It would also be great to hear such a person's answer to this question:
"And what did Jesus say about gay people?"

The Abrahamic god is a shitty asshole anyways: the first directive it passed on to its followers was to hold no other gods before him/it. The "Don't murder other people" commandment was number fucking six. Abraham's god cared most about the worshipping habits of its followers. Insecure sky wizard with control issues.

Makes sense really. When the general national feeling was that it was ok to discriminate against gays and that gay marriage was a step too far, these types of specific hate laws where not needed.

Now that Americans are overwhelmingly supportive of gay rights, and states are clearly heading toward equality for gays, the small, rabid minority needs to be come even more hateful, even more insular as a defense response.

Kind of like gun nuts. Sure there are more guns in America nthan ever before, but also less gun owners. They just has lots and lots of guns because public opinion has turned away from them.

The Jesus element needs to be focused on more in this debate. You can't win a debate with a person of faith in any way but to use their faith against their bigoted views.

Jesus' words contain nothing that would even remotely be argued to be anti-gay. In fact, they promote the opposite; loving everyone, no matter what. Jesus healed lepers and loved a whore. Also, many of Jesus' ideas were specifically in contrast to the Old Testament on purpose. He wanted to tear down that old way of thinking and start something new. Leviticus inevitably comes up in this discussion, but the passage right next to the bit about not sleeping with someone of the same sex forbids shaving. These people need to be forced to see their hypocrisy. It is abhorrent to me that Christians put so much truck in the Old Testament when their savior was really against it. They should be too.

How is this legal? Don't we have separation of church and state in our constitution, because the authors didn't want any possibility of religious persecution (for example - the Spanish Inquisition, the Tudors killing of Catholics) - happening here?

It's kind of like the couple of centuries during which the Most Important Bible Verse Ever, the only one pretty much everyone could pull out, was "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." And then quite a while when everyone in the American South could tell you all about the curse of Ham and why black people were divinely ordained to serve white ones. The Bible really is a remarkably flexible document.

@4

There are many things Jesus didn't specifically address. But with regard to homosexual desires there wasn't confusion about the illness of same sex desire in his time, so why would he clarify it?

Christ wanted to destroy the Old Testament? When he said that he hadn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill it?

And your comment about the leper and prostitute misses the point. He healed the leper. And he defended an adulteress from stoning but told her privately to go and sin no more. Note that last bit, because it's the crux (literally) of the matter.

The Christian church very much needs to be clear on the matter of homosexuality. The message needs to be one of love, though here that love consists of telling the sick what the cure entails. It needs to be consistent and just. (Though some virulent hate filled bigots like Savage hate the church and any form of goodness with a consuming passion, and no attempt can successfully be made to appeal to such people.) But there's a broad gulf between clearly stating church doctrine and apostasy.

It doesn't surprise me that this happened. I used to live in Springfield and it's right in the middle of the bible belt. I used to get very tired of listening to those who claim to be Christian but they were some of the most hateful and intolerant people I have ever met. Just one more good reason for me to have moved to another state.

@7:

LOOK, THERE! EVIL PURE AND SIMPLE!

Homophobic religious people are losing the culture war so it is only natural that they're stepping up their game. The important thing is to continue to make it economically inconvenient to be racist, homophobic, sexist, whatever. As we saw in Indiana, politicians will quickly tuck their tail in between their legs when big business says it will pull out.

@7 Describing those who disagree with you as hate-filled bigots who cannot be reasoned with is a convenient way to never have to back up what you say. Classic trolling.

@11 also classic projection. Also he's a liar.

and these predominately old, white, christian bigots always ignore that according to scripture, sin is sin is sin. every day and twice on sunday. they don't care about thieves, or drunks, or adulterers, or unmarried fornicators, or blasphemers. they only judge one: just gays. they are so afraid that their kids will be growing up in a world where they can't enforce abstinence because the old fear-inspiring consequences of sex are no longer significant.

@5: This isn't a separation of church and state issue. What's at stake here is anti-discrimination in public accommodations, housing, and employment--that is, relations between citizens, not citizens and the state. Anti-discrimination has become an important part of the way American law protects its citizens, and rightly so, since the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Inclusion of sexual orientation in anti-discrimination law is the right thing to do, but not because it's constitutionally mandated.

