his views can actually affect it's really hard to tell.

 

[Gnome]

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.

I wouldn't actually do it, it would just be the direction of my thinking. You're acting horribly sensitive over nothing btw.

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.

True, but it's hard to imagine an entire discussion on the matter. I'm sure I would need to educate myself about his religion if I wanted to get into a deep discussion about it, but as you said I have no real interest, which is why I would probably never bring it up in the first place.

 

[SocksAndShoes]

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

I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm merely emphasizing how incredibly hypocritical it is for someone claiming to be Christian to completely ignore those parts of their bible and enforce others when it's convenient.

 

[Enron]

What the fuck is this shit? I've seen it floating around Facebook a bunch recently and I don't get it. How can you love and accept your friends if you completely disagree with their lifestyle? How is this not still bigotry? I don't get it.

It's pretty easy. You don't have to love and accept everything about everyone or the life they live in order to love or be friends with them.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

You're are somewhat correct, I was quick typing a response that was probably a bit too simplistic. Yes, there is more nuance to it than that. I hear where you're coming from (I have an Master of Divinity degree if that helps you understand my perspective at all).

The perspective you offer is ONE way people view it. But plenty of people don't see it that way. Luther talks about Law vs. Gospel (which is a false binary IMO, but still it's there). Grace vs. Works is a pretty popular perspective.

While some Christians claim that God's mind is unchanging, there are plenty that would disagree. Again, some view it that way, not all. It's not that they are misunderstanding the Bible, there ARE other ways to read it.

Indeed. There's a reason there are 1,000 Christian denominations. And God has certainly changed his mind in the past. Ask Noah about that.

I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm merely emphasizing how incredibly hypocritical it is for someone claiming to be Christian to completely ignore those parts of their bible and enforce others when it's convenient.

But that's an empty argument that leads nowhere. I'm pretty sure said Christians already know they're not matching the same intensity or vitriol they may have in certain issues with other issues. Some disproportionately attack homosexuality for whatever reason and I'm sure they know it. But relativism doesn't change their argument nor is it an argument against their actual argument; only an argument about how much they talk about it relative to other issues.

 

[Ash Sparrow]

The hypocrisy on both sides is disgusting. I'm seeing people who have called for tolerance acting intolerant. Its funny when you listen to people and you know that they'd be just like the people they say are oppressing them if they could be. You don't fight intolerance with intolerance or intolerance with racism.

Scary world when you cant agree to disagree, non of the people I know would have an issue with the words in that pic if I told them those, if they told me them I'd be fine. I suspect that even my close family doesn't like everything about me. I like Muslim people, guess we can't be friends I don't agree with every aspect of their beliefs or they mine.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

It's pretty easy. You don't have to love and accept everything about everyone or the life they live in order to love or be friends with them.

Still, it's pretty fucking weird to simultaneously believe in a loving God and believe that someone you like enough to be friends with is going to be tortured for all eternity by that same God.

This obviously applies to far more than just homosexuality, however.

 

[GhaleonEB]

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.

To me a key distinction is, homosexuality (or bi, or any other part of the expanding acronym) are not behaviors so much as a state of existence. So they're less objecting to people doing X, but rather people being X. This is why it's often framed as being a choice by these people, when we know it's actually not; it's easier and more compatible with the religious framework to condemn choices, rather than the person. If they accept that being gay is a natural thing, their objections are no longer logical. So they don't. I don't think we have to extend all the way to objecting to religion as a concept in order to draw this distinction.

To the extent they are condemning choices, it's actions that are tied to the (non-optional) state of existence (being gay). Just because you're gay, you don't have to act on it, etc. But there the root of the issue is with not understanding the nature of the person; once done, the objections to the natural behaviors that stem from it fall away (relationships, sex, marriage, etc.).

 

[Gnome]

It's pretty easy. You don't have to love and accept everything about everyone or the life they live in order to love or be friends with them.

