Discrimination Against Gays - What Would You Base That On?

[Tristen]

2 hours ago, thomas t said:

It is. Nondiscrimination is a human right. ...

“Nondiscrimination is a human right. "We all have the right to be treated equally, regardless of our race, ethnicity, nationality, class, caste, religion, belief, sex, language, sexual orientation, gender identity, age,health or other status. " amnesty says*. ”

This raises a lot of questions.

- Firstly, I think there is legitimate discrimination in all these areas. For example, young people aren't able to do a lot of things adults can do (driving, drinking, working etc.). That is discrimination on the basis of age. There are gyms and doctors that only serve females. That is discrimination on the basis of sex. Citizens often have rights that non-citizens don't. That is discrimination on the basis of nationality. There are scholarships that are only available to certain races/ethnicities. Often you need to speak the language to qualify for a job. So there is some logical provision for reasonable discrimination in every system of rights.

- Then we need to ask, 'what exactly are “human rights” and where do they come from?' In the US declaration of Independence states “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says we shouldn't discriminate on the basis of “race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty”. No mention of “sexual orientation” or “gender identity”.

If rights are determined by secular organisations (like “Amnesty”), doesn't that mean they can be taken away by secular organisations. If rights can be added at the whim of society, why can't they be removed just as readily? How long before freedom of religion is limited to conform to secular values? But if rights are “endowed by their Creator”, then surely those rights should conform to God's stated values. The Apostle Paul was the first in history to promote the revolutionary idea (at the time) of universal equality – which should be applied regardless of sex, ethnicity or economic status (Gal 3:28). But would the Creator endorse rights on the basis of an explicit sin? Should the church be obligated to respect rights that promote values which are antagonistic to Christian values?

- Is our discussion really about denying the rights of any of these groups? Or is it more about the right to choose who we associate with? Do we have the right to choose who comes into our home? Does a church have the right to choose who comes through its doors?

- If freedom of thought and religion are rights, what do we do when rights clash (e.g. religion vs sexual orientation)? Who gets to choose which rights win out?

- What is “sexual orientation”? Is it just about sexual desire, or is it inclusive of sexual practice? No one is excluded from church for having carnal desires (because we all have those). But we don't all try to excuse or justify carnal behaviours. It only becomes a potential issue when a person decides to prioritise the practice of sin over God's explicit will.

I think a church has every reasonable right to choose who comes through their doors. I don't think it's a violation of anyone's fundamental human rights to be excluded – regardless of the reason; but especially if it's on the basis of religious values. I'm not endorsing any decision, but I think its a little ridiculous to suggest it's a human rights issue.

 

“Here we see a post claiming homosexuality was a mental disorder. The author didn't bother to back anything up in this regard”

I don't think disagreement justifies a claim of homophobia. But I do think you have every right to ask if they can support their assertion.

 

“I'm neutral with regard to whether or not God made them gay.”

That's your position, but I would suggest most Christians agree with scripture that homosexual practice is a sin. And it is that premise that influences how we approach the question you asked. So it is fair that Christian will challenge your neutral premise on homosexuality – on the basis of Christian scripture.

 

“My keypoint is, the moment you promote inequality, you should be able to prove that it is possible to alter your sexual orientation through choices”

I disagree. No one has ever verified a biological origin of homosexuality. So when you are asking questions of Christians, we are only obligated to agree with our scriptures. It's perfectly rational for us to conclude that God knows what science doesn't. But again, very few churches would exclude someone for having carnal desires. The only basis for considering exclusion would be the unrepentant practice of those desires.

 

[Omegaman 3.0]

8 hours ago, thomas t said:

Whether you consider it sin or not, never judge a person.

Really? 1 Cor 5:

9I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church^b whom you are to judge? 13God judges^c those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

[Mike Mclees]

It is not possible to be of Christ and live an immoral lifestyle. End of subject. You would only be fooling yourself to believe otherwise. 

You tac a word on almost anything. Discrimination is just another one

[frienduff thaylorde]

9 hours ago, thomas t said:

Hi Tzephanyahu, we agree in 99% of all spiritual things I am very happy for that. I most appreciate your discussions with unbelievers. We are not identical persons, it's just natural we disagree in 1 point (or more).

(1) that's not identity. They could just take another wife.

(2) there's a victim (the animal). So the case is different.

There is always a victim with regard to cross-generations incest. That case is different again.

Ask to leave all the people that sin without their identity being involved + the ones causing victims.

Tzeph, I'm looking forward to debating further with you.

