What is your opinion on LGBT+ marriage?

[Australian rePublic]

"Or something" isn't going to win you too many Biblical debates. How can you comment on what the Bible says if you treat one of its most fundamental teachings as "or something"?

Here's what we Christians actually believe:
1. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Only
2. All sex outside of marriage is a sin. This includes masterbation. No exceptions
This rules out homosexuality by default. But let's dig deeper...
3. The Bible also specifically prohibits homosexuality

Okay, now let's look at love thy neighbour...
1. Have compassion for your neighbour doesn't mean "let them do whatever they want". If it did, that would that we should let people own fully automatic guns out of "compassion", or that we should let people chuck plastic bottles in the ocean, because, "compassion". And why stop there? By your own logic, we should let people rob banks because "compassion". (I mean why else would you rob unless you rob a bank unless you deaperately needed the money.) By your own logic, "compassion" means that people can do anything. I prefer the interpretation that doesn't imply that God's a moron
2. Love thy neighbour =/= compassion. Love thy neighbour means that you treat your neighbour they way that you want to be treated. It means that your neighbour's problems are your problems. It means that whenever your neighbour ia facing injustice, you're facing injustice. It means that whenever they're in danger, you put yourself in danger to save them (okay, those extreme examples, but I hope you get my point). It does not mean let them do whatever they want.
3. Love the sinner hate the sin

Yes, but it's going to be pretty hard to argue that loving your neighbor as yourself is going to mean breaking down your neighbor's door and putting him in prison for having gay sex, or preventing trans people from getting access to their treatment, etc.

I don't think that Sodomy should be a crime. As I specifically said earlier, I am indifferent to gay marriage. How can I be indifferent to gay marriage if I think that gay sex should be a crime? You're contradicting me with your terrible strawman. As for trans medication, once again, indifferent

These things may be spiritually harmful to them, but by using force to prevent them from doing these things, you're going to erect a barrier of bitterness in their relationship with God that will estrange them from faith.

More rambling on about you terrible strawman

[United Muscovite Nations]

Yes, but it's going to be pretty hard to argue that loving your neighbor as yourself is going to mean breaking down your neighbor's door and putting him in prison for having gay sex, or preventing trans people from getting access to their treatment, etc.

I don't think that Sodomy should be a crime. As I specifically said earlier, I am indifferent to gay marriage. How can I be indifferent to gay marriage if I think that gay sex should be a crime? You're contradicting me with your terrible strawman. As for trans medication, once again, indifferent

These things may be spiritually harmful to them, but by using force to prevent them from doing these things, you're going to erect a barrier of bitterness in their relationship with God that will estrange them from faith.

More rambling on about you terrible strawman

Then why are you arguing it shouldn't be tolerated?

[Aglanen]

Depends on the person opposing it. Sometimes it's just a cognitive thing that they can't wrap their heads around the state of mind of LGBT people, but this can be a two-pronged thing, where, on one hand the person strongly opposes LGBT political agendas while having sympathy for the differences. Sometimes it's based on worldview, that it's wrong, for this, whether the person opposes it depends on where they see their worldview's place in society or how intrusive it should be in the lives of people who don't oppose it (e.g. I don't oppose gay civil marriage, but do oppose gay religious marriage), and sometimes there are less principled people who just think it's gross. I don't like the term bigotry though because it encourages the first state of mind, but in the opposite direction. I think if we all try to place ourselves in one-another's shoes, we would be able to come to a better consensus than we would if we struggled against one-another.

When you’re dealing with a situation where one group of people wants to deny the rights of another group of people, compromise makes absolutely no sense. It’s not a middle ground. The middle ground would be that both straght and LGBT have equal rights and neither are infringed upon. And that happens to be the “LGBT agenda.” So I’ll support that over the agenda of bigots. No matter what their reasons are.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Depends on the person opposing it. Sometimes it's just a cognitive thing that they can't wrap their heads around the state of mind of LGBT people, but this can be a two-pronged thing, where, on one hand the person strongly opposes LGBT political agendas while having sympathy for the differences. Sometimes it's based on worldview, that it's wrong, for this, whether the person opposes it depends on where they see their worldview's place in society or how intrusive it should be in the lives of people who don't oppose it (e.g. I don't oppose gay civil marriage, but do oppose gay religious marriage), and sometimes there are less principled people who just think it's gross. I don't like the term bigotry though because it encourages the first state of mind, but in the opposite direction. I think if we all try to place ourselves in one-another's shoes, we would be able to come to a better consensus than we would if we struggled against one-another.

