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

[Nova]

No, group marriage was not the norm - we've gone through this already. It certainly wasn't the norm in New Testament times. It was recorded - but that doesn't mean accepted or promoted during ancient Bible days.

Oh, please. What a load of not-very-convincing rationalization! This is the sort of thing that gives Christianity a bad name.

Disagreement with redefining marriage does not equal hate.

Not necessarily, I agree. But often.

 

[Seek&Find]

I'm trying to abide by wfgodot's truce but the misinformation continues. Science doesn't have to prove "it can't be changed". Science is unable to prove it CAN be changed. That is sufficient.

Yes, the origins are being studied. All research to date points to biological causes for gay men. (Alas, the study of lesbians lags behind, as it so often does.) What is being debated at this point is genes v. the mother's hormones. It looks like different cases may have different causes.

I was referencing Gitana's post that "science has proven it cannot be changed'...there is a big difference between that, and your statement above.

 

[Nova]

I'm glad you feel a calling back to church and faith. That's what I sensed and alluded to earlier. That's why you want to dig into what the Bible says, I think.

Anyway, I don't need a truce as I never thought we were at war. I really gotta run or my hubby might just kill me.

I looked up the passages again out of respect for you and concern for accuracy. But I promise you my interest in the Bible and problems in translation is not new.

I'm sorry if my position seemed to shift. I still believe as I did from the start: that comparing gays to murderers is unnecessary and hateful, no matter how theoretically and theologically correct it may be. It's particularly reprehensible from a school teacher.

If the conversation sometimes shifted to gay marriage in general, I was responding to the posts of others.

Yes, I favor marriage equality. But my issue with the teacher in question is his hateful explanation for his position.

 

[Nova]

I was referencing Gitana's post that "science has proven it cannot be changed'...there is a big difference between that, and your statement above.

Perhaps gitana1 overstates the case. It is almost theoretically impossible to prove a negative conclusively. And we are talking about social sciences, which aren't always as precise as the natural sciences.

But in general, science (as well as anecdotal evidence) has shown time and again that claims of "cures" are bogus.

So is it theoretically possible there is a magical cure that nobody has discovered yet? I suppose. And pigs may yet fly.

 

[Charlie09]

Oh, please. What a load of not-very-convincing rationalization! This is the sort of thing that gives Christianity a bad name.

oh...I thought it was one of the other 100 reasons given on this thread. Not because I answered you politely that you were in error. The bible never endorses polygamy. It records when it happens. The Biblical example is always one husband, one wife.

Not necessarily, I agree. But often.

But you're assuming the facebook poster meant it as such, and there's simply no evidence to back that up.

 

[gitana1]

Whether the legal grounds stays the same or changes, the Biblical example of one man, one woman, doesn't change. It doesn't have anything to do with hate to say that the Biblical example excludes group marriage. It likewise does not include hate to say the Biblical example does not include homosexual marriage.

I agree it isn't hateful. It also isn't accurate. Group marriage is the norm through much of the Bible. That is NOT a reason why we should legalize such unions today.

Marriage has been redefined--officially or unofficially--many times throughout history. The sky won't fall if gay people are allowed to wed (in the civil sense only, of course).

Hey guys, some who really study history have found that the early Christian church may actually have conducted marriages between two men. And one of those is a decades-long Catholic high school teacher of religion. He's brilliant.

I have found that the more a person learns and studies, the less willing they are to ascribe to black and white thinking and social constructs that derive from the multiply-interpreted strictures on behavior that Jesus set aside.

Jesus was a revolutionary. He threw out or modified all the old, Mosaic law. That's one of the reasons he was killed. Yes, he does refer to males and females and marriage between the sexes, but he never condemns homosexuality. That's good enough for me.

 

[Charlie09]

Hey guys, some who really study history have found that the early Christian church may actually have conducted marriages between two men. And one of those is a decades-long Catholic high school teacher of religion. He's brilliant.