@11
I agree. A close friend is an agnostic and politically liberal. And we have long interestibg conversations about our differing worldviews. But he and I aren't vicious lying bullies bigoted about a faith or worldview we don't share, unlike Savage. He and I would rather change happen by social processes than lawsuits and hate filled rhetoric, unlike Savage. He and I and most other Americans don't and wouldn't wish others were "fucking dead " because we disagree with their politics, unlike Savage.

Trolling, vitriol, hate-these are the foundation of everything Savage writes. I'm surprised you agree actually.

Amen, @9, amen.

Well that's sad

@7: Fulfill the law. Yeah. The new law. Not the old one. Jesus' version of God was an entirely different one; a loving God, a forgiving God.

To me, love does not have much to do with imposing your idea of right and wrong on someone else. It has to do with love. And no matter how many times I read the "words of Jesus" (which is a fucking joke anyway...there is no way that those are his actual words in the first place), I still can't and won't interpret them the way you do.

@7 There wasn't confusion about same-sex desire in Jesus' time? What are you smoking? Jesus was alive at a time when same sex relationships of various sorts were (often prominently) going on throughout Rome, Greece, and much of the area in which Jesus lived. Yet Jesus saw no reason to make his own stance clear on the subject? Had Jesus seen the issue as being of particular importance to anyone, it sure seems he would have specifically addressed it. Particularly when he's making such a big deal about questioning old ways and laws. But-- even though it was going on all around him, that one-- that many modern conservative Christians seem to have pretty much made the cornerstone of their modern obsessive focus-- just didn't happen to come up? Yeah, right.

Has anyone began a list of people who refuse to serve gay folks yet? So that us non-bigots can boycott them?

@13

I've attended Christian churches regularly for 2 decades as an adult, and for all of my childhood. Know how many times I've heard a sermon about homosexuality, or any sexual behavior? Not once. In groups at a church dedicated to adults seeking guidance as to what it means to be a sexually healthy adult Christian? Once. Simply put, there's one reason Christianity has addressed homosexuality as an issue- because those seeking special rights status for those who chose a homosexual lifestyle demands it. People like Savage and other bigots lie about the church, and it responds.

Does Christianity get it wrong sometimes? Absolutely. Religion is a human invention in an attempt to understand God. It isn't itself God. And as such it's inevitably going to be wrong on occasion. But on this one, the maladaptive nature of homosexuality, Christianity in my opinion isn't wrong.

Poor messaging isn't always indicative of falsehood. But if your messaging, like that of Savage and others who lie about Christianity, relies on falsehoods it's a pretty good sign that the underlying premises are also false.

The Stranger should seriously consider "hiring" or "interning" Seattleblues for a weekly column. I am serious. Not only would it be hilarious but it would be a "turning of the cheek". I bet everything SB writes would go "viral".

In other words, we "get it" SB.

@15:

LOOK, THERE! EVIL PURE AND SIMPLE!

@21:

LOOK, THERE! EVIL PURE AND SIMPLE!

The more progress that is made, the more backlash there will be. Local codes and laws and opprobrium against discriminatory ones does little to remedy the fact that Americans with minority gender identities and orientations can be legally fired, evicted and targeted in hate crimes in most states states and at the Federal level. If you want to do something, demand ‪‪#‎CivilRightsForAllAmericans‬ and share and sign these petitions:

petitions.moveon.org/sign/civil-rights-f…

incorrigiblycorey.blogspot.com/2015/03/c…

@19

Christ was speaking primarily to Jewish people. Not Romans or Greeks. And speaking to the cultural place they were in.

And the supposed obsession Christianity has with the homosexual lifestyle choice? That would be a figment of your inagination. If your only exposure to Christianity is what Christian Nightmares and Joemygod have to say about it then that's what you're going to see though.

@7 You're either a liar or a fucking ignorant moron. If God was real He would be embarrassed to have you on His team.

If you want to know everything about Seattleblues' own thought processes and hilarious lack of self-awareness, just read the last paragraph of very on of his posts.