When you’re dealing with a situation where one group of people wants to deny the rights of another group of people, compromise makes absolutely no sense. It’s not a middle ground. The middle ground would be that both straght and LGBT have equal rights and neither are infringed upon. And that happens to be the “LGBT agenda.” So I’ll support that over the agenda of bigots. No matter what their reasons are.

I'm not arguing for compromise.

[Jabberwocky]

Marry whom you want. Love is where you find it.

[Cekoviu]

Classic whataboutism. "Radical Muslims do worse stuff, so we don't need a discussion about Christian homophobia."

This isn't entierly a thread about homophobia, this is also a Christian bashing thread...

Mainly because the primary people posting their homophobic views on here are Christians. OTOH, we discussed homophobia in Islam when Kubumba was discussing his horrifying opinions a few dozen pages ago.

[Cekoviu]

When you’re dealing with a situation where one group of people wants to deny the rights of another group of people, compromise makes absolutely no sense. It’s not a middle ground. The middle ground would be that both straght and LGBT have equal rights and neither are infringed upon. And that happens to be the “LGBT agenda.” So I’ll support that over the agenda of bigots. No matter what their reasons are.

I'm not arguing for compromise.

There's a difference between compromise and attempting to understand the line of reasoning (or the lack of it) behind a bigoted view in order to better eradicate it.

[The Alma Mater]

Why should I try to place myself in the shoes of someone who, for example, wants to imprison people for being gay and wanting rights (someone has advocated that in this thread)? After all, they have no intention of placing themselves in my shoes, or reaching a consensus.

To understand how others think and to be able to appeal to others through their own viewpoints.

"I believe it is bad because someone whom I consider wise and mighty that I greatly respect says so".

Now what ? The person has no arguments of their own, they are taking someones else word for it that it is bad. How to convince them that is wrong ?

[Bienenhalde]

When you’re dealing with a situation where one group of people wants to deny the rights of another group of people, compromise makes absolutely no sense. It’s not a middle ground. The middle ground would be that both straght and LGBT have equal rights and neither are infringed upon. And that happens to be the “LGBT agenda.” So I’ll support that over the agenda of bigots. No matter what their reasons are.

Wrong. Many extreme LGBT activists want to infringe on religious freedom. A compromise would be more fair because it would respect the rights of both groups.

[The Alma Mater]

When you’re dealing with a situation where one group of people wants to deny the rights of another group of people, compromise makes absolutely no sense. It’s not a middle ground. The middle ground would be that both straght and LGBT have equal rights and neither are infringed upon. And that happens to be the “LGBT agenda.” So I’ll support that over the agenda of bigots. No matter what their reasons are.

Wrong. Many extreme LGBT activists want to infringe on religious freedom.

no, that is the christians. They want to forbid other religions from having gay marriages.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

When you’re dealing with a situation where one group of people wants to deny the rights of another group of people, compromise makes absolutely no sense. It’s not a middle ground. The middle ground would be that both straght and LGBT have equal rights and neither are infringed upon. And that happens to be the “LGBT agenda.” So I’ll support that over the agenda of bigots. No matter what their reasons are.

Wrong. Many extreme LGBT activists want to infringe on religious freedom. A compromise would be more fair because it would respect the rights of both groups.

Not really. What exactly are "extreme" LGBT activists and how exactly are they pushing to remove religious rights?

[New haven america]

Wrong. Many extreme LGBT activists want to infringe on religious freedom.

no, that is the christians. They want to forbid other religions from having gay marriages.

They also want to forbid non-Christians/religious people from having gay marriage.

