I think you've misunderstood, Eleanor. Your response, expanding upon my gluttony metaphor with your longer analogy is what ThatCyndiGirl is objecting to. The false equivalence is one of AFA's favorite fallacies.

This is a prime example of a false equivalence fallacy. This happens when one uses a comparable example which is fine on the surface, but are not similar on the manner invoked. Here are the big ones. Gluttony is a choice--to varying degrees. Homosexuality is not (no more than heterosexuality) Teaching children to overeat is harmful to them. Teaching children that Sally has two Mommies does not, and Billy has two Daddies, and Monique has a Mommy and Daddy does not. (Furthermore, children of loving, gay couples are just as happy and healthy as those of loving straight couples. Children of obese parents tend to have similar eating/health issues). Gluttony is physically harmful to the body. Homosexual sex and cohabitation between consenting adults is no more harmful than heterosexual sex between consenting adults, and can be safe, pleasurable, and healthful. Telling a glutton to eat less is not hateful if the doctor is trying to preserve the glutton's life. If non-gluttons are out passing legislation that prevents the glutton from being treated as non-gluttons, I would say that's hateful. I don't think you don't understand the analogy. You did a decent job of turning it on it's head. :001_smile: But your argument is fallacious.

It's not just a difference of opinion, though. I mean this gently. . . If you are a Christian, and it is one of the most important part of your life and your being, and you can't see yourself as separate from your Christian faith. . .and someone says that they hate your Christianity--doesn't that hurt you too? No matter how much they say they love you? I don't know you, but when I was a Christian, that would have been accurate for me. I would have said, "How can you hate the very reason I live, my life, my soul, an innate part of me. . . yet love me?" How can you hate an innate part of a gay person, their identity, their truth, their loves, hate an inextricable part of them. . . but love them? I realize that most people who say these things don't hate gay people, but I don't think they really understand that homosexuality is a vital part of people, much like faith. . . except faith is a matter of choice and homosexuality isn't. I think homosexuals feel hated because no one goes to the ballot box to try to limit the amount of food gluttons can eat, or how many times a Christian can be divorced and remarried, or any number of other sins. But when it comes to two people, committing their lives to taking care of one another, and having the same protections that heterosexual couples do, some Christians can't wait for the chance to run to the box. I think this can certainly be construed as hateful behavior.

Sure! I don't agree with most of it myself, but I think it's helpful to see how other people can look at the same things, and both trying to be intellectually honest, come to different perspectives. I don't know if it's the best resource out there, some others might be more hermeneutically based, but this one of the most comprehensive I came up with on short notice ;)

I'm not Joanne, but here's a site that you might find interesting and give a different perspective. It's subentitled "By God's grace we affirm Sola Scriptura and Authentic Biblical Christianity." http://www.gaychristian101.com "Giving voice to Conservative Gay Evangelicals" You can find Evangelical, Bible-based, answers to all of your questions about gay-negative Bible passages, including the story of Sodom and Paul's text in Romans, etc. It may give you a different view of how people can see the passages differently from you. Oooh, ick. Um, this is probably something . . . anyway, they use a Ray Comfort tract to share the gospel message in the "good news" section of the site. So, I don't care for Mr. Comfort at all, so if you go there (any non-believers who might take a peek), do so knowing that. :) Best! I. Ohh, if you do go, please come back and share if it helped you to see from the other side a little more. I'd be interested in your experience, even if it didn't speak to you. P.S.S. Oh, um, I just noticed that in the "good news" section, there's a Ray Comfort tract. I'm not a fan of Mr. Comfort--so any nonbelievers who want to check out the site. . .just be aware ;)

I've looked at one of Joann's previous posts to try to show those who don't understand, how saying "homosexuality is a sin--but I still love gays" is not hateful. I've replaced "gay/homosexual and "sin" with "Christian" and "evil" or "dangerous" in most places. I know it's not perfect, but perhaps there's a sense of the flavor. It's kind of hard to get the full impact, especially when Christians are the minority who typically get to make the rules in the US and gays are a small 10%, but perhaps it will help bit. Here it starts. . . The saying a "Christian is evil" or "acting on Christian beliefs is wrong" is a dangerous. I view these as. . .on the same continuum of active, violent hate. It *is* hate to say "Hate the Christianity, love the Christian" when the "evil religion" you hate is part of their core, their being, their intimacy, their connection, their love, their affection. It *is* hate to speak of "Christian sexlife" as if that communicates anything about their behavior, character, or values. It *is* hate to say "it's between them and God" if Christians weren't given the same protection by the laws of the land for property rights, medical access, financial benefits, insurance coverage. It *is* hate when you say "I don't mind Christians but I want them to keep their PDA private." (for instance, they should never talk about their spouse. I don't want to know if they're married or not). It *is* when you tacitly agree with the statement that being a Christian heterosexual is synonymous with promiscuity, or perversion of sexuality. It *is* hate when marriage is defined as only non-Christian man and woman. Or when infertile Christians are forbidden to marry because they can't have children. It would be hate if Christians had a higher rate of suicide, addiction, and other mental health issues and other people said, "oh, that's just because of the guilt and pain of their being Christian. That's the way it is when you're religious." These things are hateful! It doesn't matter if your god things these are the greatest things in the world! Hate the Christianity, love the Christian. Doesn't that seem hateful? Hate the blackness, love the black person. Hate the whiteness, love the white person. Hate the homosexuality, love the homosexual. . . Oh, that's ok. I think it's really important to remember that there's a particular word for a bigotry that's rooted in very personal, important, deeply held religious beliefs. "Bigotry"