I swear, every single time he just describes himself and his own thought processes and why they are garbage. It is such a regularity, it HAS to be intentional:

"Poor messaging isn't always indicative of falsehood. But if your messaging, like that of myself and others who lie about homosexuality, relies on falsehoods it's a pretty good sign that the underlying premises are also false"

Comedy gold!

@26) "Christ was speaking primarily to Jewish people. Not Romans or Greeks. And speaking to the cultural place they were in."

And therefore is completely irrelevant to all non-Jews and those not living in 30 AD.

YOU ARE DUMB.

@29
Yup. 'Spect I am dum. Wal, I'm gonna go get some chaw and a Bud with ma redneck buddies. Ya'all have a right fine afternoon now.

I take it from your comment that all clsssical literature and any writings from other cultures has no message for you. It was after all written to other people in other times and places and is therefore bunk?

Okay. You have my sympathy.

But really, I have other things to do. Have a pleasant afternoon.

BTW...I'm not even close to Christian. I'm fascinated with humanity's need for belief and religion, but I don't partake myself. I just generally like Jesus' ideas (and Buddha's and a bunch of other people's too) and don't enjoy it when people get it so wrong...

@26, 31:

LOOK, THERE! EVIL PURE AND SIMPLE!

@2: The Decalogue also puts "thou shalt not steal" ahead of "thou shalt not bear false witness", but not a single credible scholar would say that Judaism (in terms of tradition or Scripture) ranks theft as more serious than false witness. Certain theft, such as stealing food in order to survive, is spoken of with sympathy ("Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry", Proverbs 6:30), but defamation is universally prohibited. Order isn't everything.

@7: The modern concept of sexual orientation was entirely unknown in those times. Notice how the only verses in Scripture construed to condemn homosexuality reference men sticking their dicks where they shouldn't? Nothing at all about women!
Now, that makes sense if those verses pertain to prohibitions on situational heteroflexibility (such as in prison or on ships) and temple prostitutes (another big rejection of pagan customs), but how do you explain that telling absence, under the assumption that your anti-gay interpretation is a correct one?
And in regard to Jesus fulfilling the Law, why is it that Christians don't keep kosher again? Or refrain from making metal representations of the Divine? Could it be maybe that modern Christianity kind of threw that out the window?

@26: "Christ was speaking primarily to Jewish people. Not Romans or Greeks. And speaking to the cultural place they were in."
Yeah! It was Paul of Tarsus who was Apostle to the Gentiles, right? Say, wasn't he the guy with all the hangups about lust?

Forget it, venomlash; it's Chinatown.

@21 and other bigots have yet to actually explain how marrying the person you love is a "special right". I suppose getting served pizza, and not getting killed just for walking down the street are also "special rights".

Thank you, Venomlash, for saying what I wanted to say, and for saying it so well.

Once again that pesky "boy" Venomlash runs circles around Subhumanblues. *yawn* Give it up Subhumanblues.

Who cares what the Bible, Koran, Talmud, or any other religious text says? We have separation of church and state, equal protection under the laws, and freedom to practice religion in our homes, churches, and personal lives. No religious text is Constitutional law. But if any citizen or resident ventures outside of the church, say into the business world, then you have to abide by the same rules everybody else has to. As far as marriage goes, I challenge anybody to posit how gays marrying threatens their marriage.

Christ wanted to destroy the Old Testament? When he said that he hadn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill it?

Given that, aside from Rastafarianism, almost no ostensibly Christian sect even attempts to adopt the over 600 points of Mosaic law, it seems abundantly clear that some portion of OT directives were deemed unnecessary. Unless you really and truly believe that Christians should be avoiding pork and shellfish, growing out their beards, stoning their disobedient children, etc.

And your comment about the leper and prostitute misses the point. He healed the leper. And he defended an adulteress from stoning but told her privately to go and sin no more. Note that last bit, because it's the crux (literally) of the matter.

This may or not speak to your view, but the Calvinist point of view, for instance, suggests that the reason we can never reach God through works, and can only be saved by faith in the grace of God and the atonement of Christ crucified, is that sin is so woven into our being that we can never truly escape its grip. Sin is, in a sense, a stain on our being, not something we do; what we do is only a reflection of what we are.

