@ abgemacht

You pretty much called him an intolerant zealot (although not directly). I think that he's at least being honest with us about his opinions. I do think that he sees homosexuality as a sin, but that it's a sin among many others (some of which are heterosexual in nature). The point to the thread was that people should have a right to disagree with one another without imposing the death penalty.

Basically, whether I approve or disapprove of homosexuality, imposing the death penalty for it is a travesty.


@ COTW

I disagree with you 100% on the idea that trying to interpret/enforce God's will is the root of most of our problems. Historically the worst human rights violations and mass murders have happened in officially atheistic countries where interpreting God's will was not an issue.

Over the past few centuries Christian organizations have engaged in these types of atrocities less rather than more. That's my concern. Uganda is a secular nation with an overwhelming Christian majority. I do not agree that they are heading in the right direction, and I'm trying to engage people in a discussion of the problem. In so doing, I'm trying to discern God's will and get people to enforce it. How is that an evil thing, when the intent is to oppose a barbaric set of laws and save peoples' lives?

CrazyA, while you state its a travesty for the death penalty, TMW states 'its a waste of energy', so I think his motives are important to investigate. I'm not sure giving him the benefit of the doubt is appropriate.

What's the difference? Who cares if he even hates gays as much as Fred Phelps does, as long as there's no violence he has the right to believe anything he wants, no matter how stupid it might be.

And so does everyone else.

The difference? Perhaps his motivation is he doesn't want the death penalty because he wants gays to be executed in violation of the law, he wants a lynch mob mentality, as that would cause even more fear and suffering for gays, because a lynch mob could be much more successful in ridding the country of gays than the government could - plus the government could then say 'see, we don't have any laws against gay people'.

(Please, understand that I am not suggesting that TMW is motivated by this, but trying to prove that motives DO matter)

Perhaps, and TMW and I do disagree on this point. TMW's opinion of homosexuality wasn't really the point of the thread though. I'm against the abuse of power. The Uganda laws are just that. Whatever excuse is used to put the proposal forward, people should not be set aside for punishment because of the particular group to which they belong.

**actually that was to DJ's first post**

That doesn't make sense. It's almost as if you're searching for any possible way to still condemn people who have reasoned, nuanced objections to homosexuality.

Come on now. Is not wanting a law making homosexuality a capital offense because you just want lynch mobs to do it really a plausible idea? You're being ridiculous.

No Invictus, that is not my intent at all. If he wants to object to homosexuality, I have no problems with that. His attempt at nuance fails by saying 'my motives don't matter'. Of course motives matter. Motives always matter. Motives, for instance, are the difference between an accident and a homicide. Motives are why the guy driving the getaway car gets charged with murder even if he didn't pull the trigger.

Motives are the difference between saying 'killing gays is wrong' and 'killing gays is a waste of time' and 'why do i care if they kill gays, they are sinners going to hell anyway.'

The out come of "killing gays is wrong" and "killing gays is a waste of time" is the same. Gays aren't killed. That's what matters. The third point is kinda ridiculous, but it does at least show a sort of cosmic egalitarianism, plus the declarant isn't saying he'd kill gays himself. there's a difference there.

Israel and Egypt are at peace because the US pays Egypt a boatload of money in aid. Egpyt's motive for peace is to keep the cash cow coming. Since interstate war is prevented, does it matter that Egypt hasn't really had a change of heart regarding Israel, but rather just sees it as impractical to wage war? On a much smaller scale that's what's happening here. As long as you don't actually hurt people it doesn't matter what's in your head.

Funny Invictus, I think that's what Nazi Death Camp Guards said. "I wasn't killing anyone." (Yes, Godwin would be proud).

But he was. His hatred wasn't just in the privacy of his own mind but was put into action. That's where the difference lies.

@TMW:

No, our ideas do not agree. I believe that killing gays is wrong and harmful to society. You believe that killing gays is a "waste of energy." There is clearly a difference.

@Crazy

Of course I did and I'm not denying it (well, kind of, but not in a serious way). He's being honest about his opinions and I'm being honest about mine. Additionally, neither of us want to kill the other, so I'm not sure how any of your statements are relevant.

@Invictus

Is there a reasoned objection to homosexuality besides "the bible said it's wrong"? The bible says a lot of stupid things that people conveniently ignore, why can't this be one of them?

@ Stratagos

(Sorry I was reading back and this one caught my attention)

"... but they're not going to start rounding up gays and feeding them into the ovens on day one."


To take your analogy a little further, they didn't start rounding Jews up and feeding them into the oven on day one either. They followed a process that started with passing anti-Semitic laws. One should not wait too long to become interested in the suffering of others. I consider this a wrong being commited within my community (the Body of Christ), and feel like I should be speaking up.

No Invictus, in the Death Camp guard's head, he was telling himself, I'm a good person, I am not killing anyone, I'm just following orders, its sucks that Jews and gays die, but i'm just one man.

You just don't get it. If he were a Nazi farmer out in the mountains not hurting anyone then he is doing nothing wrong, but by actively contributing to a death camp he's killing people and that's wrong. You don't seem to want to understand me. It's basically about free speech. If Nazis and racists and anti-gays and all the rest can't think whatever they want to so long as they don't hurt others then freedom of speech and conscience doesn't exist.