Hard to be friendly to someone when you openly believe their identity is morally reprehensible and admitting you would actively vote to deny them human rights. The statement in the "meme" is cowardly trying to curtail their bigoted world view.

 

[Toxi]

As an atheist I cannot speak for Christians, but the other members of my family are Catholic. They all support same-sex marriage and are overjoyed by the SCOTUS ruling.

So any Christian who uses the bible as an excuse to support withholding the expression of love from a group of people has no fucking leg to stand on.

 

[entremet]

Indeed. There's a reason there are 1,000 Christian denominations. And God has certainly changed his mind in the past. Ask Noah about that.



But that's an empty argument that leads nowhere. I'm pretty sure said Christians already know they're not matching the same intensity or vitriol they may have in certain issues with other issues. Some disproportionately attack homosexuality for whatever reason and I'm sure they know it. But relativism doesn't change their argument nor is it an argument against their actual argument; only an argument about how much they talk about it relative to other issues.

Moses also changed God's mind the OT. He prayed to spare the Israelites, which Jehovah was going to smite due to disobedience.

 

[TheSpecialOne]

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.

Yea, lets go around generalizing because thats exactly what we should do to pour more gasoline on this fire.

 

[KidJr]

Very informative thread and thanks for the replies!!!

 

[InsaneZero]

This is the best post in the thread so far. I'm stealing this to post on my own Facebook if you don't mind.

Feel free. Talking about whether homosexuality is right or wrong is and has been always completely meaningless in the context of Christianity. The Bible has repeatedly stated that these lawful details are completely irrelevant and that it shouldn't get in the way of trying to reach out and love people.

The kind of people that would support the beliefs in the OP are the same kind of people that JC detested as explicitly stated in the Bible.

 

[berzeli]

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).

So now we're at discussing what constitutes 'behaviour'? Yes, sexuality expresses itself in a set of behaviours, no question about it. In the same vein breathing is also a technically a behaviour, but there is a difference between types of behaviours and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. I.e. there is a considerable difference between a actively choosing a specific diet and who you fall in love with.

I, frankly, am not sure that the "I have a friend who..." type of anecdotal evidence brings anything of value to this discussion so I will disregard that specific line of argument. You seem to consider the post in the OP the latter of your two examples but it is in my opinion closer to the former. (and yes I'm aware that it doesn't really fit 100% into either)

 

[TheOctodad]

Still, it's pretty fucking weird to simultaneously believe in a loving God and believe that someone you like enough to be friends with is going to be tortured for all eternity by that same God.

Yes it is. Though many of these Christians have a view that God isn't torturing them directly, but allowing the consequences to play out based on their actions. To them it's more like telling someone to not run out into traffic over and over and then one day you do it anyway and get hit by a car.

Never mind the mental gymnastics required for an omnipotent God to "allow" something to happen. Especially when everything that exists was formed by God.

Which is why you have some people who are annihilationist who believe that those who don't follow God simply cease to exist when they die. And the followers of God continue living.

And then you have others who actually believe that hell is a self created state that is within you and God welcomes you out of it whenever you are ready to move on.

etc.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

The hypocrisy on both sides is disgusting. I'm seeing people who have called for tolerance acting intolerant. Its funny when you listen to people and you know that they'd be just like the people they say are oppressing them if they could be. You don't fight intolerance with intolerance or intolerance with racism.

Again, I think that it's entirely fair for the LGBT community and her supporters to be intolerant of the intolerant at this point. There's only so many cheeks you can turn after someone has slapped them all. Then you get pissed as fuck and are ready to slap back. Acting sensitive about it when they are the ones that have been oppressed and ridiculed for centuries is patently absurd and incredibly near-sighted and self-centered.

Assuming that's what you meant. Your post was cryptic as hell.

Moses also changed God's mind the OT. He prayed to spare the Israelites, which Jehovah was going to smite due to disobedience.

Indeed. He was quite prone to temper tantrums and needed humans to calm him the hell down. Curious, isn't it.

