"Reckless, irresponsible": Kansas teacher's "gay is same as murder" Facebook rant

Status
Not open for further replies.
If someone chooses to ignore their option to create a will, (or a living will, or a general or medical POA) that's their choice. That can create problems for married couples (especially in the case of remarriage), unmarried couples, and same sex couples. Not to mention those not in a committed relationship with multiple children! How is this related to the teacher's post, again??

Yes, that why I said the highest estimate I'd seen. I agree. It's likely lower.

You do know that judges can overrule wills, don't you? And they have done so, throwing out the wills of gay people in favor of the claims of the biological survivors simply because the judge in question shared some of your beliefs.

Now imagine your husband is critically ill and the hospital bars you from seeing him or making decisions on his behalf. My husband and I have medical powers of attorney for one another, but our lawyer warned us when he drew up the documents that if a hospital chooses to ignore them, our only recourse will be to sue in court, a process that probably won't be resolved before the sick partner is dead.

Fortunately, the above won't happen here in California, because we are legally married here and protected by the laws governing marriage. But if we cross the border into Arizona, we are instantly at risk...
 
So same sex couples can already get benefits without a legal change to the definition of marriage. So corporations recognized to be competitive, they needed to offer domestic partner benefits without the government forcing it on them?

Yay, free market!

Some benefits in some states. Not all benefits, not all states.
 
Who said they were speaking for Jesus? I believe we were just quoting His Word?? You're free to reject what it says, and you have. Are we now not allowed to quote or paraphrase the Bible when addressing what the teacher said was in it??

"Quoting His Word" is "speaking for Jesus", is it not?

If you quote me, are you not speaking for me? That's all I meant.

I have no problem with your quoting or paraphrasing the Bible. You do so in a thoughtful and specific way.

(We've had some posters in the past who nearly crashed the board by dumping dozens of pages of scripture into a thread. But that is not true of you, not true of Charlie, not true of anyone here lately.)
 
Popped back in as I'd forgotten I'd left out one important piece of info in discussing how sin is sin. The Bible does designate one unforgivable sin, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

So sorry for the huge error of not including that info before. I was focused on all the other sins, especially as addressed in the teacher's post.

If I commit that sin (assuming I haven't already), may I be considered irredeemable and then enjoy equal civil rights? I mean, what would be the harm at that point?
 
Seek&Find said:


"Speaking one's faith" in this instance seems like an excuse. I'm still baffled why it seems some Christians make excuses for bigoted and marginalizing speech. They don't appear concerned about the effect it has, and now you say he may have been "encouraging" specific others, and the rest of us should have ignored him. Testifying ONLY to his Christian peers, maybe?

I wonder why many Christians, not all, but the particularly outspoken and politically active branch of it, speak such potentially hateful and discriminatory rhetoric without a lick of concern for the damage it causes. If it causes damage, well, maybe it should? I don't know, I'm trying to understand.

And trying to convince me it is NOT damaging, by frosting it with "testament of faith" is not convincing, to me. Or much of anyone, unless they are a similarly convicted Christian.

If bringing the Word to others is so important, why do you bring it in such a way? I don't understand how you can blow off the concerns so blithely with such a lack of empathy. Are the concerns just a bunch of noise from the great unwashed? I wish I could understand.

Thank you for your eloquence and even temper. You put me to shame! :blushing:
 
So as long as it's not personal, it's ok to marginalize another person's innate attractions and wanting to share marriage with more than one person. Interesting.

With all due respect, Charlie, your posts are making less and less sense.

What I said was that gay marriage and group marriage may be distinguished on legal grounds without reference to Biblical "authority". Beyond that, I refuse to discuss the subject of polygamy here.

I said none of what you wrote above.
 
:waitasec: I didn't say Obama had less freedom. I pointed out the inconsistency that some are saying the teacher had no right to say what he did, or that he shouldn't have, knowing it would be hurtful to some, but are not applying their own standard to what they or Obama said, or the way he chose to say it.

He didn't compare gays to murderers. He addressed sins, not people. And his intent was loving-to both defend his faith and share God's message of forgiveness.

BBM: The "love the sinner, hate the sin" nonsense has proven to be rank hypocrisy over and over and over again. Perhaps you, Seek, are the exception. I wouldn't be surprised.