Thomas

 

Edit: One remark may be allowed re the abomination. For God certain things are an abomination, if you think homosexuality belongs to that category... would you ever consider to perhaps refrain from stating this opinion of yours? As a matter of respect towards other minorities?

Your entire approach comes from that seeker friendly .

And homosexuality is not an identity it is a sin .    Being born black , white etc that is an identity .   Sin is just bondage .

Paul said , so I say , if any in the church is covetous ,  idolator ,   etc ,   SINNING ,   separate them out .

This identity politics has sadly wedged its way into the church .

And we are not to set our methods based on wordly views and how they identify .   We set our methods based on SCRIPTURE , GODS HOLY WORDS man .

Homosexuality is sin .   I can identify as whatever I like at the end of the day ,  BUT none of what any of us thinks matters .  ITS what GOD has determined that matters man .

Your approach is not new ,   I have watched this over the years .    And it has not saved any ,  in fact it has caused many a church to fall only father into sin and acceptance of sin .

We have a method ,   JESUS set it for the church  and the apostels taught in .     Any in sin must be rebuked.   And if they wont heed it , they must be cast out of the church .

We have to follow the Biblical pattern ,  not what our own sensual minds thinks works best , BUT that pattern Alone .

You seem quite young ,  so you were raised up in a generation that has no idea what it has lost .   I don't say that to be mean ,  even my generation was having serious errors in

the church .   But as time has went on things have only gotten so muchworse .    Folks have no idea these days what most of the churches have lost .  In fact

most churches don't even know that they are lost .  They are following patterns that sensual men have long back set up .   And its causing only destruction and has destroyed

many .  OH they may have lots of numbers and are growing , but they are massively falling away worse than ever .   And have no idea they are .  THEY see it as love

peace , unity , fellowship ,   but its all a wrong version of it all man .    The problem is most have never truly been taught and engrained real deep in the original pattern

nor sound doctrine .      You must start over and go only into the bible .     You would be amazed at how fast your mind will become clearer and clearer .

But keep on this path and you are In danger  .     We cannot  take the steps that Christ and those apostels taught OUT of the church and try and find a witty way

to win souls , ITS NOT going to work .  It never has , it never will .   OH the numbers will go through the roof .  no doubt on that .   I watched

tiny churches blossom almost over night with numbers , but they Lost the true light too .    WE must learn the true biblical pattern for all things .

OH dear ,   WE MUST LEARN IT fast .    Or only worse and worse and more and more will keep falling away .  

Edited May 31, 2019 by frienduff thaylorde

[frienduff thaylorde]

Man does not determine what is right holy just and true .    ONLY GOD does .

Identity politics has no place in the church .  It never did it never will .

Man can claim to identify as gay , or as a woman ,  or a white man can even try and identify as being black .   But aint none of it true .

We cannot identify with SIN .    And those who do so and have pleasure in those who do the same , are in dire grave danger .

I am telling us we are in the last of days ,   Look at how reprobate the minds of a generation has become .

And why did this occur .     Because as they did not like to retain GOD in their conscious , in their schools , streets ,    He gave them over to a reprobate mind .

And judgment is at the door .     Back when I was a child sin was all around ,   but it was more hidden in the dark .

NOW ye have become as Sodom unto me ,  Ye no longer even hide your sin , you celebrate it in the streets .  GOD Told this to the jews BEFORE HE smashed them flat .

ONLY now its the churches and not just in America but world wide .   And this celebrate and honor sin event ,  its not just in America its world wide .

SO a world wide total destruction is coming .    Even now as we speak a tremendous delusion has been unleashed and I tell us all, that all who go under

it will be damned to perdition .    The whole world is more and more cheering all inclusive , calling sin love , calling good evil and evil good and worse our churches are too .

GOD will not change ,  JUDGMENT of delusion has been sent and all who loved a lie and all who rejected the love of truth and wanted rather to have pleasure in sins unrighteousness

will believe a lie and as it runs it course and the final hour ticks away ,  they all will go under the wrath of GOD .

WE got to DO something .   And that something is to get folks back into bibles and preach the biblical JESUS and the biblical pattern .  

We cant stop what is and what is to come ,    but we can warn souls and pray they come out from among them .     Warn people , don't let us be as seeker friendly

who has destroyed the churches and now as many others too ,  are accepting all inclusive , sins and evil and worse they do it IN HIS NAME .

We must go out faithful to the lamb , and we must exhort all to continue in the TRUE faith once delivered and not this false stuff so many churches are doing .

[Ragingheart]

In God eyes it's a obomonation for men of the same sex to be together, is it not.... 

