Campus club seeks right to exclude gays

[Guest Loss]

Link here

 

Campus club seeks right to exclude gays

 

Tue Dec 28, 9:40 AM ET  Top Stories - Chicago Tribune

 

By Vincent J. Schodolski Tribune national correspondent

 

A legal confrontation is playing out here as a student organization seeks official recognition and money from a state-run university even though the students plan to exclude non-Christians and gays.

 

A group of Christian students at Arizona State University's law school formed a chapter of the Christian Legal Society, a national organization that unites Christian lawyers and law students for fellowship, mutual legal support, meetings and Bible readings.

 

After the university refused to recognize the group, the society's national headquarters in Washington, D.C., drafted a lawsuit challenging the university over its anti-discrimination policies, a move that echoes similar and sometimes successful efforts across the country.

 

In the lawsuit, the society argues that the members at Arizona State have a constitutionally protected right to organize and receive university recognition under the 1st and 14th Amendments.

 

Members of the Christian Legal Society must sign a statement of faith, a document that essentially is the Apostles' Creed. In the declaration, members attest to their faith in God and also say the Bible is the "inspired word of God."

 

Exclusionary position

 

Based on their interpretation of biblical passages on homosexuality, members draw the groundwork to exclude practicing homosexuals from membership. In the federal lawsuit, lawyers from the Christian Legal Society spell out their position.

 

The society at "ASU interprets its statement of faith to require that officers adhere to orthodox Christian beliefs, including the Bible's prohibition of sexual contact between persons of the same sex," the suit says.

 

"A person who engages in homosexual conduct or adheres to the viewpoint that homosexual conduct is not sinful would not be permitted to become a member or serve as an officer" of the group at Arizona State, the suit adds.

 

It goes on to say that a person who has engaged in homosexual acts but has "repented" or people who may have homosexual inclinations but do not act on those inclinations would be eligible for membership.

 

M. Casey Mattox, litigation counsel for the Christian Legal Society in Washington, said the group asked Arizona State to exempt the chapter from having to comply with university policies that required non-discrimination against people on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation.

 

Nancy Tribbensee, a staff attorney for the university, said Arizona State will not comply with the society's request. "We are aggressively defending" the non-discrimination policy, she said.

 

Tribbensee said the university was drafting its response to the society's complaint, which is due to be filed by Friday.

 

Previous successes

 

While Tribbensee said the school has no intention of settling with the group, the Christian Legal Society has been successful in previous attempts to get universities to grant exemptions.

 

In a recent case at Ohio State University, officials ultimately allowed a chapter to form and be recognized and allowed the group to refuse membership to non-Christians and homosexuals.

 

"It ended up in our changing our policy," said Amy Murray, assistant director of media relations at Ohio State.

 

Murray said the university, after reviewing the society's complaint, revised its non-discrimination policy to allow religious groups to establish their own policies regarding discrimination.

 

Some legal experts say the constitutional argument used by society lawyers is fairly solid and that the Ohio State officials probably concluded they would lose.

 

Following Scouts' lead

 

Richard Myers, a professor at the Ave Maria School of Law, a Roman Catholic institution in Ann Arbor, Mich., likened the society's legal argument to those used by the Boy Scouts of America. He referred to a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) ruling that the organization had the right to exclude homosexuals from being scoutmasters.

 

"It is kind of standard for these kinds of exceptions," he said. "If they [universities] apply it only to religious groups, they have a slam-dunk case. This group [CLS] provides a different perspective and should be allowed to do so."

 

But other lawyers say that giving public money to a group that discriminates is illegal and morally wrong.

 

"They are forcing taxpayers to underwrite discrimination," said David Tseng, a Washington attorney who has specialized in non-discrimination law. "The endorsement of discrimination is appalling," he said.

 

Tseng, formerly executive director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, said the use of public money was the crucial factor and that tax money should be spent to advance the public good.

 

The members of the Christian Legal Society "have the right to meet and to organize, but the example we are setting for students is that bigotry is acceptable," he said. "They are using the mantle of religion to mask a very blunt objective, that is to deny equality."

 

I find this hilarious because it is so very hypocritical. First of all, could you imagine Christ saying "You are not welcome", to ANYBODY? I thought that was the whole point of Christianity. Also, Christians and "morally conscious" people are always the very first to go ballistic when state or federal funding is used for something they object to, like the scandal in the early 90s about the National Endowment of the Arts (think "Piss Christ").