If the teacher didn't "compare gays to murderers", he certainly compared what gays do to what murderers do. And both gays and murderers are defined BY WHAT THEY DO! It's in the very words we use to label them.

Continuing to insist there is a fundamental difference there makes discussion impossible.
 
Seek&Find said:


"Speaking one's faith" in this instance seems like an excuse. I'm still baffled why it seems some Christians make excuses for bigoted and marginalizing speech. They don't appear concerned about the effect it has, and now you say he may have been "encouraging" specific others, and the rest of us should have ignored him. Testifying ONLY to his Christian peers, maybe?

I wonder why many Christians, not all, but the particularly outspoken and politically active branch of it, speak such potentially hateful and discriminatory rhetoric without a lick of concern for the damage it causes. If it causes damage, well, maybe it should? I don't know, I'm trying to understand.

And trying to convince me it is NOT damaging, by frosting it with "testament of faith" is not convincing, to me. Or much of anyone, unless they are a similarly convicted Christian.

If bringing the Word to others is so important, why do you bring it in such a way? I don't understand how you can blow off the concerns so blithely with such a lack of empathy. Are the concerns just a bunch of noise from the great unwashed? I wish I could understand.

Here's the other part of the post you referenced but didn't quote:

It's our job, as Christians, when called to do so, to speak the truth in love, to share the Gospel, to provide a defense for our faith. The teacher did all of that. As stated, it's the Holy Spirit's job to take it from there. He very well could have used the teacher's post to do that for some, or to encourage his Christian Facebook friends. Do you think he just shouldn't speak unless he absolutely knows everyone who could possibly hear it will be in a place to receive it and understand it? Perhaps the message wasn't intended for you specifically? The idea that he cannot speak of his faith as some might be offended is alarming. It's called freedom of expression for a reason.

The "He" referenced in the encourage line was the Holy Spirit. Sorry if that was unclear.

Because it wasn't bigoted or marginalizing, it was a statement of his beliefs. In fact, if you take his message all together, it's amazing to me that anyone can not see he goes out of his way to explain and offer hope. Had he said:

I hate gays.
Gays are murderers.
We should round up all the gays.
Kill all the gays.

Or any other such horrible, potentially crazy, actually inciting, hateful speech, we would take issue. The primary objection has been one line taken out of context, and both believers and nonbelievers have pointed that out on this thread. Trying to both ignore what he did say in entirety and read something else into it is not a way to objectively, analytically evaluate the post. No one has "blown off the concerns...". We've stated we have a different perspective, and why.

I asked you this before. What damage did this teacher's post cause?
 
He is a teacher in a public school who almost certainly has gay students. Gay students are subject to more severe and frequent bullying than heterosexual students. I questioned in my mind whether what he asserts is even accepted Christian doctrine. My post had information, quotes and cites and yet you bring up the one thing I never mentioned, gay marriage. Which should be of NO concern to anyone in any religion as gay people are only ever talking about civil marriage, not religious marriage.

I went in search of info which I posted and which was ignored possibly because it shows that not all Christinas believe as those here do and not all Bibles even use the same words like "abomination" which is so often cited. That there are numerous interpretations of bible verses and messages and some preachers, like the one I last cited, warn against using one's personal beliefs, biases and prejudices and read them into the bible, especially when there wasn't even a word for "gay" when it was written.

"Arsenokoitai" is a Greek word that appears to have been created by Paul when he was writing 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. No record remains of any writer having using the term before Paul. It has been translated as "abusers of themselves with mankind" in the King James Version (KJV):

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (Emphasis ours)

The KJV was finished 1611 CE when there was no single word in the English language that referred to homosexuals or homosexuality. The translators were forced to use this awkward phrase. The term "homosexual" was only created in the late 19th century.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm

And THAT is what I believe the Christinas who rail against gay people do, they are personally offended and grossed out by gays and so they conveniently read the Bible in a way that confirms God agrees with them and their bias and which supports their "superior" status, endorsed by GOD, as heterosexuals.

Obviously, just like I found about politics on this site, it is impossible to discuss it rationally as all that occurs is superficial sloganeering in favor of what you like and against what you don't like. The idea that Christians and conservatives are some oppressed minority is not compelling and, frankly, absurd.