 

[thomas t]

On 5/30/2019 at 3:53 PM, Billiards Ball said:

Following Matthew 18:

1) A church member confronts them (lovingly) about their sin

2) If unrepentant, they bring along a disinterested Christian party, to witness the re-engaged discussion

3) If unrepentant a church elder(s) is brought in for direction/discussion

4) If unrepentant, they are asked to leave the church

Hi BB,

in case of sin...

4) is wrong. Verse 17 says if unrepentant they should be treated like someone from this world. This means that they should be treated tolerantly and politely, and they should be invited for next service, too.

This is true, even if here on Worthy atheists are made to leave the main sections.

3) is wrong, too, in my opinion - verse 17, in general, speaks about the church as a whole, not the church elder.

... answering a bit late.

See you,

Thomas

[Omegaman 3.0]

14 minutes ago, thomas t said:

This is true, even if here on Worthy atheists are made to leave the main sections.

That sort of misses the point. The thing is, that we know from our past here at Worthy, that all too often, that Atheists become a distraction, and sometimes even antagonistic, though most are well behaved. A problem often arises, where they see something that they question, and want to comment on, or just plain disagree with. This leads to the topic going off trac, and robs those who were on topic, of being able to have the discussion they were having.

It is not a punishment, nor censorship, nor anything like that. What it is, is a way to preserve certain areas, where believers can discuss things with like minded people. While we welcome everyone to the forums, who are interested in participating as good citizens of the forums, there is nothing wrong with setting areas aside for specific purposes. We do not  want, people to be discussing the idea of impeaching a president, in a recipe area, or discussing topics like "What is sin, anyway" in the section devoted to prayer requests.

The forums are divided into various topic, so that discussion can be more orderly, not chaotic. We do not exclude Atheists, or for that matter other non-believers. Instead, we have added special sections, where they can contribute their own thoughts, without disrupting others, While we are very inclusive, welcoming and hopefully loving to people who believe differently, this is, after all, worthyCHRISTIANforums. It is Christ centers, most Atheists are not, so we welcome them as guests. They are invited to be here, just as Christians and others are, we are ALL guests here.

We could have this website, set up in a way, that it could not be viewed by everyone, but atheists and others, are permitted to view what we talk about in areas of theology, ethics, or what have you. We have set aside areas, where the can ask questions, about what we believe, and why we believe, and in that, co-mingle with believers. I think that is quite accommodating to their needs, and I think that is how it should be. If we do not rub shoulders with non-believers, how would the great commission ever be fulfilled.

Unfortunately, certain unbeliever seem to take joy or pleasure, or are even on mission, to try to damage the faith of those, who may not be mature enough in their beliefs, to not be harmed in the process. I think we have a responsibility to protect others, and do not feel that we are discriminating in a bad sort of way.

Atheists are never made to leave, they are just restricted to read and not disrupt, some areas. The only time anyone is made to leave, is when they are either big trouble makers, or a continuing problem. That standard is not limited to Atheists, it applies to all people, no matter what they believe. No one made them join, they join for their own reasons, and when they do, they do so agreeing to our terms of service. There is a lot of good stuff going on here, provided at no charge, with a lot of people taking a lot of time out of their lives, to make all of this available.

End of my defense of our practices.

[thomas t]

Hello Choir Loft,

20 hours ago, choir loft said:

Gays making out in the pews and seats is inappropriate.

Then don't allow for making out in the first place. If you say noone should be making out in service it's fine.

20 hours ago, choir loft said:

Many gays are politically aggressive when it comes to advancing their agenda

many feminists are, too. Rightly so.

 

20 hours ago, choir loft said:

their wickedness and filth

+

20 hours ago, choir loft said:

Of all people they are the most hypocritical. 

Sorry, that's generalizing. Let's keep the peace, please.

20 hours ago, choir loft said:

This includes the forbidden life style of gays.  

In common law, it's legal?

20 hours ago, choir loft said:

gay folks [...] (1) demand respect and inclusion but (2) give it not to others.

You didn't back No. 2 up. I think this is a homophobic statement. To me it comes across as saying "feel free to accuse these gays of something... no need to back it up!"

Regards,

Thomas

----

Hi Tzeph,

thank you for your answer. Yeah, your replies are always thoughtful.

Actually, we live now, noone knows what will be in 100 years . But I agree with you in that even Hitler can return, so please let's nip in the bud any forms of child abuse.

There is always a power gap between a mother and son... which means that any sexual contact between these two can't be truely consensual. So I kindly stay with my opinion that there is a victim. Always.

I wish you many debates with non-believers and good luck for it!

Thomas

Hi Mike,

no I'm not defending anything gay. This is about nondiscrimination.