:hurray: That was terrif!

:iagree: Me too :) I used to be on the other side of this argument. Bible blazing! ;)

It's easy enough to look up. This is the No True Scotsman Fallacy taken to extremes! Not only are these people, who spout Bible verses and Jesus and God not Christians, they didn't even come out of Christian homes. Probably never set foot in a Church! Probably didn't even grow up in America, where Christianity is the dominant religion! Where did they come from, I wonder? Hmmmmm.

Fair enough, but here is what a previous poster said, "The hatred, the killing, the humiliation towards homosexuals (and anyone else who lives a lifestyle that the Bible states is sinful) is not from true Christians. I think this discussion is evidence that true Christians would never behave in such a manner." I can't think of a single thread where Christianity is invoked in some violent/scary way where someone doesn't jump in and say "These aren't true Christians!" That's where I was saying the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" was coming into play. Not every Christian does this. I apologize for not being careful enough with my phrasing. I'll try again. Many times, where a Christian does something violent/bad, some Christians will jump up and say, "They aren't true Christians." In fact, it' so common, it's often used as an example of "The No True Scotsman Fallacy" I wish it were true that Christians didn't do vile and dangerous things. But it ain't so. I wish True Christians--or the "Really True True Christians" could really see that.

HAHAHAH! Oh, dear. I hope this doesn't devolve into a kilt thread. . . . even though. Did you find an explanation of the fallacy? If you put "fallacy" in there, I bet it'll come up.

If you are referring to my post, perhaps you can read it again. I am not saying this thread is sad, though I can't stop you from inferring it. Please re-read and you can see what I think is sad. You don't think it's sad? Maybe not. Maybe that just makes it easier to see gays as sinners than people who want to be loved and share love as anyone else. That's not the same as being a drunkard. Wanting consenting, mutual love. . . not a sin! For most people. Also, please see "No True Scotsman Fallacy" on Google. Sorry, some "True Christians" do terrible things, including humiliate and abuse gays. It's amazing how Christians are always willing to say "we're sinners, but we're forgiven" but keep saying that other people who commit cruelties can't actually be Christians.

I was in Fort Collins that night, watching the vigil over M. Shepard. Breaks my heart to think about it.

But it's not funny at all. It's incredibly sad and mean-spirited. Homosexuals, according to the Bible can never, ever have a meaningful fulfilling sexual experience. Heterosexuals can. . . so long as they can find someone to marry. Homosexuals. Never. Never. Not if they find someone compatible. Not if they find the love of their life. No one. Ever. They are condemned to a sexless, partnerless life from their birth. How sad! I will not laugh. I will rather weep for those poor men and women who are so cowed and frightened by religion as to live their lives alone beseeching their god to change them so they, too, can be loved. Fie on it!

That's fine. That's a different argument. What Ellie and I are discussing are whether homosexuality is "natural" or not. She says it's not natural in humans, and I'm showing her that it's natural in non-human animals. . . and we'll see where it goes from there. You and I seem to agree that it occurs naturally in humans and non-human animals. We have no conflict on that point. I haven't addressed your other points. . .but I may not have time today to do so. I'm sure many others here can :)

Ah, you're sweet. I'm not sad at all though. I came from a non-Christian family but was born again at 14, and spent 20 years as an evangelical and a missionary, loving God and Jesus with my whole heart. I also pointed to the Bible, the word of God, as being living and active and perfect. And since I did, I finally couldn't bear it anymore, to see these things in the Bible--the ones I wrote about in the previous post. If I think it would be evil for my neighbor to throw his daughter out to a bunch of men to be gang raped. I think it's evil for a "good" being to call it righteousness. I spent many years wrestling with these things. I don't anymore ;) But, I don't really see the Christian god as being any worse than any other god, in the sense that I don't think it really exists. But I'll take your hug and give you one back! (Ohh, there's no "single hug" smiley. Anyway *hug*) :)

Does this mean you won't vote against human rights for gay people? That's what I mean by this.