 

[Bornstellar]

Still, it's pretty fucking weird to simultaneously believe in a loving God and believe that someone you like enough to be friends with is going to be tortured for all eternity by that same God.

This obviously applies to far more than just homosexuality, however.

Which is why the concept of hell as anything other than self-made is foreign to me.

 

[stuminus3]

An absolutely terrifying lack of critical thinking here. Straight up frightening.

Hey GAF, my wife's a Christian and I'm not. Does that blow your mind?

 

[bennywhatever]

I'm a Christian and the way I see it, sure, homosexuality is a sin. So is a ton of stuff that I as a straight guy do like covet neighbors possessions. So we're both sinners, as is everybody. We're all born in sin. Sin sin sin sin.
The message that Jesus came to bring was to ignore all that sin and just love everyone.

So that's my 2 cents. I can't cast any stones because I sin like crazy, as does everybody. I have a ton of gay friends because they're awesome people. I couldn't give a shit that they're gay.

 

[SocksAndShoes]

Yea, lets go around generalizing because thats exactly what we should do to pour more gasoline on this fire.

You call it generalizing, I call it objective fact. Why don't we have people waiting outside of divorce courts protesting? Or burning down divorce lawyers buildings? Sure you can point to outliers like Calvinist Baptists or The Westboro Baptist group, but they are seen as "extreme" by nearly all other modern day Christians.

There is no room in the bible for them to pick and choose like that. They're objectively hypocrites and nobody should pay them any attention. That's my point.

Divorce is an accepted part of everyday life to nearly all Christians now, just like gay marriage will be.

 

[Toxi]

The hypocrisy on both sides is disgusting. I'm seeing people who have called for tolerance acting intolerant. Its funny when you listen to people and you know that they'd be just like the people they say are oppressing them if they could be. You don't fight intolerance with intolerance or intolerance with racism.

Scary world when you cant agree to disagree, non of the people I know would have an issue with the words in that pic if I told them those, if they told me them I'd be fine. I suspect that even my close family doesn't like everything about me. I like Muslim people, guess we can't be friends I don't agree with every aspect of their beliefs or they mine.

Bigotry should not be tolerated. While freedom of speech certainly means the government must tolerate most bigotry, that doesn't mean we as people should tolerate it.

Condemning people who oppose same-sex marriage is not the same as condemning their religion unless their entire religious identity is based around bigotry.

 

[Gnome]

The hypocrisy on both sides is disgusting. I'm seeing people who have called for tolerance acting intolerant. Its funny when you listen to people and you know that they'd be just like the people they say are oppressing them if they could be. You don't fight intolerance with intolerance or intolerance with racism.

Scary world when you cant agree to disagree, non of the people I know would have an issue with the words in that pic if I told them those, if they told me them I'd be fine. I suspect that even my close family doesn't like everything about me. I like Muslim people, guess we can't be friends I don't agree with every aspect of their beliefs or they mine.

Actually that's exactly what you do, if you tolerate intolerance then the intolerance simply continues. Would you suggest that we be fight something like ISIS by tolerating their beliefs that directly harm others?

 

[entremet]

Again, I think that it's entirely fair for the LGBT community and her supporters to be intolerant of the intolerant at this point. There's only so many cheeks you can turn after someone has slapped them all. Then you get pissed as fuck and are ready to slap back. Acting sensitive about it when they are the ones that have been oppressed and ridiculed for centuries is patently absurd and incredibly near-sighted and self-centered.

Assuming that's what you meant. Your post was cryptic as hell.



Indeed. He was quite prone to temper tantrums and needed humans to calm him the hell down. Curious, isn't it.

Well depending on your worldview, being made in God's image is telling there!

 

[Opiate]

So now we're at discussing what constitutes 'behaviour'? Yes, sexuality expresses itself in a set of behaviours, no question about it. In the same vein breathing is also a technically a behaviour, but there is a difference between types of behaviours and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. I.e. there is a considerable difference between a actively choosing a specific diet and who you fall in love with.

