DEVTOME.COM HOSTING COSTS HAVE BEGUN TO EXCEED 115$ MONTHLY. THE ADMINISTRATION IS NO LONGER ABLE TO HANDLE THE COST WITHOUT ASSISTANCE DUE TO THE RISING COST. THIS HAS BEEN OCCURRING FOR ALMOST A YEAR, BUT WE HAVE BEEN HANDLING IT FROM OUR OWN POCKETS. HOWEVER, WITH LITERALLY NO DONATIONS FOR THE PAST 2+ YEARS IT HAS DEPLETED THE BUDGET IN SHORT ORDER WITH THE INCREASE IN ACTIVITY ON THE SITE IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS. OUR CPU USAGE HAS BECOME TOO HIGH TO REMAIN ON A REASONABLE COSTING PLAN THAT WE COULD MAINTAIN. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT THE DEVTOME PROJECT AND KEEP THE SITE UP/ALIVE PLEASE DONATE (EVEN IF ITS A SATOSHI) TO OUR DEVCOIN 1M4PCuMXvpWX6LHPkBEf3LJ2z1boZv4EQa OR OUR BTC WALLET 16eqEcqfw4zHUh2znvMcmRzGVwCn7CJLxR TO ALLOW US TO AFFORD THE HOSTING.

THE DEVCOIN AND DEVTOME PROJECTS ARE BOTH VERY IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY. PLEASE CONTRIBUTE TO ITS FURTHER SUCCESS FOR ANOTHER 5 OR MORE YEARS!

Jesus Would Vote Yes On A Gay Marriage Initiative

I keep trying to wrap my head around the idea of why fundamentalist Christians are, almost to a person, adamantly against the right for people to marry someone of the same gender. I tend to wonder if they read the same Bible as me.

In the Bible I read, Jesus was always being criticized for hanging out with sinners. People couldn't stand that he wasn't constantly lecturing them, but instead seemed to be completely non judgmental most of the time. (He certainly seemed to demonstrate a judgmental attitude with the money changers in the temple, though, but that was an exception.)

Even though the Bible doesn't say that Jesus hung out with homosexuals, it just makes sense that he would. If memory serves, I think I read he hung with adulterers, drunkards, petty thieves, prostitutes, and even strong arm tax collectors, showing them pure love and friendship. He just doesn't strike me as the type of Guy to vote against gay marriage.

Now, you will not hear me arguing that since Jesus is not quoted as saying anything against homosexuality that he did not consider it a sin, or as some people have suggested, that since he was always seen with his all male cast of disciples, that he was gay himself. My argument is that Jesus did not treat people differently, even though he was aware they were sinners.

(Of course, Jesus understood that everyone is a sinner. What does the bumper sticker say? Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven. As arrogant as that comes across, at least it admits that we all are sinners. By the way, just about all Christian sects, save for the Baptists, don't believe in only asking for forgiveness of sins a single time, to cover you for life. Almost every sect believes you need forgiveness each and every time you sin. You have to seek it. It's not merely automatically granted to you.)

The Bible speaks of different kinds of thought sin, including anger, hatred and lust. I have to believe by those standards, almost everybody is a daily repeat offender. So my question is, why should the perpetrators of one particular type of the endless ways there are to sin, be penalized by withholding one of their civil rights?

Should someone who engaged in premarital heterosexual relations not be allowed, by law, to marry the person they end up loving and wish to commit to? I'm guessing, your answer is no, because the Bible doesn't say that. Then why do you think it's OK to prevent the homosexual sinner from settling down with the one she loves and wishes to commit to? The Bible doesn't say that anywhere, either.

The fact is, you are writing new pages into the Bible if you claim that the Bible says to deny same gender couples their marriage rights. Jesus is never quoted as saying that homosexual activity precluded the perpetrators from being treated fairly, under the law. We are not living under a Christian form of sharia law.