Yes, male and female. No problem. That's the way humans, and animals who reproduce sexually go about it. However, homosexuality is exhibited in nearly every species on the planet. There are some very interesting, scientific articles on this that are easily accessible (intellectually, I mean) to the likes of you and me. Pairs of same-sex animals (female typically, and birds in this case) will mate for life, though one might go and have intercourse with another (even when there are eligible males around!) to produce an egg and raise offspring. None of these species is going extinct because of homosexuality. And neither will humanity. The only way to say "homosexuality is against biology" would be to indicate, somehow, that homosexuality keeps an entire species from reproducing. To its own detriment. It doesn't. Here's a nice Nat. Geographic article. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html This one is the most interesting article I've ever read on homosexuality in animals. Plenty of graphics (not graphic in that way :)) and well done. From the NYTimes. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/magazine/04animals-t.html I bet bonobos don't choose to be lesbian, or penguins choose to be gay. Or that they're confused, or traumatized, or demon possessed. I bet it's part of their makeup. Just like for humans. If it's not, there has to be a clear explanation why homosexuality can be natural for some animals, but not "natural" for humans. (Only religion makes homosexuality "unnatural" for humans. Not biology.)

Yes, truth is truth is truth. And maybe there a god who gave us every perfect word of the Bible that says a righteous man is one who would send his daughters out to be gang-raped, but that loving homosexual couples should be executed. Maybe that exists. But if so, let that god do what he wants with the gays and the atheists like me, and you can leave us alone. If it's truth, your god can deal with it. If it's not, you shouldn't prohibit people from having what love and joy they can get from this life with other people. Trust your god to deal out the pain for all of eternity. Let people have what joy and love they can in this life.

So. . .those people who are gay. . . Are they lying about being gay? Confused? Sick? Sinful? I'm curious how that happened. Not to mention homosexual animals. Same for them?

Fair enough :)

I'm not following. Was this not a rule when God gave it? Or is this just an example of "it says that, but it we don't believe it. People weren't supposed to obey that." Or, "God didn't really say that. The Bible is a bunch of man-made rules." or a variation. It's fair to say that I come from a Biblical-inerrancy background. I read the Bible. I was supposed to believe God ordained this stuff. Every word was true. I understand you don't come from that background. To those who do, I think it's something that needs to be explained. "Not all Christians believe the Bible word for word." If I want to understand Islam, I read the Koran. Christianity, the Bible.

Yes, it appears to be the height of cruelty to me. Homosexuality--and the consumation of a homosexual relationship--it's the only "sin", where avoiding it, means you deny yourself a hand to hold, someone to cuddle on the couch with, a physical relationship. Heterosexuals can "get married" if they want to magically legitimize their relationships. Homosexuals have no way to do that. For all of the Christians with gay friends who have partners, you realize that if your friends had been living years ago, and been your co-religionists, they should be executed. This is what your God wanted. You still worship the God that mandated this. It's hard for me to grasp. I'm glad that the religion has grown more humane, but I think remembering the origins, and the teachings of the deity of various religions, is important.

To me, it's related to believing in Biblical inerrancy as its basis. If one goes to the Bible to determine all of their answers, that's Conservative Christian. But, in the US, I think the other aspects mentioned in this thread are become part of the package--Fox news, politically right, anti-evolution, do not believe in human created climate change. They don't necessarily go hand-in-hand, but if I find a person who typically believes all of these secondary things I've listed--I typically find they meet my first qualification too. Only my observations, for whatever they're worth.

Many of my gay friends are Christians. They've grown up in Christian households, believe that Jesus died for their sins and go to church regularly. Some have left Christianity, however, because of what the Bible says about homosexuality. Some have become more "liberal" Christians who believe that the passages where God condemns gay people to death were influenced by by people and not God's will. Some are closeted, trying fervently with God's help, to change. One of the reasons I no longer am a Christian has to do with my understanding of homosexuality, and growing up in a Bible-believing church that said God was just fine with executing loving, gay couples. Occurred to me that I was really trying to make the Bible and the Bible God out to be some wonderful entity that really wasn't. I'm an atheist. I don't follow a book or being who said gays should be executed and raped women sold to their rapist. So, I couldn't stay a strict Bible-believing Christian. Perhaps, had I had less Conservative religious instruction I might have managed the cognitive dissonance a while longer.