Staredit Network

oh geat we have a problem at our school becuace we have a black gay kid in it today. i dotn know how to use the voting dealy in here so is anyone in here are going foward to gays or against gays?

im fowards to gays becuace there isnt funny to be gay. even though im not a christian i still dont think that it isnt funny to laugh at a gays.

but i know that there he a hell of alot of christians at our school that are laughing at him. but i dont really know if there laughing with him or at him.

but gays give good advices of the body to take care of.

im proud im not like one of those idiots anyway laughing at a gay. they think there so much cooler then them.

Everyone who's different is pretty much condemned to ridicule by humanity. Believe it or not, most of humanity shuns its smartest members, the people who have the potential to help our species the most. I wouldn't mind beating up one or two of the idiots who are laughing at the gay kid, personally. Try telling them that it's not their place to judge, that's God's job.

I wholeheartedly agree with Nozumu's post.

I do'nt understand what prejudice against homosexuality is about. To me, it's the exact same as being prejudiced against blacks.

I agree with these posts too. There's no logical reason to be prejudiced against any individual person for what they are, or aren't, as a whole. But I guess you could take a little solace in knowing that those who are prejiduced live on the lowest rung of humanity.

Who said christians weren't prejudice? Through out history they have made attacks on groups of people, who were different. Mainly these were non-christians, but they have developed other hates. I'm not saying all christians are hateful, but it has pretty much become a stereotype.
I personally know several homosexuals, one of which is a best friend of mine. They aren't any different from "normal" people. But other people in my school tend to pick on them. In my veiw the people who critisize them for who they are are people who either A. Want to get with a girl they are hanging out with, so act macho, or B. are unsatisfied with their own life.
The worst, in my eyes, is when people accuse someone of being gay because they are "uncool" when in real life they are straight.

I have no idea what schools you guys go to, but my high school -- roughly 1,200 students -- is not anti gay what so ever. And the people who are gay actually have A LOT of friends and are never picked on at all! I am friends with a few gay students and they have told me they love the school and students here becuase they never pick on any one. Bullying is hella imature and is frankly considered uncool at my school.

Ya, being immature and making fun of people is considered asinine at my school to. But it still happens, there are still people who feel that way towards gays. Also I don't think this is about people in general, because the title says Gays vs. Christians.

BTW: your school sounds like a good place to go.

Christians, in some cases.

lol, Touché.

gays are gay. what's wrong about making fun of them?

well first off you shouldnt make fun of them becuace why would a fat guy make fun of them or some cool guy? i dont know is it becuace they dont have what a gay guy has. lots of friends and a perfect body.

I know this is a little off topic, but can you call someone who is bi gay? Does being gay mean that you like people of the same sex exclusively or just that you like them?

Bisexuals and homosexuals are different. Bisexuals are attracted to members of both sexes whereas homosexuals are only attracted to people who are the same sex.

Gays, gays , gays... I heard topics about gays everywhere.....
My parents don't like gays.... they don't want me to be gay! They think I hate gays.... but i don't.... My school goes against gays... and says its bad.... I find it ok... I don't find it a problem.... But the calothic churchs don't want Gays in marrigae!

Over all.... I find Gays ok..... Tell your friends! Why go againsit Gays.... There people too.....

I will try and clear this up for the Christian part of this topic. Christians do NOT "hate" gays. The only reason anything is said about them is because God made man and women, not man and man or women and women. It isn't right to go with the same sex because God did not make us that way. So they are not "hated" but instead looked upon as more sinful because they are not following what God teaches. Hope that clears stuff up for you guys.

Christians do not hate gay people. Also i do not think that just Christians at your school is be prejudice against gay people, but perhaps many more people who think they are "cooler" because they already have gfs or bfs and think that being gay is very bad or stupid. In my school, everyone hates each other..... so then you may not hate the gayness of the person, but you may hate the color or anything else byist people hate.
Its just that simple. Not all Christians are evil, like not all Muslims are. But the news in America show only the evil ones. Thus we begin to hate them. Like homosexuals, they had began to produce a reputation of getting AIDS, in S.F. so then the people do not want to get AIDS shun those who have it.

Off topic-Umm, AIDS started in Africa...

On Topic-If a Cristian is not acting according to the Bible then he is not truly a Christian. For instance, lots of people go to church and pray, claim themselves to be Christians, and then live a VERY sinful life at home. This is the example of what you call a "bad" Christian, when in fact he truly isn't Christian at all.

Yeah, you're right. So why aren't you out there railing at women for speaking in churches? Do you honestly believe that women's roles should be determined by the Bible? You can't take one part of the Bible literally and just disregard another, as that totally diminishes your credibility. So admit to one view or the other: that gays are more sinful and that women raped in the city should be murdered, or that people shouldn't take the Bible so literally and claim to know the word of God just because they read a book - you can't have it both ways.

