Thursday, December 19, 2013

Robertson, Christians, and homosexuality

So there is a big kerfluffle going on about Robertson saying that he disagrees with homosexuality. There are many Christians running around, shouting about how God hates fags. They base this opinion on Leviticus 20:13, which says:

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination

and they then claim that, being Christians, they have to follow the Bible. "Ok," I say, "then you must also follow Leviticus 20:20, which says:"

If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.
Or how about Leviticus20:9:

All who curse father or mother shall be put to death; having cursed father or mother, their blood is upon them. 

So how many adulterers have you killed? How many smart mouthed children? The Bible is the basis for your religion, and I get that. But if you are going to demand that everyone else has to follow what your Bible says, then you need to accept ALL of it, and let the chips fall where they may.

If instead, you agree that maybe killing people for adultery is a bit harsh, then you must also admit that your entire religion is based on a document with which you do not agree, and you can choose to ignore parts of it. Which you have done, or there would be piles of dead adulterers and smart mouthed children lying about.

See, the Christians who are doing this are simply attempting to use their religion as an excuse to practice hatred and to control the lives of other people.
I don't like cherry flavored food. Ice cream, candy, nothing with cherry flavoring. That doesn't mean that I am going to go around criticizing people who do. That also doesn't mean that I am going to get in people's faces and demand that they refrain from eating cherries around me.
On the flip side, you homosexuals need to back off a bit, too. The reason why there is so much backlash against homosexuality is that you keep trying to force people to like you.
All of us need to live and let live. You do your thing, and I will do mine.

4 comments:

ccbpc said...

Live and let live is a fine concept, if the other side would follow it. Personally, I have no problem with what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, but the LGBT crowd (or whatever they're calling themselves nowadays) have taken it out of their bedrooms and into the streets for our young children and everyone else to see and are demanding we accept it.

The problem is, apparently by law their views opinions and actions are protected, but mine and Mr. Robertson's, as heterosexual Christian Caucasian men, aren't. Prove me wrong and I'll buy you a steak dinner.

Bottom line: Biblical teachings aside, homosexual behavior is unnatural. Yes, it does happen in nature, but no species can propagate with members of the same sex engaging in sexual congress without medical intervention.

Mr. Robertson voiced his Constitutionally protected opinion and was punished for it. A&E and their sponsors will be treated accordingly.

Divemedic said...

Mr Robertson's opinion is Constitutionally protected. He does not, however, have a right to his own television show.

Sailorcurt said...

1. You don't get to determine how we practice our religion. I'm not going to get into a deep theological discussion about the "New Covenant" and aspects of Christianity that you either don't understand, or don't accept, but suffice it to say that it is simply not up to you to determine how someone else practices their religion or whether they are doing it right.

2. You are absolutely correct that Mr. Robertson does not have a right to his own television show. But just as he has the right to express his opinion in any venue he chooses, and A&E has the right to terminate his contract if he violates the terms of it (I'm sure there's some clause in there about saying things that embarrasses the network), the customers of that network, and anyone else who has an opinion on the subject, have every right to condemn A&E for their decision.

Yes, people are incorrectly claiming that A&E is violating the 1st amendment. So what? They're wrong in that, but that doesn't mean they're wrong in expressing their outrage.

3. Throwing out the "hatred" canard puts you on the same level as those who claim anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly embrace and accept homosexual behavior as moral, righteous and pure are "homophobes". I don't hate anyone...not even you after you've ineffectually attempted to insult my religion...but that doesn't mean I have to like what they do, how they act, or what they say.

Divemedic said...

1. No, but neither do you. That includes you forcing people who do NOT share your beliefs into following them. I love how you assholes pick and choose what parts of the Bible you follow so that you can use religion to further your message of intolerance. There is no difference in philosophy between you and the Taliban.
2. I am sure that your boycott of companies that oppose equal rights will ultimately be as successful as the boycott of Disney.
3. You hate homosexuals. I get it. and you can if you want. I can also see the church for what it is: intolerance. No one is asking you bunch of drug taking, pedophilic child rapist hypocrites
to embrace homosexuality, just asking you to mind your own fucking business. You don't have to like it, you just have to keep out of the business of others.