Don't confuse God's judgement, which we all will certainly face, with the laws of humans. Some sins are crimes, but they are not illegal simply because they are sins. Most sins are not illegal. You don't make gays pay for consenting adult sex sins by illegally denying them their rights. Don't be such a busy body. Tend to your own life and your own sins. God will have plenty to say to you at the judgement.

You may say it's makes sense to ban gay marriage, because, since gay sex is a sin, gay marriage demonstrates that the homosexuals wanting to get married are choosing to continue to sin. Let me get this straight (no pun intended)… You're saying, you know for a fact that all heteros who sinned by engaging in sex, outside the confines of marriage, are not choosing to continue to sin when they get married? Oh really? Do you know for a fact that none of them are planning on committing adultery? Who died and left you psychic?

Besides that, you don't know that some gay couples aren't going to maintain separate bedrooms and refrain from sex. Not all marriages are based on sex. You don't know which married couples (straight or gay) are having sexless marriages.

The Bible doesn't say people of the same gender should not get married. It says they shouldn't, “lay together.” By whose authority do you think it's okay to deny anyone their right to marry the person they love, just because you presume they are going to end up sinning together?

I have a news flash for you. Most people, including Christians, sin daily. If never engaging in sin is the litmus test God has for granting the right to get married, then God doesn't want anyone to get married.

You may say – but I doubt you will – that the old testament says to kill homosexuals. Leviticus 18:22 says homosexual activity is an abomination. Perhaps you quote that verse all the time, but I'm dubious that you quote Leviticus 20:13 ever, because it says people who engage in homosexual activity should be killed.

It's interesting how fundamentalist Christians like to tell people that they can't pick and choose which parts of the Bible to live by, yet, truth be told, they do exactly the same thing, themselves. Why aren't most fundamentalist Christians calling for the death penalty for all homos, based on God's holy word?

It's likely because they know it's extreme. Not only would it discredit them, they probably don't want to take part in such a disgusting activity as organizing to have suspected and known gays rounded up, put on trial, and then executed when found guilty of gay sex. However, if they say they believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, I'm not sure how they deal with the hypocrisy.

 
Doesn't it make them sinners for not following God's word? Perhaps they should have their right to marry, or some other civil right, taken away from them for sinning every day of their lives that they don't call for the death of everyone who lays with a member of the same gender.

I've read the mental gymnastics of self proclaimed Bible scholars explaining why certain verses apply today and certain other ones don't. None of them seem to be supported in actual scripture, but instead, from leaps of faith and interpretations that these writers make. Then they publish their leaps and others start repeating them, as if it it's new scripture.

One of the popular concepts is that there are three forms of law in the Old Testament; civil, ceremonial and moral. They say that civil law applies to Jewish people only. This is based on how some verses mention the children of Israel, yet even some verses that don't make such a reference, get grouped in there, somehow. Ceremonial law doesn't apply after Jesus was crucified, because that was about animal blood sacrifice that is no longer required… (Creepy, that it ever was required; right?)

So, verses that seem too whacky are explained away as being part of the first two types of laws that are either no longer applicable to them, or they never were applicable to them, since they aren't Jewish. (Although I'm unsure what the protocol is if they are a Jew for Jesus.)

I'm still wondering how they explain stuff in the New Testament, like Jesus admonishing slaves to be good to their masters. I guess that means that the millions of mostly female women and children, suffering though life as human trafficking victims right now, should not try to escape. They should learn to provide better sex for their pimp masters and their pimp master's clients.

Anyway, we are told that the third kind of law, moral law, is the only kind that is still applicable. These writers will go through the Bible and decide for themselves which is which, and because they say it, it must be true, I guess.

The kicker is the anti homosexual Biblical laws are moral, so they still apply, but there is an asterisk for the death penalty aspect.

  • It is no longer required to kill homosexuals, because Jesus was born. The reason there was ever a death penalty for this sin was because the widespread practice of homosexuality could have prevented Jesus from ever being born, don't you see? (Evidently God wasn't powerful enough to have Jesus be born if the popularity of homosexuality increased. So, I guess there are limits to God's power, after all. Go figure.)