I have found that the more a person learns and studies, the less willing they are to ascribe to black and white thinking and social constructs that derive from the multiply-interpreted strictures on behavior that Jesus set aside.

Jesus was a revolutionary. He threw out or modified all the old, Mosaic law. That's one of the reasons he was killed. Yes, he does refer to males and females and marriage between the sexes, but he never condemns homosexuality. That's good enough for me.

Jesus offered forgiveness of sin. He also always told people to go and sin no more - he didn't ever make people comfortable in disobeying God's word. When they couldn't commit to leaving their comfort to drop everything and follow Him, he left them behind.

Yes, Jesus was revolutionary, so was Paul commanding men to love their wives as Christ loved the church....enough to lay down his life for them.

 

[T4Tide]

I haven't come back to this thread lately... because I feel like I've stated my opinion and there's no need to keep grounding it in. After looking over it today, I feel the need to remind those who are speaking on a Christian behalf that Jesus instructed His disciples to approach people with peace.

“And into whatever house you enter, first say, Peace be to this house. And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again. And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the laborer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house. And into whatsoever city you enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you: And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come near unto you. But into whatsoever city you enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, Even the very dust of your city, which cleaves on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be you sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come near unto you. But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.” Luke 10:5


"Everyone must make his own decision. Give the Word of God to those to whom God sends you, and if they make a decision to not accept God, then go away from them. Do not make the mistake of debating the truth. Offer the truth and declare the truth, but do not debate or argue. The servant of the Lord must know how to handle rejection, because when you offer the gospel in this world rejection is certainly one of the things that you will experience. Jesus Himself was rejected. “He came unto his own, and his own received him not.” One way to handle rejection is to forget the past and do what Jesus said to do: to wipe off the dust of your feet against them and to go on to the next person or the next city. Look forward instead of behind. Develop the ability to forget that which is past."

http://www.biblegems.com/LUKE10V5.HTM


With much love and respect for all those posting.... :loveyou:

 

[Boytwnmom]

and they don't even have agreement among Christians that it's a sin or that the Bible was ever actually really talking about what we consider "gay" given that there was no such word back then. Murder, thievery, lying, adultery, those are crimes and sins-most sins are obviously wrong, evil, hurtful deeds. There is no such effect of homosexuality. So, to continue to cite as "gospel truth" their opinion about homosexuality is certainly, at the least, questionable. If one believes it to be a sin, fine. Sexuality is private behavior and no one is going to make someone engage in homosexual acts so all the Christians who are convinced they know what God thinks about this subject should be just fine. They do no good by "calling" people out and condemning them publicly as equivalent to murderers by virtue of how they were born and I don't believe there is any biblical mandate for them to do so.

After reading more about this I am even more convinced that this is nothing more than Christians manipulating scripture to confirm their own bias and distaste. Not to mention the absurdity of trying to impose their values on the rest of us because of some book that was written in a time when there wasn't even a word for gay. People can believe whatever they want. But it's no longer acceptable to set people up for ridicule and hate and hide behind the excuse that God said it and they're just trying to help by telling everyone how distasteful their existence is. The good news is they are loosing this battle. As the years go by fewer and fewer people will still be ranting about "the gays".

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.

 

[Boytwnmom]

You have the right to say whatever disgusting things you want to about someone else and use the excuse it's not really you but God talking. And parents and school administrators can decide such language is a threat to the students and as unacceptable as denigrating people on the basis of any other immutable characteristic.

I say it is impossible to discuss this rationally here which is illustrated by the fact you seriously ask how I know some of the students at the school are gay and that its been proven that equating gay as sin is accepted doctrine for all Christians which it clearly isn't and you say "Oh really" about gays not wanting religious marriage. When facts can't be accepted as facts there is nothing to discuss. There is no doubt that the school contains gay students, not all Christians believe being gay is sinful and no one has ever asked for religious institutions to change their marriage ceremonies to include gays. Some have willingly done so but this is not a request anyone has made of denominations which condemn gays. You seem to have an attitude that Christians are the party being denied rights here because their words have consequences regardless of whether their excuse is that it's really God saying it. That's just not a get out of jail free card in the United States. Christians have the right to say whatever they want and others have the right to react to their speech as they react to anyone else's. Christians don't get "special" treatment because they claim to have cornered the market on God. Every religious group thinks they "know"-Christians are just one among many.
.

