You are a Racist, a Bigot and a Sexist.

[dan-cat]

But what do I read up on, I don't agree with Leviticus , it was men's post I did not understand, that is what I wanted an explanation of, not the Bible.

Brian

Ken is referring to the New Covenant.

 

[KenHigg]

This looks ok to me:

Link

 

[Brianwarnock]

Thank you,
I did know that the Old Testament was superseded by the New, sort of pre and post Jesus, I just had not heard it spoken of in the way Ken did in his post. I am actually surprised that law and grace did not start with a capital letter.

Brian

 

[KenHigg]

I am actually surprised that law and grace did not start with a capital letter.

Brian

I told you I did not proclaim to be a model Christian...

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Sorry - I still dont get it? I admit its all my ignorance of the matter - does the homosexuality thing and the link have a connection?

 

[KenHigg]

The homosexual thing spoken of in this thread is considered to be one of many rules the Jewish people (BC), where to live by called the Law(s). These were given to them as part of a promise from God referred to as the original or old Covenant. To live by these rules it is said to be living under the Law. When Jesus came, as prophesized, he established a New Covenant not only for the Jews but Gentiles as well. To live under this New Covenant as a Christian it is sometimes referred to as living under Grace (as opposed to living under the Law).

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

The homosexual thing spoken of in this thread is considered to be one of many rules the Jewish people (BC), where to live by called the Law(s). These were given to them as part of a promise from God referred to as the original or old Covenant. To live by these rules it is said to be living under the Law. When Jesus came, as prophesized, he established a New Covenant not only for the Jews but Gentiles as well. To live under this New Covenant as a Christian it is sometimes referred to as living under Grace (as opposed to living under the Law).

Cheers I guess it all comes down to many differing interpretations? Would seem to use teh bible as a tool too generally to criticise beliefs would be a futile pastime, and that that that works both ways.

 

[KenHigg]

Cheers I guess it all comes down to many differing interpretations?

I think you hit the nail on the head

 

[SyntaxSocialist]

I think the point that is not being emphasized here is that the gay rights movement is one that is futile to resist. Affording the LGBTQ community the same civil liberties as everyone else is not going to affect anyone in as adverse a way as not having those liberties (read: equalities) affects that community. As I said, this is simply the black civil rights movement and the women's civil rights movement of yesterday, manifested in the long-accepted oppression and repression of sexual minorities. The younger generations are being heard, and the older generations are (sometimes) listening, and coming to see how unfair the denial of these equalities is.

10 years ago, same sex marriage was not allowed anywhere in North America. Today it is already legal in several states and all of Canada. Open your eyes: this war has been won. The conservatives simply refuse to wave the white flag (or better yet, see the folly of their bigotry) and stop lobbing shells at their fellow citizens, fellow humans (and for the patriots among you, fellow Americans).

All this Bible talk is a red herring. I only raised it to illustrate that. Perhaps I should have been clearer (read: less facetious).

 

[KenHigg]

A person really doesn't have to take it to a religous level in my mind. For a man to want to kiss another man and play with his willy is wrong however you slice it and I will teach that to my grandson no matter what 'law' you pass.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

A person really doesn't have to take it to a religous level in my mind. For a man to want to kiss another man and play with his willy is wrong however you slice it and I will teach that to my grandson no matter what 'law' you pass.

You slice it like salami surely?

 

[KenHigg]

Don't ask me

SS has a lot of nerve comparing the gay thing to Civil Rights...

 

[SyntaxSocialist]

Don't ask me

SS has a lot of nerve comparing the gay thing to Civil Rights...

If you want to call it nerve, then fine. I'm just calling a spade a shovel.

 

[KenHigg]

Lost me on that SS...?

 

[SyntaxSocialist]

I'm saying that you've got a lot of nerve to say that it isn't like the civil rights movements of the past. It is a movement for civil rights. Thus, it is a civil rights movement, and entirely analogous to its analogues. Quite trivially true, really. Your moral opposition to it does not change that the gay rights movement is, by its very definition, a civil rights movement. QED.

 

[KenHigg]

I could say I want bestiality legalized and call it civil rights, your argument is shallow.

 

[SyntaxSocialist]

Bestiality has to do with animal rights, which is a whole other kettle of fish. Get a better (read: less shallow) counter-argument.

Edit/Addition: Marriage is a civil right. Sex is not. Thus, the LGBTQ movement for the right to marry is a civil rights movement, where a movement for the right to have sex with animals would not be. It's not illegal for two men or two women to have sex. This isn't about sex; it's about marriage.

 

[KenHigg]

Ok. Now that we've established you do have a little common sense , if my simple analogy was over your head I see no reason to continue...

 

[SyntaxSocialist]

Belittling: perhaps the highest and most advanced form of discussion. I appreciate your misdirection, but if you do actually intend to respond to what I've had to say, then you need simply do so.

 

[KenHigg]

Bestiality has to do with animal rights, which is a whole other kettle of fish. Get a better (read: less shallow) counter-argument.

Edit/Addition: Marriage is a civil right. Sex is not. Thus, the LGBTQ movement for the right to marry is a civil rights movement, where a movement for the right to have sex with animals would not be. It's not illegal for two men or two women to have sex. This isn't about sex; it's about marriage.

Twist it up, call it civil rights, lgbto, or whatever you want, two men who want to kiss on each other and put their hands in each others pants is wrong.