Homosexual women and men will be happy to learn that as soon as the baby Jesus was born, the death penalty no longer applied. Unfortunately the part about it being a sin and abomination still applies.

Of course, this was just pulled out of someone's butt. No attempt is even made to support it scripturally. Yet you will find one “scholar” after another doing the same tap dance. And because so many are doing it, then it must be true, don't you know?

Now, back to the issue of denying marriage rights to homosexuals: Of all the sins in the world, what is it about the sin of gay sex that precludes those sinners from equal protection under the law? Should adulterers have any of their first amendment rights taken from them? Should someone who is guilty of bearing false witness against their neighbor no longer have the right to assemble in public?

Should somebody who has been caught stealing, no longer have the right to publish news, information and opinions without government interference. If somebody dishonors their parents, should they not have the right to vote?

Let's get into some thought sins. Should a man who engaged in lustful thoughts of women, never be allowed to own firearms? Should someone who has expressed anger or hatred not be allowed to travel freely?

Where does the Bible say that people who sin by laying with someone of the same gender should not be allowed to marry that person? Except for the call to kill homosexuals which Christians everywhere choose to ignore, there is no Biblical call to treat homosexual sinners different than the rest of us sinners.

By the way, if Christians want to follow the rules set forth in the Bible, whether the rules are not planting different crops in the same tract of land, not eating shellfish, not mixing fabrics in the clothes they wear, or not engaging in homosexual activity, then that's great for them.

What isn't so great is when they start saying that because certain other people are not choosing to refrain from the sins they are choosing to refrain from – in fact, sins they are never even tempted to commit – those other people should not have the same basic rights as them.

Christians like to say about homosexuals, “Love the sinner (as if they are not sinners themselves), but hate the sin.” I don't see how denying individuals their civil rights, because they are committing a particular sin that you are not committing, (and you have no desire or temptation to commit), has anything to do with love.

If the government was trying to force churches to sanction gay marriage, actually perform gay weddings in their churches, I would be totally against that and help to protest it and work against it. Nobody, that I've heard or read about, is seeking that. If anybody ever does seek that, then it will need to be dealt with. However, the fear of what might happen later is no reason to deny people the same rights as you.

You don't leave marriage laws in effect that discriminate against gays, just because you are afraid it will lead to more changes. It's not moral to act like that. It would be like saying, they should never have changed the child labor laws that allowed 8 year old children to work 16 hours a day for slave wages, because it might lead to laws that penalize parents who have children do errands around the house.

You don't refuse to allow women to vote, because even though that may be the right thing to do, it might lead to allowing people to vote as soon as they can read and write You don't continue allowing black people to be slaves, because you fear freedom will give them ideas, and lead them to enslaving white people as payback. Do you see how this works?

We are all supposed to have equal treatment under the law. Just as it boggles the mind today that our founding fathers thought it was OK to own human beings – or that 100 years ago people thought that women shouldn't have the right to vote – or that in the 1950's it was illegal to have mixed race marriages – one day our grand-kids are gong to marvel that people thought it was the right thing to do to keep homosexuals from marrying the person they love.

I certainly doubt anybody actually thinks that by preventing gay marriage, there will be less gay people, or that gay people will have less gay sex. Indeed, if heterosexual marriage has taught us something, there is less sex after marriage, in aggregate, than before marriage.

So, if anything, heterosexually biased marriage laws, create more homosexual activity. The more I live, the more I have to smile at the sheer irony of life. I call it God's warped sense of humor.

It's also the height of irony that the same people who criticize “the homosexual lifestyle,” for too much casual sex, including the number of partners and the lack of commitment, are doing everything in their power to prevent homosexuals from legally declaring that commitment, at the same level heterosexuals can do.

For the record: The term itself, “homosexual lifestyle,” is a misnomer. Homosexual individuals have all kinds of lifestyles, as do their heterosexual counterparts. Some gays enjoy a travel based lifestyle, as do some heteros. Some homos have lifestyles centered around participating in sports, as do some straight people.