A person doesn't look their right to freedom of speech or religion just because they teach in a public school

 

[Boytwnmom]

is acceptable to you? You sure have lots of rules for what a valid point is when it doesn't agree with yours. The Pastor agrees with you so I thought it was fair. Sure, he sounded kooky but they all do to me, sorry.

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.

 

[Seek&Find]

and they don't even have agreement among Christians that it's a sin or that the Bible was ever actually really talking about what we consider "gay" given that there was no such word back then. Murder, thievery, lying, adultery, those are crimes and sins-most sins are obviously wrong, evil, hurtful deeds. There is no such effect of homosexuality. So, to continue to cite as "gospel truth" their opinion about homosexuality is certainly, at the least, questionable. If one believes it to be a sin, fine. Sexuality is private behavior and no one is going to make someone engage in homosexual acts so all the Christians who are convinced they know what God thinks about this subject should be just fine. They do no good by "calling" people out and condemning them publicly as equivalent to murderers by virtue of how they were born and I don't believe there is any biblical mandate for them to do so.

After reading more about this I am even more convinced that this is nothing more than Christians manipulating scripture to confirm their own bias and distaste. Not to mention the absurdity of trying to impose their values on the rest of us because of some book that was written in a time when there wasn't even a word for gay. People can believe whatever they want. But it's no longer acceptable to set people up for ridicule and hate and hide behind the excuse that God said it and they're just trying to help by telling everyone how distasteful their existence is. The good news is they are loosing this battle. As the years go by fewer and fewer people will still be ranting about "the gays".

The teacher did not set anyone up for ridicule and hate by stating that all sin is equal and that all are sinners, including him. He did not state anyone's existence was distasteful or anything similar to that. He likewise did not condemn anyone as equivalent to murderers by virtue of how they were born. Please note, as Nova pointed out, the causes/origins of homosexuality have not been established. Stating it's how they're born is thus opinion.

Definition of bias:
Webster's
b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : prejudice

Bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaBias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives. Anything biased generally is one-sided, and therefore lacks a neutral point of view.

Have you considered that your stated bias against religion might color your perception of what he's saying?

 

[Seek&Find]

snipped

no one has ever asked for religious institutions to change their marriage ceremonies to include gays.

This is factually incorrect.

 

[Seek&Find]

is acceptable to you? You sure have lots of rules for what a valid point is when it doesn't agree with yours. The Pastor agrees with you so I thought it was fair. Sure, he sounded kooky but they all do to me, sorry.

Really? It's your impression that people on this thread have called for gays to die or be put in concentration camps? Having posted with you before, I believe you knew what you were doing when you chose him.

Moo

 

[Charlie09]

You have the right to say whatever disgusting things you want to about someone else and use the excuse it's not really you but God talking. And parents and school administrators can decide such language is a threat to the students and as unacceptable as denigrating people on the basis of any other immutable characteristic.

I say it is impossible to discuss this rationally here which is illustrated by the fact you seriously ask how I know some of the students at the school are gay and that its been proven that equating gay as sin is accepted doctrine for all Christians which it clearly isn't and you say "Oh really" about gays not wanting religious marriage. When facts can't be accepted as facts there is nothing to discuss. There is no doubt that the school contains gay students, not all Christians believe being gay is sinful and no one has ever asked for religious institutions to change their marriage ceremonies to include gays. Some have willingly done so but this is not a request anyone has made of denominations which condemn gays. You seem to have an attitude that Christians are the party being denied rights here because their words have consequences regardless of whether their excuse is that it's really God saying it. That's just not a get out of jail free card in the United States. Christians have the right to say whatever they want and others have the right to react to their speech as they react to anyone else's. Christians don't get "special" treatment because they claim to have cornered the market on God. Every religious group thinks they "know"-Christians are just one among many.
.