The Nazi farmer isn't going on a message board and saying 'killing Jews is a waste of time because they are all sinners in Gods eyes and going to hell anyway.' To me, that statement supports the regime doing the killing; protected under free speech? Sure, I'll grant you that, but that was never my point in the first place.

@ abgemacht

Right, so Jman was correct in the assessment that you're both being intolerant and zealots in the sense that the suffering or potential suffering of others is of less importance than your respective soapboxes. You're using the issue to take pot shots at someone who disagrees with you. My statments were relevant in that TMW's opinion is not the issue, nor is yours. There are prople being persecuted in many parts of the world, one recent development of such persecution happens to be in Uganda.


?? "The Bible says...." is the only reasoned argument against homosexuality. "Stupid things"??

I started the thread and I'm a Christian. How in the world is that relevant at all? I am ignoring no part of the Scriptures that I am not expressly freed from by Christ's greatest commandments "Love one another as I have loved you" and "Love your neighbor as yourself".

You seem to have an anti-Christian agenda here, if the issue is of such importance to you why didn't you start the thread?

Crazy A,
Do you not agree that most of the objections regarding homosexuality seem to come from people pointing to the bible as the reason for their objection?

Quite honestly I don't hear that many objections to homosexuality. Certainly some people use Scripture. Alternately people have used many other reasons ranging from medical, philosophical, cultural ones. At the moment, yes, homophobes are hiding behind religious dogma in the west.

They're hiding behind cultural norms and societal expectations in India. One need only look at the history of the issue to see that homophobes will basically use anything to justify their positions. That's exactly the issue in Uganda. I'm speaking out to say, "Wait, if you're really following the commandments then it's pretty obvious which ones take precedence, in this situation". The admonitions of Scripture are for people to not engage in such behavior. In the OT there are punishment proscribed as a matter of law, but otherwise it's a case of "this is sinful, don't do it". The case for persecution of homosexuals according to Scripture isn't compelling.

"Quite honestly I don't hear that many objections to homosexuality."
You obviously don't live in the US.

I certainly do, and in the south east to top that.

Then I find your assertion astonishing to say the least.

Well at least you didn't tell me I need to get out more ;-)

@ Crazy,

If you read what I've said, I've admitted to being intolerant. As jman has said, no one is truly intolerant of everything.

TMW stated that gays will be punished by God so there's no point in killing them. How is this a healthy attitude? If you are actually concerned about the treatment of gays, you should concern yourself not only with places that execute gays, but places that mistreat them in other ways (such as damning them to hell)

As for the soapbox, as I've just said, I think I've stayed on topic (which, to the best of my understanding was the mistreatment of gays). Furthermore, even if I was hijacking the thread for my own agenda, I doubt that that would directly lead to someone's execution.

So far, TMW has only cited the bible for why homosexuality is wrong. Unless I misunderstood Ivictus, he called this a "reasoned, nuanced objections to homosexuality." I wanted to know if he had anything besides the bible to back up his claims.

The bible DOES have stupid things in it (slavery, treatment of women) I didn't say all of it was stupid, nor did I say the people that read the bible are stupid. I don't think that having faith makes you less intelligent or less of a person, which you seem to be accusing me of.

Invictus: You're incredible. The proposed law in Uganda is a direct result of the anti-homosexual agenda. Activists in Uganda with this agenda promoted the condemnation and hatred of homosexuals that materialized into this legislation. Any and all homophobic comments need to be challeged before they do damage. Your reference to Egypt is also counterproductive. What will happen when no more money is sent? Egypt could go very well go to war, because they were never convinced that Israel was not a menace. The situation is still destabalized. And free speech? Ha! You have a right to say what you wish, say, two plus two makes five, but we have a moral obligation to challenge and disprove what you say. To sit by idly and watch hatred and disinformation mount when you have a chance to internene is wrong. That is why we are condemming your words!

Crazy Anglican: I urge you to ignore any perceived "anti-Christian agenda" and attempt to answer the question, even if you have nothing against homosexuals.

Crazy Anglican: Never mind, you already answered it.

DingleberryJones: Crazy Anglican meant that although homophobes are plentiful in the U. S., they don't have any credible arguments opposing it.

"Historically the worst human rights violations and mass murders have happened in officially atheistic countries where interpreting God's will was not an issue." Is that a joke!! The Middle East, Pakistan, India, South Africa!! Let's not forget the Spanish in South America or the British in Northern Ireland. The present mood in Malaysia and Indonesia. And before anybody brings the British Issue up..go to the UN website.

Shafto: I completely agree, except "Spanish in South America" is a bad example. It was Spain's Catholicism that prevented extensive "human rights violations and mass murders". At that time, the concept of human rights wasn't even in its infancy, and Spain was, compared to other contemporary European powers, rather enlightened. Surely religion was a sincere motivation for Spanish expansion, but it wasn't the only one, and the very fact that Spain was expanding with the professed purpose of enlightening natives gave natives a certain degree of protection. By the way, I was thinking of challenging Crazy Anglican's ridiculous point before you did, but decided it would be a little too much work.