There is no heterosexual lifestyle, per se, any more than there is a homosexual lifestyle. If you mean that gays are all into meaningless sex, you are painting with a broad brush. Look at the night life of any major city and you'll see more straight people going out to try to find some, “strange,” than you will gay people, (since there are more straights than gays.)

The point is, gay people haven't cornered the market on one night stands. If you find it repulsive that there may very well be a higher percentage of homosexual one night stands than heterosexual one night stands, I would encourage you not to discourage gays from making the same, legal, pubic commitments of love and partnership that you are allowed to make.

The repulsive feeling many (most?) straight people have about gay activity probably has something to do with the percentage of straights who feel it's appropriate to deny gays the same rights they enjoy. They are so personally repulsed by the thought of having gay sex, they just don't relate to gay people as equals.

The little secret is gay people are usually repulsed at the thought of straight sex, but you don't see them organizing to withhold our civil rights. A lot of times, though, they may try to force themselves to live a straight life, even getting married and engaging in heterosexual intercourse, because societal pressure to not be gay is still so severe. If you are a compassionate person, like Christians are supposed to be, your heart really has to go out to people who have done that, or are currently going through it.

People like to quote Leviticus 18, the verse about men laying with men, being an abomination, as evidence that Jesus would vote against gay marriage. The presumption is that if something is an abomination, then Jesus would want it to be illegal. If you are among them, let me ask you if you think Jesus would vote against eating shrimp, lobster and other shell fish. That is also an abomination.

You may even engage in that abomination, with some mental tap dance that rationalizes why it's perfectly fine for you to do it. Yet you may still be willing to support the discrimination of homosexuals, because they participate in a different kind of abomination; one that repulses you and that you will never be tempted to do.

Jesus recognized that treating people, even unrepentant sinners, fairly, is not the same as condoning their sins. That explains why he got along so well with the “rift raft” (for want of a better term) who the pharisees were always complaining that Jesus spent time with, demonstrating his love to them, rather than derision.

If there is one thing Jesus understood more than anything else, it may very well be, free will. I don't know of any evidence of Jesus supporting efforts to try to FORCE people to change. He wanted people to make conscious decisions to quit sinning. I can't imagine that he would vote against allowing gay individuals to be afforded the same rights and protections as straight individuals.

I truly don't think he viewed homosexuals as worse sinners than heterosexuals. I think he would agree that all have sinned (and despite best efforts, as humans) continue to sin and fall short of the Lord.

I believe Jesus would point out that loving the person you feel compelled to love is not a sin. Being life partners with them is not a sin. Having someone of the same gender who loves you as you love them, is not sinful. Making a life long commitment to be with them, in sickness and in health, through good times and bad times, til death do you part, is not sinning.

I imagine he would say the sinning is laying with another person of the same gender, the way people of opposite genders lay together. But he would remind us that people of opposite genders can also sin by laying together, depending on the circumstances; for instance, adultery.

With the exception of whipping the money changers, I can't think of Jesus denying people the right to sin. He was all about the free will. He didn't tell homosexuals to only be in the company of people of the other gender so they would not be tempted to sin sexually, or so they would not have anyone they would sexually sin with.

In my opinion the advice Jesus might give to gays wanting to be married, would be something like, “Look, whether you are getting married or not, if you are going to be in the company of this person you love, you're going to be tempted to sin. However, I'm not going to force you to try to go through your entire life and never be in situations where temptations arise. That's not very likely, and far be it from me to take away your rights. Like every other human, you will be judged, and like every other human, you will fall short of My glory. But My Father's judgement will not be some kind of biased judgement where your heterosexual friends get a free pass. My best advice is, go and sin no more… Yet, that being said, I don't agree with laws trying to force you to do so. I'm a free will Guy and I always will be. Be careful and know that I love you, no matter what.”

Rights


QR Code
QR Code jesus_would_vote_yes_on_a_gay_marriage_initiative (generated for current page)
 

Advertise with Anonymous Ads