If Nova says approx 5% of the population is gay, and I believe it's about half that number, there is no way you can safely assume that means the teacher has a gay student in his class.

I get it, religion, much less faith is not a part of your life. That's fine - anything else?

 

[PeteyGirl]

From boytwnmom:

You seem to have an attitude that Christians are the party being denied rights here because their words have consequences regardless of whether their excuse is that it's really God saying it.

You just put something into words I hadn't thought of.

Protesting the word of Christians is just part of the fabric of free speech. Christians share a country and a world where they do not have a voice that convicts a significant number of their own countrymen. Protest is going to happen, and unless Christians choose to simply ignore the protests, I imagine they'll continue to rise to the occaision. If you have something so very worthy of witnessing for, consider your audience.

Whether you mean it or not, whether it is anywhere NEAR your brain when you make statements of faith, they are sometimes provocative, which results in shock and anger, at nearly every level of society. That should mean something. Delivering your message is a two way street. It matters A LOT that your message is received well, isn't that the point?

If "the point" is not received well by those not assisted by the Holy Spirit, do you just write them off, deny their concerns have any connection with reality? NOT being filled by the Holy Spirit is real, too. Clearly verbally leveling the ground between homosexuality with murder and other 10 Commandments sins ought to offend 5% (at least) of the US population. Are that 5% worth offending? You offend someone, you LOSE them, and what else closes someone off so quickly as bigotry?

If Christians are requested to spread the word, they aren't aiming much for homosexuals, or their defenders. I perceive lax disregard for the human wellbeing of homosexuals, as evidenced by the denial of the perception of the community this teacher's Facebook post addressed on this thread.

 

[Soulmagent]

I found this MSM report and there should be no disagreetment over this being hate speech. This is a clear example of a 'Christian " using his religion to justify his opinion and hate speech.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/north-carolina-pastor-calls-death-gays-lesbians-trapping-electric-fence-article-1.1082160

 

[Kitty Kat]

I won't get into the whole religion thing as I can foresee it not going very well and it would more then likely add fuel to the fire which I do not wish to do. However, I don't think as a teacher, what he posted was okay. Yes it is his FB page, but I remember reading stories of teachers who were disciplined (can't remember if they were fired) for having pics on their page in which they were holding an alcoholic beverage. Teachers are held to a different standard when it comes to things they post for the public to see.

 

[Charlie09]

From boytwnmom:

You just put something into words I hadn't thought of.

Protesting the word of Christians is just part of the fabric of free speech. Christians share a country and a world where they do not have a voice that convicts a significant number of their own countrymen. Protest is going to happen, and unless Christians choose to simply ignore the protests, I imagine they'll continue to rise to the occaision. If you have something so very worthy of witnessing for, consider your audience.

Whether you mean it or not, whether it is anywhere NEAR your brain when you make statements of faith, they are sometimes provocative, which results in shock and anger, at nearly every level of society. That should mean something. Delivering your message is a two way street. It matters A LOT that your message is received well, isn't that the point?

If "the point" is not received well by those not assisted by the Holy Spirit, do you just write them off, deny their concerns have any connection with reality? NOT being filled by the Holy Spirit is real, too. Clearly verbally leveling the ground between homosexuality with murder and other 10 Commandments sins ought to offend 5% (at least) of the US population. Are that 5% worth offending? You offend someone, you LOSE them, and what else closes someone off so quickly as bigotry?

If Christians are requested to spread the word, they aren't aiming much for homosexuals, or their defenders. I perceive lax disregard for the human wellbeing of homosexuals, as evidenced by the denial of the perception of the community this teacher's Facebook post addressed on this thread.

So someone who holds a Biblical worldview and speaks on it, is the only one who should be concerned about offending someone?

 

[Cappuccino]

No, but as the other poster said...

If you have something so very worthy of witnessing for, consider your audience.