[Tohhou]

Is your bible the inerrant word of your god? If not then does it have any legitimacy? Is homosexuality a sin?

I have yet to find someone like you who who at some point does not admit they are anti-gay. They say they are not, and then you find out they are due to holding two contradictory views at once. Even then you've never given money to any church than ones you know for a fact are 100% not anti-gay, have no one in power who is not anti-gay? That is the parallel.

[nitid_name]

It doesn't take a very complicated reading of the Christian bible to figure out that homosexuality can be justifiably "ok."

First... the so called "Old Testament" or Old Covenant (animals being cut in half and god passing through them in a rather creepy passage) was made obsolete by the "New Testament" or New Covenant (i.e. Jesus dying, granting forgiveness to all believers so they could join him in the afterlife). That means all the old prohibitions, from men-laying-with-men to shellfish to mixed fabrics are no longer necessarily valid. "Man was not created for the Law; the Law was created for Man," as Jesus told a Pharisee or Sadducee or one of the other old Jews he upset badly.

Next, looking to the New Testament, you'll find that Jesus never speaks about homosexuality; it's just Paul in his letters to the churches. Paul calls himself a disciple of Jesus and says that he doesn't mean to extend or conflict with Jesus' teachings. A contextual reading of his target audience when he condemns homosexuality (which isn't the word he uses, since that word/concept didn't quite exist yet) shows that he was critiquing the Greek church's practice of pederasty, aka "Platonic love." The reason for Paul's disdain of the practice was that elders were taking advantage of young boys for their own sexual gratification. I don't think there is widespread support for pederasty (or other, more hetero-normative but still frowned upon forms of ephebophilia), but I may be wrong on that count.

In short, not all Christians believe fervently the beliefs you're prescribing to them. Please don't straw man an entire faith because of your own misunderstanding of the beliefs of some.

/not a Christian but raised by them

[Tohhou]

>was made obsolete

No, Jesus said himself that all of the old laws still hold true.

http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm

>Please don't straw man an entire faith because of your own misunderstanding of the beliefs of some.

It's hard to read their holy book which they claim is the word of god and not judge them as awful people.

Again my point is that no one knows what money they give or spend is used to fuel anti-gay agenda, and so everyone is unfit. This is where the witch hunt will go.

[mcv]

It's always fun to hear non-Christians tell Christians what they should believe. You cling to that straw man, but the fact of the matter is that nobody holds all those laws from Leviticus anymore. And for good reason.

[adventured]

What are you talking about?

I'm your hard pressed example that has never given money to a church.

I also support true equality: the complete removal of any government involvement in marriage. All consenting adults should be able to get married without any government permission or regulation. No future group of persons should have to ask the government for permission to exercise the rights that do not belong to the government to begin with. If the government believes it gives you such rights, some future politician will find it all too easy to believe they have a right to revoke them.

[Tohhou]

Read my post I gave two examples and you were not specific.

> has never given money to a church.

I am doubtful, because even if you managed to never go to any church and never give a cent at any age, you can still give money to churches through institutions which seem secular. The Salvation Army is anti-gay and collects money every year from most popular store fronts. Never given them a cent? Never purchased Purina brand dog food? Never paid for anything related to Exxon? You can't know what money you give to someone or pay for something which which ultimately doesn't fuel anti-gay agenda. That's my point.

[adventured]

You're going to have to stretch thin on this one to ensnare me.

No, I've never purchased anything Purina. No, I've never given money to the Salvation Army (not that I agree with your claims, I've never researched their supposed anti-gay position). You might have to dig down to where I buy my shoe laces.

Your position proclaims that if all things apply, then nothing applies (that is your point, right? that everyone is guilty, and thus anyone pointing fingers are just hypocrites). In reality, all actions and beliefs are not created equal. Even in a world of glass houses, some stones are dramatically more destructive than others when thrown.

A very large portion of morality is based on intent + knowledge / awareness. Someone that buys shoe laces from an anti-gay business, while not knowing that fact, is not morally guilty of supporting the anti-gay movement, even if they are financially guilty.

[Tohhou]

That's amazing to me that you have never, ever given any money to the Salvation Army. You may be a unicorn who has never donated to anything which supports an anti-gay agenda good for you.

>Your position proclaims that if all things apply, then nothing applies

I'm saying that if it's enough to fired someone over donating to a bill that is anti-gay then it's enough to fire someone for donating over and over and over again to a church which fuels constant anti-gay agenda. Not just Christianity but Judaism or Islam which are even more explicitly anti-gay - logically anyone who is a Jew or Muslim should be targeted next by the social justice witch hunt.

[edgarallenbro]

Those things are very far off from the point.

If you buy Purina, you're paying for dog food. If you donate money to a proposition that opposes gay marriage, you are paying for a proposition that opposes gay marriage.

I intentionally avoid Chik-fil-a, The Salvation Army, etc. by choice. However, if someone was pro-LGBT and still chose to eat Chik-fil-a, I don't really care. The only time it would be comparable would be the people who intentionally started eating Chik-fil-a as a show of opposition to the people who were boycotting it.