The Christian church very much needs to be clear on the matter of homosexuality. The message needs to be one of love, though here that love consists of telling the sick what the cure entails. It needs to be consistent and just.

Without a decent apologetic argument (link for clarity, in case, like too many religious Americans, you aren't familiar with the term "apologetics" the way I'm using it), a message defining homosexuality as an illness without any recourse to the empirical sciences by which we define every single other illness shall be useful for the choir alone.

A close friend is an agnostic and politically liberal. And we have long interestibg conversations about our differing worldviews. But he and I aren't vicious lying bullies bigoted about a faith or worldview we don't share, unlike Savage. He and I would rather change happen by social processes than lawsuits and hate filled rhetoric, unlike Savage. He and I and most other Americans don't and wouldn't wish others were "fucking dead " because we disagree with their politics, unlike Savage ... Trolling, vitriol, hate-these are the foundation of everything Savage writes. I'm surprised you agree actually.

I'm not sure I believe you have friends of any kind, particularly one of liberal persuasion or in doubt regarding your particular mythological belief construct. If you do, though, I can only assume it's because you comport yourself out there in the meat world with considerably more humility and compassion than you do here.

Since her, however, you conduct yourself with utmost contempt, cruelty, and condescension, I can only assume that you somehow think it isn't "trolling" if you're doing it under an alias. Which ultimately makes no sense, given that you have no more proof that Dan behaves so contemptuously in real life as in his writing than I have that you do the same.

Simply put, there's one reason Christianity has addressed homosexuality as an issue- because those seeking special rights status for those who chose a homosexual lifestyle demands it.

What special rights are being sought by gays and lesbians? Please be specific. And what are the rewards of foregoing an emotionally satisfying existence by living as either a celibate gay/lesbian or a gay/lesbian in a perhaps friendly but erotically inert heterosexual partnership, given the abysmal track record of conversion therapies? Again, specificity makes conversation.

Does Christianity get it wrong sometimes? Absolutely. Religion is a human invention in an attempt to understand God. It isn't itself God.

One might go further down that line of regression to suggest that "[G/g]od(s)" are, indeed, a human invention by which we label our hunches about the unseen. Indeed, the degree to which deity appears to be an anthropomorphic construction suggests that he/she/it/they are also an anthropogenic one.

And as such it's inevitably going to be wrong on occasion. But on this one, the maladaptive nature of homosexuality, Christianity in my opinion isn't wrong.

Your opinion is noted; you are free to hold it, to associate primarily with others who hold it, and even to indoctrinate your poor, long-suffering children with it. By what virtue, though, should it have any relevance for the rest of us, given that we live in a pluralistic society with guaranteed freedom of religion (and hence of irreligion), and in light of a dearth of empirical evidence arguing for its maladaptive nature or harm?

Christ was speaking primarily to Jewish people. Not Romans or Greeks. And speaking to the cultural place they were in.

Again, given all of the other cultural assumptions of the Jewish people, should we then infer that Christians were and are also to avoid shellfish, pork, or shaving? Should they be stoning neighbors for working on the sabbath?

I take it from your comment that all clsssical literature and any writings from other cultures has no message for you. It was after all written to other people in other times and places and is therefore bunk?

I, for one, have learned much from the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, the Lotus Sutra; the writings of Augustine and Aquinas, Nichiren Daishonin, Baruch Spinoza, Giordano Bruno, William Blake, the Marquis de Sade, Aristophanes, Plato; and ruminations of Enlightenment philosophers and politicians like Descartes, Hume, and our country's founders. What I, for one, don't imagine is that I can rely on what they say to have taken the observations, advancements, ideas, and discoveries of the centuries that have passed since their deaths into account; nor do I imagine that a good argument from a flawed premise necessarily justifies or vindicates the premise. This is where sifting through not only the materials, but through apologetic arguments, dialectical discussions and debates, and the available empirical "facts" at hand comes in. We may still arrive in agreement with some of the points laid out by our forebears, but it's silly to do so reflexively.

thelyamhound, as I've said before, you have the patience of a saint - or at least a really patient person!

@41: Five star post, amigo.

@41: You are always such a pleasure to read.