It's very human but not very Godly to believe God believes just as you do. Fortunately, most people do approach these issues with good will and pure hearts and have no need to condemn people because of who they are to make themselves feel superior. None of this is about gay marriage, it's about playing God and using your status and position to reach an audience with a message of hate that will be likely to incite people to act against gay students because you doesn't like gays. I know if that happens there is a real risk that the school could be implicated if they fail to act to protect their students.




Here's the deal - as was noted much earlier - no one would be calling out this facebook post if he compared group marriage to murder - or if he compared idolatry or perjury, or plain ol' fornication to murder. The response on this thread is simply because a person chose to approve of marriage in the traditional sense, not same sex marriage and used an example that made people angry.
 
No. I mentioned the "women in pants" (for the record, the injunction also applies to men in women's clothing) to illustrate how YOU are picking one passage in Deuteronomy to follow, yet ignoring another that is just as condemning. (Yes, I'm assuming you have worn pants or a vest or a tie at some point in your life.)

I am not the one referring to only one passage of Deutoronomy.
 
...I asked you this before. What damage did this teacher's post cause?

We have no way of knowing all the damage he may have already done and certainly no way of knowing what damage his remarks may do in the future.

But since he has 600 friends, let's assume that a good number of them are students. (I realize this is an assumption on my part, but how many people actually have 600 adult friends?) If a sizable portion of the 600 are students, then roughly 5% of that portion are probably gay.

What effect do you think it has to be 15 and find yourself compared to a murderer? You tell me. Then take a look at the suicide rate among gay teens. Where do you think they are getting such despair?

Whether or not we can prove specific damages in this case, however, the teacher's post is merely the latest in a long line of "exercises in free speech" that equate gays with the worst criminals. And the damage done is very clear, from Ramon Navarro to Sal Mineo to Matthew Shepard to Tyler Clementi.

If Christians feel compelled to witness with love, so be it. I for one am always polite to Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons who come to my door. I know they mean well, however misguided I may find their theologies.

But if Christians are actually acting out of love, they won't compare my expressions of love for my husband with stabbing or shooting someone to death.
 
Oh, please. I understand perfectly well that Jesus' death represents a New Covenant to Christians. I've discussed ROMANS quite a bit here. But Paul, in his letter to the ROMANS, was relying on his knowledge of the Torah! So it all goes back to LEVITICUS in the end.

If I seem to refer to LEVITICUS more, it's only because I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and discussing the injunctions that are the least equivocal. What Paul meant is very much in dispute. Although there are scholars who question LEVITICUS as well, they are fewer in number.

Then you should know we are not under the Law anymore. That Gentiles were grafted in, etc. Look, you thanked me/us for not dumping tons of scripture in here, yet you give me grief for not providing what you deem to be proof. I've explained why. This isn't something that can be tied up in a nice little bow with one little link. It would take days, a billion posts, links, quotes, debates, etc. And some very uncomfortable moments. Forgive me if I choose to spare you those. With the background you cited, I'd think you'd recognize that. And in the end, you've said you don't consider the Bible more than a text written by men, so even if we wrestled with this for days on end, and I showed you that the Bible does address homosexuality as sin, and you agreed that it did, you'd still just say it has no bearing, significance, etc...
 
He is a teacher in a public school who almost certainly has gay students. Gay students are subject to more severe and frequent bullying than heterosexual students. I questioned in my mind whether what he asserts is even accepted Christian doctrine. My post had information, quotes and cites and yet you bring up the one thing I never mentioned, gay marriage. Which should be of NO concern to anyone in any religion as gay people are only ever talking about civil marriage, not religious marriage.

I went in search of info which I posted and which was ignored possibly because it shows that not all Christinas believe as those here do and not all Bibles even use the same words like "abomination" which is so often cited. That there are numerous interpretations of bible verses and messages and some preachers, like the one I last cited, warn against using one's personal beliefs, biases and prejudices and read them into the bible, especially when there wasn't even a word for "gay" when it was written.



http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm

And THAT is what I believe the Christinas who rail against gay people do, they are personally offended and grossed out by gays and so they conveniently read the Bible in a way that confirms God agrees with them and their bias and which supports their "superior" status, endorsed by GOD, as heterosexuals.

Obviously, just like I found about politics on this site, it is impossible to discuss it rationally as all that occurs is superficial sloganeering in favor of what you like and against what you don't like. The idea that Christians and conservatives are some oppressed minority is not compelling and, frankly, absurd.