I think what you're trying to get at is that some behaviors are more voluntary than others, and we (as a species and as a society) tend to give more leeway to behaviors which we see as less voluntary. I absolutely agree with that, and 1) discussed that above, and agree that much of the resistance to the overwhelming evidence that homosexuality is not a learned behavior is due to this cognitive dissonance, and 2) specifically chose the word "behavior" to avoid this problem.

I, frankly, am not sure that the "I have a friend who..." type of anecdotal evidence brings anything of value to this discussion so I will disregard that specific line of argument.

It's used as an illustration. If you'd like, blow it up: most Hindus believe that eating meat is evil, not just my friend. The same size is there is in the hundreds of millions, rather than 1.

You seem to consider the post in the OP the latter of your two examples but it is in my opinion closer to the former. (and yes I'm aware that it doesn't really fit 100% into either)

Yes, that's entirely possible. I think Haly is right (he posted earlier in this thread) that this very well could be a disingenuous post, as a sort of pot-shot at homosexuals to make it clear that they think you're bad and evil without looking like a bigot at the same time.

I think that's quite possible, but I also think it's a bad idea to assume the worst possible motives from everyone you disagree with.

 

[TheOctodad]

Indeed. He was quite prone to temper tantrums and needed humans to calm him the hell down. Curious, isn't it.

Yes, it's almost as if it was an ancient culture who was still very immersed in a tribalistic mindset and read their worldview into their understanding of the divine.

 

[GameGuru59]

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 think what irritates Christians the most is gay sex. They don't really have a problem with women living together (nuns) or men living together (monks). They have a problem with the sex. Unless your gay relationship is defined entirely on sex, its possible for them to hate the sex (the act) and love you as a person. Further, even if what you say is true, I think you are underestimating Christians' ability to compartmentalize aspects of a person's life. They can hate gay acts but love the person as a whole.

 

[Mecha]

Moses also changed God's mind the OT. He prayed to spare the Israelites, which Jehovah was going to smite due to disobedience.

Then one has to wonder how something that is all knowing can change its mind.

 

[Bornstellar]

I'm a Christian and the way I see it, sure, homosexuality is a sin. So is a ton of stuff that I as a straight guy do like covet neighbors possessions. So we're both sinners, as is everybody. We're all born in sin. Sin sin sin sin.
The message that Jesus came to bring was to ignore all that sin and just love everyone.

So that's my 2 cents. I can't cast any stones because I sin like crazy, as does everybody.

I'd suggest that's only half right...

 

[TheSpecialOne]

As an atheist I cannot speak for Christians, but the other members of my family are Catholic. They all support same-sex marriage and are overjoyed by the SCOTUS ruling.

So any Christian who uses the bible as an excuse to support withholding the expression of love from a group of people has no fucking leg to stand on.

First bold point is the classic i have a black friend so....

Second, there is a separation of religion and state. People have free will to do as the please and the government restrictions was an encroachment on people's right to express themselves in the way they want. Now, you don't have to be like what people do but you must respect their right to do so. I for example do not like it when people smoke in public places but that doesn't mean I hate all smokers. Learn to separate the person from the action because people aren't solely defined by a single action. I for one don't care what goes on in your bedroom and that does not dictate whether we can be friends or not.

 

[Red Mage]

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

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

That guy sounds like a real monster. You are, however, trying to paint with a broad brush. I don't see the vast, vast majority of people who forward this as signing up to his 'logic.'

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

A lot...? o_o;

I'm guessing you're running into, for lack of a better term, quasi-Progressive Christians.

 

[Maninthemirror]

To me a key distinction is, homosexuality (or bi, or any other part of the expanding acronym) are not behaviors so much as a state of existence. So they're less objecting to people doing X, but rather people being X. This is why it's often framed as being a choice by these people, when we know it's actually not; it's easier and more compatible with the religious framework to condemn choices, rather than the person. If they accept that being gay is a natural thing, their objections are no longer logical. So they don't. I don't think we have to extend all the way to objecting to religion as a concept in order to draw this distinction.