[The Alma Mater]

no, that is the christians. They want to forbid other religions from having gay marriages.

They also want to forbid non-Christians/religious people from having gay marriage.

Yes, but the angle now is "religious freedom".

Which oddly always seems to mean "you should not force christians to follow your secular rules; but should definately enforce christian rules on other religions".

[Bienenhalde]

Wrong. Many extreme LGBT activists want to infringe on religious freedom.

no, that is the christians. They want to forbid other religions from having gay marriages.

Only a minority of Christians. Others think personally oppose it in their churches but think it should be legal, and some even support same-sex marriage in churches.

[Bienenhalde]

Wrong. Many extreme LGBT activists want to infringe on religious freedom. A compromise would be more fair because it would respect the rights of both groups.

Not really. What exactly are "extreme" LGBT activists and how exactly are they pushing to remove religious rights?

Tankmen's comments earlier in the thread would be a good example.

[Ifreann]

Not really. What exactly are "extreme" LGBT activists and how exactly are they pushing to remove religious rights?

Tankmen's comments earlier in the thread would be a good example.

I wasn't aware that one of our own posters was a great leader amongst The Gays.

[New haven america]

They also want to forbid non-Christians/religious people from having gay marriage.

Yes, but the angle now is "religious freedom".

Which oddly always seems to mean "you should not force christians to follow your secular rules; but should definately enforce christian rules on other religions".

I know.

Other people living their lives affects them and their spirituality, apparently.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Not really. What exactly are "extreme" LGBT activists and how exactly are they pushing to remove religious rights?

Tankmen's comments earlier in the thread would be a good example.

How does one person on NSG somehow represent an apparently significant and influential movement?

[The Rich Port]

no, that is the christians. They want to forbid other religions from having gay marriages.

Only a minority of Christians. Others think personally oppose it in their churches but think it should be legal, and some even support same-sex marriage in churches.

And yet, this minority has impeded the efforts of homosexuals to achieve equality multiple times, and there's a very real possibility that they may succeed again if the Supreme Court is indeed as biased as it appears to be.

A tyrannical minority if ever there was one.

[New haven america]

Only a minority of Christians. Others think personally oppose it in their churches but think it should be legal, and some even support same-sex marriage in churches.

And yet, this minority has impeded the efforts of homosexuals to achieve equality multiple times, and there's a very real possibility that they may succeed again if the Supreme Court is indeed as biased as it appears to be.

A tyrannical minority if ever there was one.

I'm sorry, why is the script being flipped?

Isn't is supposed to be that Anti-LGBT Christians are the silent majority being oppressed by the glorious gay overlords? What's going on in this thread!?

[Bienenhalde]

Tankmen's comments earlier in the thread would be a good example.

I wasn't aware that one of our own posters was a great leader amongst The Gays.

I am not saying Tankmen himself is an influential person, just that his sentiments reflect a widespread attitude.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

I wasn't aware that one of our own posters was a great leader amongst The Gays.

I am not saying Tankmen himself is an influential person, just that his sentiments reflect a widespread attitude.

So in other words....the opinions of this person are somehow influential and reflect a widespread and influential movement.

[Hanafuridake]

My own opinion on LGBTQ+ marriage is that it is completely harmless and the same rationale used to defend it being banned could be used to mandate we all wear four leaf clovers or avoid stepping on cracks lest we break our mothers' backs.

[The Rich Port]

I wasn't aware that one of our own posters was a great leader amongst The Gays.

I am not saying Tankmen himself is an influential person, just that his sentiments reflect a widespread attitude.

Oh the irony that you dismiss anti-homosexuality as being "only a minority opinion group" within Christianity and yet generalize all homosexuals as being anti-religion based on a single poster's ignorant opinion.

Do you have any proof that it's a widespread attitude or do you just enjoy contradicting yourself?

[New haven america]

My own opinion on LGBTQ+ marriage is that it is completely harmless and the same rationale used to defend it being banned could be used to mandate we all wear four leaf clovers or avoid stepping on cracks lest we break our mothers' backs.

The latter is superstition and is considered heresy in Christianity.