It's very human but not very Godly to believe God believes just as you do. Fortunately, most people do approach these issues with good will and pure hearts and have no need to condemn people because of who they are to make themselves feel superior. None of this is about gay marriage, it's about playing God and using your status and position to reach an audience with a message of hate that will be likely to incite people to act against gay students because you doesn't like gays. I know if that happens there is a real risk that the school could be implicated if they fail to act to protect their students.

No, he equated sins, not people.

You weren't ignored. Frankly, your posts addressed things that had already been covered. And, when someone says "I admit to a bias against religion", even though it's great you recognize it and that you openly admit it, it's a pretty clear indication that discussing religious topics won't be done objectively. That, and the intentional choice to post a link to the most extreme pastor you could find. I see no desire to converse in your posts, just to label, denigrate and impugn our character.
 
I am not the one referring to only one passage of Deutoronomy.

You made reference to Deuteronomy in post #172. I've listed the two passages that any scholar I can find cites as references to sexuality. The first deals with cross-dressing; the second actually deals with male prostitution, but is often mistranslated.

Which verse(s) did you have in mind?
 
That's right. You guys are assuming damage, just like you're assuming his intent in direct opposition to his stated intent, twisting his words to say something they don't and taking them out of context.

Let's try this: Snip and post the hateful words that incite others to violence in a post.
 
You made reference to Deuteronomy in post #172. I've listed the two passages that any scholar I can find cites as references to sexuality. The first deals with cross-dressing; the second actually deals with male prostitution, but is often mistranslated.

Which verse(s) did you have in mind?

Oy. I listed 7 or 8 different books in the Bible. My specificity that one time was only related to your proposed timeline.
 
Then you should know we are not under the Law anymore. That Gentiles were grafted in, etc. Look, you thanked me/us for not dumping tons of scripture in here, yet you give me grief for not providing what you deem to be proof. I've explained why. This isn't something that can be tied up in a nice little bow with one little link. It would take days, a billion posts, links, quotes, debates, etc. And some very uncomfortable moments. Forgive me if I choose to spare you those. With the background you cited, I'd think you'd recognize that. And in the end, you've said you don't consider the Bible more than a text written by men, so even if we wrestled with this for days on end, and I showed you that the Bible does address homosexuality as sin, and you agreed that it did, you'd still just say it has no bearing, significance, etc...

That's true enough as far as my regard for Biblical "authority" goes.

But if it proving that homosexuality is a sin--and not just an expression of arbitrary bias--requires such rhetorical and logical acrobatics, maybe you should rethink your position.

Mine is clear enough: homosexual behavior in and of itself is morally neutral.

Just like heterosexual behavior, it can be used to harm others or it can be used as a means of expressing love, respect and mutual support. Or it can be simply recreational, again just like heterosexual sex. Homosexual or heterosexual, however, unless a couple is monogamous, appropriate precautions should be taken.

No convoluted proof required.
 
That's right. You guys are assuming damage, just like you're assuming his intent in direct opposition to his stated intent, twisting his words to say something they don't and taking them out of context.

Let's try this: Snip and post the hateful words that incite others to violence in a post.

We're condemning his language because historically the same language has been used to rationalize and justify violence against gays. There are many volumes written on the subject.

You say you disagree, based on what you refuse to say.

That's not a "tie" in my book.
 
Oy. I listed 7 or 8 different books in the Bible. My specificity that one time was only related to your proposed timeline.

So once again, you decline to source your argument or even answer my question.
 
That's true enough as far as my regard for Biblical "authority" goes.

But if it proving that homosexuality is a sin--and not just an expression of arbitrary bias--requires such rhetorical and logical acrobatics, maybe you should rethink your position.

Mine is clear enough: homosexual behavior in and of itself is morally neutral.

Just like heterosexual behavior, it can be used to harm others or it can be used as a means of expressing love, respect and mutual support. Or it can be simply recreational, again just like heterosexual sex. Homosexual or heterosexual, however, unless a couple is monogamous, appropriate precautions should be taken.

No convoluted proof required.

See? That's why there's no need to play the games or put in hours explaining it.

Lol. Really? You're the one that says the applicable verses can't just be read for meaning. You're the one posting linguistic acrobatics etc to support your view, dismiss verses, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
105
Guests online
1,766
Total visitors
1,871

Forum statistics

Threads
590,013
Messages
17,928,994
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top