Nozumo I don't understand your post. Where did the women thing come from? And what do you mean about me making two conflicting statements? Anyways, tell me because right now I am TOTALLY confused.

i don't hate gays, but i am against gays. i believe that being gay is a choice. if you took all the gays in the world, i bet that most would be ugly people who couldn't get a bf/gf so they resort to being gay, im not trying to be rude or disrespectful, just staight to the point. There have numerous accounts of people being gay and then changing back to being straight which just strengthens my theory, for example i saw on VH1 about a woman, Ellen DeGeneres i think it was her..., who dated a man, then began dating Roseo Donell, i think it was her..., and then began dating another man again, which is quite strange and again just strengthens my theory. and don't tell me that if you placed a gay man right in front of a really hot bikini supermodel and she did "stuff" to him that he wouldn't be just a little bit aroused.

One thing I realized is that Christians are trying to something they alone shouldn't be fighting about... "Christians hate gays.." "Atheists had bad childhoods.." "Mexicans are stupid..." "AIDS came from gays..."

Those statements above are either stereotypes or just too narrow. As Nozomu stated in another thread, mankind is inherently altruistic, or selfish. "Christian" or not, there will be people who make fun of gays, just as there are people who look down upon blacks, see atheists as illogical, and think doctors are total lunatics. The categories aren't "Christians who make fun of gays" and "non-christians who make don't make fun of gays"... the categories are "People who make fun of gays" and "people who don't make fun of gays." To make this more clear, one person once said "The biggest problem that hinders the spread of Christianity is Christians!" There are relatively few Christians who actually try to be "moral", oddly enough. It's quite a shame, really.

Now, for Nozomu's statement. Although I take the Bible very literally, there are a minute amount of parts which could be "rationalized" as "the time frame", such as what you are stating right now Nozomu. Actually Nozomu, this is probably one of the largest cases of shoehorning(not you, the Christians) and strawman i've ever seen. Here, I'll tell you why.



I learned about this recently in Bible class. This mirrors 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, which is why I can have authority over this verse. The reason they are told to keep silent, is because Paul had recently learned that women were being inquisitive in the church. While it is good to be curious, they were being very rude and constantly disrupting the sermons. This is why Paul told them to keep silent in the church.



One part is a common mistake: "not a woman to teach, nor to usurp the authority over a man". When I see it.. my mind thinks, "She cannot teach over a man or to have authority over a man". That is much different than "She cannot teach. She does not have authority over a man." Also, I'd like to point out the timeframe. This is a time when women had few rights; women weren't even considered to be reliable in a court of law! God usually doesn't explode a bunch of stuff upon you all at once. Jesus had prophesies of him thousands of years before he came; he wasn't just some astounding act of God coming randomly! God has his own timeframe for things, a timeframe not even Christians like .



Ephesians 5:22-24 - They really should read the fine print.. or as we Americans call it: The bottom line. Ephesians 5:33 states "However, each one of you(men) also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect his husband." Think of the ranking system in Japan, alter it slightly. All higher rankings treat all rankings below them as the same height as them, but all lower rankings respect those in higher ranks. Think of it this way Nozomu: You treat me and everybody else about the same way, but since I am "beneath" you, I choose my words carefully and respect you.

1 Corinthians 11:3 - The sheer nerve of that church! Don't they know what "in-context" means??? One, look back up at the top at 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 to see one problem. Secondly, don't they even read the whole passage??? They really should have read 11:11-12. Now to make sure I am not myself doing a straw man, 13-15 is about the timeframe. Back then, a woman who didn't cover her hair was considered to have "loose morals", so wearing their veils protected them from harassment.

Colossians 3:18 - Context, context, context. Paul here was giving simple rules to the Colossians, because cults were spring up everywhere. Paul was basically just making a rulebook of sorts to show what is a cult and what is not. You could probably call Colossians "Bare bones", because that's really what it is. It is showing the fine line between cults and non-cults. I don't think Paul had to explain his reasoning for this because his motives were different. Yes, I do realize what I am saying is somewhat shaky and not as factual as the others, but all he does is state that and gives no other explanation in the book.

All other questions except "What is the role of a widow?" use the old Testament to describe women. If they thought about it, Jesus had changed many of the Old Testament writings. Eye for an Eye was removed; Love your enemies was added... Jesus was changing the rules!!! One of the main reasons Jesus even exists is because he was to reveal some revelation, just like why John the Baptist existed too. Our third candidate to change the Old Testament (even though he was a legalist himself!!!) was Paul. He made women more equal to men. Of course, if he made women EQUAL to men, I doubt Christianity would have ever been so widely spread. Anyways...