Hi Tristen,

well, youngsters need to be protected. When you don't permit them to drive at the age of 12, it is in their interest.

Women-only courses is not discrimination as it is always possible for men to do the same.

19 hours ago, Tristen said:

Citizens often have rights that non-citizens don't. That is discrimination on the basis of nationality.

There is a right to citizenship for all. Every human being has the right to at least 1 citizenship in at least 1 state in the world.

19 hours ago, Tristen said:

a little ridiculous

Amnesty is the biggest human rights organization. So I think they should be heard. What they say isn't ridiculous, in my opinion. Amnesty saved many Christians, I think. I once had the occasion to meet a brother-in-Christ (I mean that's what he said to be), saved by a Swedish amnesty group from Bautzen which was the No.1 political prison in former German Democratic Republic.

19 hours ago, Tristen said:

Do we have the right to choose who comes into our home? Does a church have the right to choose who comes through its doors?

Showing no partiality is a biblical principle.

 

19 hours ago, Tristen said:

“Here we see a post claiming homosexuality was a mental disorder. The author didn't bother to back anything up in this regard”

I don't think disagreement justifies a claim of homophobia.

I think it is a homophobic act to call them mentally ill... when you can't back this up.

Regards, Thomas

 

Hi Omegaman,

If you speak about sin... point given. But when it comes to applying 1 cor 5 to gays and lesbians... will there ever be an end to applying this verse as cited below? How many years should this be going on? 10 years? 20? no end?

16 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

am writing to you not to associate with anyone

Regards,

Thomas

[Tristen]

2 hours ago, thomas t said:

Hi Tristen,

well, youngsters need to be protected. When you don't permit them to drive at the age of 12, it is in their interest.

Women-only courses is not discrimination as it is always possible for men to do the same.

There is a right to citizenship for all. Every human being has the right to at least 1 citizenship in at least 1 state in the world.

Amnesty is the biggest human rights organization. So I think they should be heard. What they say isn't ridiculous, in my opinion. Amnesty saved many Christians, I think. I once had the occasion to meet a brother-in-Christ (I mean that's what he said to be), saved by a Swedish amnesty group from Bautzen which was the No.1 political prison in former German Democratic Republic.

Showing no partiality is a biblical principle.

I think it is a homophobic act to call them mentally ill... when you can't back this up.

Regards, Thomas

Hey Thomas,

For Context: I gave a couple of everyday examples of reasonable discrimination that we consider morally acceptable, and you responded to my example of age discrimination with; “youngsters need to be protected. When you don't permit them to drive at the age of 12, it is in their interest.”

Right. Some discrimination can be reasonably justified. That's my point. To just label any discrimination a human rights issue is simplistic and impractical. The conversation has to go beyond that simplistic standard to address the complexities of the issue. Is it reasonable for a religious institution to discriminate on the basis of sincerely held beliefs? If not, aren't we then discriminating against people with the beliefs? Do people with belief have a right to choose who they do and don't associate with? Do people holding different beliefs, or people antagonistic to the religion, have the right to demand unfettered access to a religious institution?

It is a far more complex equation than the simplistic proposal that all discrimination represents a suppression of human rights.

 

“Amnesty is the biggest human rights organization. So I think they should be heard. What they say isn't ridiculous”

I never claimed Amnesty was ridiculous. I claimed that characterising the church's freedom to discriminate who they associate with as a human rights issue, is ridiculous. Even if a church prohibits homosexuals attending their services, no one is being deprived of anything fundamental to their humanity.

 

In response to me asking; “Do we have the right to choose who comes into our home? Does a church have the right to choose who comes through its doors?”, you responded with “Showing no partiality is a biblical principle”

This again, is a gross oversimplification of the issue. How far do we take the “no partiality principle”? Are Christians really obligated to give everyone access to our homes who wants to come in – because only letting trusted people into our homes and around our children is discrimination? Should we let atheists preach from our pulpits that it's OK to reject Christ – because not allowing them to do so is discriminating against their beliefs? The Biblical principle of not showing partiality has a context – it is not a universal tenet of morality. God Himself judges between the saved and unsaved. Is God a bigot?

 

“I think it is a homophobic act to call them mentally ill... when you can't back this up.”

How can an idea ever be tested (and backed up) if it can't even be proposed without the accusation of “bigot!!!”. That is a far more dangerous standard – to curtail the expression of uncomfortable ideas. That is a form of tyranny – against freedom of thought and expression.

There is nothing inherently homophobic about having an opinion which represents a logical possibility. But then you have every right to ask the person making the claim to provide rational support for any assertion they make. And if they don't attempt to do so, you are under no obligation to consider their assertion.