To the extent they are condemning choices, it's actions that are tied to the (non-optional) state of existence (being gay). Just because you're gay, you don't have to act on it, etc. But there the root of the issue is with not understanding the nature of the person; once done, the objections to the natural behaviors that stem from it fall away (relationships, sex, marriage, etc.).

State of existence = being human not a trait.
Even if homosexuality is a single gene , the chemicals in the brain which control behavior trigger the attraction

Heterosexuality is thus a behavior as is homosexuality. Even if it is a single gene you don't ignore the function of the brain, the secretion of hormones trigger the behavior which results in the attraction or lack thereof.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

This should answer your question.

Oxford philosopher Michael Ramsden - Is Tolerance Intolerance?

This should really be all that needs to be said.

I disagree with alot of my friends on certain issues. Doesn't mean we don't respect each other.

 

[TheSpecialOne]

You call it generalizing, I call it objective fact. Why don't we have people waiting outside of divorce courts protesting? Or burning down divorce lawyers buildings? Sure you can point to outliers like Calvinist Baptists or The Westboro Baptist group, but they are seen as "extreme" by nearly all other modern day Christians.

There is no room in the bible for them to pick and choose like that. They're objectively hypocrites and nobody should pay them any attention. That's my point.

Divorce is an accepted part of everyday life to nearly all Christians now, just like gay marriage will be.

Like I said, speak for yourself and what you know. There several places in this world where this is not the case. Also divorce is not the main issue, it's remarrying after that is and that is not accepted everywhere.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

I still love you

Just not as a person.

You, as a person, are wrong in terms of how you exist.

But i wont judge you.

Because youre awesome.

Just not as a person.

 

[SocksAndShoes]

A lot...? o_o;

I'm guessing you're running into, for lack of a better term, quasi-Progressive Christians.

Meaningless personal anecdote: My grandfather is a Baptist pastor. My mother (his daughter) has been divorced twice and he never said a word in protest.

He flipped out over the SCOTUS ruling. I've never seen him so angry.

 

[dabig2]

Moses also changed God's mind the OT. He prayed to spare the Israelites, which Jehovah was going to smite due to disobedience.

My favorite one is actually the one that is closely tied to this debate - Abraham negotiating damn hard to spare Sodom and gomorrah

 

[ThankYouDaletech]

I wouldn't actually do it, it would just be the direction of my thinking. You're acting horribly sensitive over nothing btw.

Seems like a real plausible GAF Vulcan Logic thing to do so maybe I overreacted a little bit

 

[Kinsei]

This should really be all that needs to be said.

I disagree with alot of my friends on certain issues. Doesn't mean we don't respect each other.

And if one of those friends said you were worth less than them because fo you skin color would you still be friends with them?

 

[leadbelly]

To me a key distinction is, homosexuality (or bi, or any other part of the expanding acronym) are not behaviors so much as a state of existence. So they're less objecting to people doing X, but rather people being X. This is why it's often framed as being a choice by these people, when we know it's actually not; it's easier and more compatible with the religious framework to condemn choices, rather than the person. If they accept that being gay is a natural thing, their objections are no longer logical. So they don't. I don't think we have to extend all the way to objecting to religion as a concept in order to draw this distinction.

To the extent they are condemning choices, it's actions that are tied to the (non-optional) state of existence (being gay). Just because you're gay, you don't have to act on it, etc. But there the root of the issue is with not understanding the nature of the person; once done, the objections to the natural behaviors that stem from it fall away (relationships, sex, marriage, etc.).

This is an interesting point. I know that within Orthodox Judaism for example it is the act that is considered a sin. Whether the person is homosexual or not is irrelevant.

An important point to make from the outset is that Jewish law does not teach that it is forbidden to be a homosexual. On the contrary, Jewish law is concerned not with the source of a person’s erotic urges nor with inner feelings, but with acts. The Torah forbids the homosexual act, known as mishkav zakhar, but has nothing to say about homosexuality as a state of being or a personal inclination.