This passage I don't understand much of. I mean, I can get that if a woman loses their husband, they should pray to God to figure out what the heck is going on. I also that widows shouldn't just foolishly spend the rest of their life in lust because the love of their life has died. Depressed is a loaded word with too much of a negative connotation to this phrase. Can you find a better word for it?

In the end, dear Nozomu, there are many ways to misinterpret something, and only few ways to interpret correctly. I narrowed mine closer to the possible correct ways by context. Yes, Nozomu, I do also realize that Christians are very contradictory in many areas. But of course, it is our duty to remove the false thoughts and get to the truth, is it not?

And, indecisiveman, bad Christians are still Christians, but they have no heart to what they believe. Even the writers of the New Testament battled over if you are a "Christian" if you have a relationship with God but do not do good works.

If you want to use the "timeframe" argument, we can apply it directly to the argument against gay people. Back then, being gay was much more likely to get you killed - people were far less tolerant than they are now.

Are you saying that you shouldn't do what the Bible says because it can't be applied properly to today's timeframe? That it's too dated to be relevant to the problems faced by today's humans? I don't think that that's your point, but if you can disregard any one point because of the "timeframe" thing you mentioned you can certainly disregard another. It's that kind of selective literal interpretation of the Bible that pisses me off. You can't just discount one passage and maintain that the rest are perfectly credible.

Wow I am like totally confused. Nozumo who the heck are you talking too? And if its me what the heck does a "timeframe" have to do with anything? And again, where did killing people ever come from? Also, earlier you posted about women...the discussion is for gay people not women being murdered Anyways start calrifying your post so I can respond properly.

Edit#1: Quick edit. Kirby, they are not Christian because you can not just claim you are something and then not do it....wow I suck with words....well ane xample. Let's pretend one day I said "I am an atheist. I go to church and believe in God." Can that be true? No, so just because you claim something does NOT mean it is true. Same with Christians, if you claim you are a Christian you can't just do bad things and not believe in God. So I believe you can't be a true Christian unless you go to Church, follow God's orders, and baptize yourself and all of that.

Only in the Jewish community... and even they kept going back to it.


No no no... How can I say this?
1) Some of the things Paul stated were because of reasons at that moment. For example, I will use one argument atheists probably use against Christianity. It goes like this: since people back then were very simple, they would believe anything because they didn't know enough. In comparision, Paul states that in the church that wives should be submissive to their husbands and not talk out loud, but instead do it privately at home. Why did he say this? He stated it because a problem in that church was that women were not restraining themselves during sermons and rudely blurting out questions.

2) Most of my arguments had nothing to do with the "timeframe"; I was showing their complete straw manning. Think about my first refutation. Look at exactly what they quote: "She has nothing valuable to say..." LOOK AT THAT STRAW MANNING RIGHT THERE!! I have shown you in the paragraph above what it really means. Big difference.. isn't it?

Now to understand what I mean by "timeframe", I mean that back then there were different cultural differences. Paul gave guidance to problems that meant to solely back then. Im not saying Paul ONLY gave things to them, but some of his were only to them. The "groups" I put these verses in are: (1)Based upon the current situation, (2) Misinterpretation/Strawman, and (3) What's your point?.

Every single one of these things I have refuted falls into those three categories, EXCEPT This was because I think God works slowly. He never does this "drastic explosion of truth", unless he has given his whole preparation and ceremony but to no avail.

To make more sense than I probably am, I'm trying to make "timeframe" one of those "ad" fallacies where we shouldn't obey it because it is old. I am saying if it has become outdated. "What is he talking about??" you may be wondering. If you pass a law, remove it, and make new laws, do you follow the old laws? By no means! That's sheer stupidity! Jesus did not condemn the new laws, but he stated the old laws will not bring life. I belive Paul also talks about the Law in Romans, being a legalist himself.

No way I want to be hypocritical and be "selective" about the Bible; thats the definition of a Deist! *winces at the thought

Edit: I understand what you mean indecisiveman, but you don't have to go to church or be baptized to be a Christian. Just so you know.

*Off topic Rant*

1. He is obviously talking about you.



2. You are not confused you just want him to say more so that you can exploit his post.



3.
Read your own posts.



4. Hypocrite, because this topic is not about Christians and you are obviously trying to make it into an arguement about Christians, don't avoid your own arguements, then be a hypocrite.



5.
What do you call all of your other posts?

*Back to the topic*
It is not as dangerous to be gay as it was before, but there still can be dangers to being gay, but even so, people have no right to be biased against gay people. I hear stupid opinions all the time about gay people. Ex. "That man is gay, don't listen to him." Gay people are still people, there was an article in the news about a college student being mugged and beaten to death because he was gay, I mean honestly, if you are in college you should be smarter than to be biased against someone. (Muggers must have cheated thier way through.)