 

[Christine]

Because posting that blithe little bit of hatred for someone's identity (and it is hatred, make no mistake) says a tremendous amount about the person posting it. These people can't even keep their mouth shut about it. It's saying that they have to let you, their supposed friends know that they are going to hate and judge (and they are judging, no matter what their meme macro says)

Not hate, love. They really want what's best for you, and they know that better than you do yourself. Reminding you that something you're doing is wrong or unhealthy is the most loving thing they can do.

I would say that this person is likely, if asked about their definition of "love", to make it clear that it does not include your romantic, sexual and helpmeet relationship to your partner.

I think that's the core of what people are reacting to here by describing this message as judgmental, arrogant or hateful. We've had too many bitter arguments about love for "I still love you" to go over well.

Still, I wouldn't reject love so declared, as misguided and destructive as I believe it to be. But I have no shortage of people who love me well. It's not shunning you or trying to punish you for your opinion if I don't want to spend time with you. I'd just rather share community and love with people who aren't doing that. There are lots of them.

 

[Principate]

I think what irritates Christians the most is gay sex. They don't really have a problem with women living together (nuns) or men living together (monks). They have a problem with the sex. Unless your gay relationship is defined entirely on sex, its possible for them to hate the sex (the act) and love you as a person. Further, even if what you say is true, I think you are underestimating Christians' ability to compartmentalize aspects of a person's life. They can hate gay acts but love the person as a whole.

Isn't that exactly what they're commanded to do. Even Jesus stated the most important commandment is to love your god with all your heart mind and soul and to love your neighbour as yourself.

As in your breaking a much more important commandment by discriminating. The whole point of the good Samaritan parable is that your neighbour is literally anyone.

 

[HUELEN10]

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

Hetersoesxual sex or dating is a behavior.

Nailed it. Sexual orientation is not the same as sexual action, nor does sexual action define your orientation, though of course sexual orientation has an influence over what actions you choose to take (because while your orientation is not a choice, you can choose how you act).

Sadly, some people twist this notion around 5 times and are responsible for those conversion ministries.

 

[Enron]

Hard to be friendly to someone when you openly believe their identity is morally reprehensible and admitting you would actively vote to deny them human rights. The statement in the "meme" is cowardly trying to curtail their bigoted world view.

You are certainly making a lot of assumptions there. I know its fun to put Christians all in a box where if you disagree with homosexuality or gay marriage in any way, shape, or form you are therefore a hateful virulent bigot but that is not necessarily always the case. The image in the op mentions not supporting marriage so im assuming they mean that it should not be legal - but the OP mentions that simply disagreeing with their lifestyle is enough to get you in that box as he questions how you can even be friends or love them and that is what I was speaking to - because that is exactly how I feel about it. I don't agree with the lifestyle, but I also don't think it's a dealbreaker in terms of being able to care about or be friends with someone. And I don't care if they want to get married or not. That's a civil deal, not a religious one so why not? It's not like they are forcing churches to marry them or forcing a gay marriage on anyone that doesn't want one. So who is it hurting? I have mentioned this many times in other threads, but if you are a Christian and you believe that homosexuality is a sin - well, in the eyes of God sin is sin. It's not like one sin is any worse than the other to God. We don't care about 90% of sin committed by others so why the big deal about this? I can be friends with sinners obviously (since we all are). Not agreeing with the lifestyle does not always = HATE.

 

[Omegasquash]

To the OP, I'd say to hell with those people. Still passing a judgment, and that means something whether they admit it or not.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

And if one of those friends said you were worth less than them because fo you skin color would you still be friends with them?

Disagreeing with someone is saying they're less than them, understood.

 

[Gnome]

Seems like a real plausible GAF Vulcan Logic thing to do so maybe I overreacted a little bit

It's fine, I know what you're talking about and I try not to fall into that trap. It's hard not to though because typing on the internet channels thinking far better than it channels personality.

 

[VoxPop]

christians are worse than homosexuals