 

Personally, I'm not as riled up about this as you'd think, as I can't imagine any gay person or even non-Christian wanting to join this group, and if they want to do this then I do believe it's their right, even if they do get the funding from the school. I think they have their heads up their asses though, and the "signing of the Apostle's Creed" thing is downright laughable. I do have a problem with how they want to hold everybody up to a standard that they themselves are not willing to accept, i.e. the use of taxpayers money to fund something someone else might find objectionable (discrimination written into an organization's charter).

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Typical. Which is kinda funny since Jesus wasn't exactly fond of the ladies.

[NoCalMike 0]

By reading the article and the quotes by club members, you'd get the feeling they almost purposely made this club just to say they had SOMETHING they could exclude gays from. Pricks.

[Precious Roy 0]

They absolutely have the right to exclude anyone they like, but they shouldn't recieve funding or official status from the university. They just have to decide which is more important to them.

[Sideburnious 0]

Its pretty funny because I doubt any gay people new the club exsisted/gave a shit that it did in the first place.

[Toshiaki Koala 0]

Why would a non-Christian want to join a Jesus club?

[Special K 0]

Curiosity? Have you ever studied a religion that you don't personally believe in? Or maybe they do good charity work. Either way, they have to be let in. Or you don't get public money. That's not too harsh methinks. We had a few black clubs at our school that were probably exclusively for black students which is cool, so long as they don't syphon off public money. Same deal with the scouts. Except for there I really feel bad (And I'm an Eagle Scout) that a kid that loves scouts could discover he's gay after adolescence and have to quit.

[MrRant 0]

As long as you don't get public funds feel free to discriminate against anyone you want. But if you do get public funds then you shouldn't be able to exclude men, women, blacks, gay etc. In this case this group shouldn't get anything. I'm sure they can find a few regional churches to support them...

[Astro101 0]

I agree, if they want to exclude gays or whatever, they have the right to. However, no public funds should be given.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Wait, there are Christian lawyers?

 

(ducks)

[Ced 0]

I want to form a campus club supporting atheists, only to see if this group comes after me for excluding Christians like hypocrites.

 

Aside from that, I don't really care unless their club somehow gets public funding.

[NoCalMike 0]

Exlusion = no public money v.50

[Guest SP-1]

Typical. Which is kinda funny since Jesus wasn't exactly fond of the ladies.

That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Seriously, know what you're talking about before you type anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for this: I don't think they should be getting public funds. But if you're running a Christian group, then the people involved need to uphold Christian teaching. If you're a practicing homosexual, you're ignoring at least 2 clear biblical teachings.

[EricMM 0]

Whats so clear about it, SP?

 

NOTHING in the bible is clear. Well that's hyperbole. Big 10, Golden Rule, stuff like that is pretty clear. But where in the NT does it say that homosexuality is a sin? And where does it say that Christianity was for all people? I'll tell you, one of them is a LOT easier to find.

 

If you can find maybe two passages to support your claim, and I can find hundreds, maybe you're picking straws.

[Guest SP-1]

Eric, you've demonstrated a propensity for handling the Bible poorly numerous times on the boards. You twist scripture and differet English translations around to suit your arguments and completely ignore historical and cultural factors of proper interpretation.

 

Don't start with me.

[EricMM 0]

If anyone is handling the bible poorly it's you, using it to justify, JUSTIFY bigotry and inequality.

 

Just drop some verses. Do it.

[Guest SP-1]

If anyone is handling the bible poorly it's you, using it to justify, JUSTIFY bigotry and inequality.

 

Just drop some verses. Do it.

You see bigotry because you twist scripture to your worldview.

 

I have nothing to prove to you, Eric. I'm educated in Hermeneutical investigation. If I do pull on scripture to explain something, you can bet I've got at least a basic understanding of what was going on around it.

 

Scripture is not open to your personal interpretation. It is only open to what it says within its own context.

 

I'm not going to be pulled into an argument with you, because that's all you really want out of this confrontation: an argument. You don't really want to prove anything, you just want to show how wonderful your open interpretive bullshit skills are. Since I already know how good those are, I'll avoid giving you an exercise in them this time.

 

Thanks.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Way to demonstrate you know what you're talking about.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Double penetration.

[Crimson Platypus 0]

Scripture is not open to your personal interpretation. It is only open to what it says within its own context.

 

 

No thinking for you!

 

 

 

 

-edit- Doesn't seem like scripture is open to much of anything really.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

http://americaforjesusland.blogspot.com/

 

 

 

 

Maddog just skip to the end. It's another one of those "long" posts.

 

 

 

 

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

JESUSLAND

by Max Gordon

November 23, 2004

 

There is a thirteen-year-old boy in America who walks to school this morning. He believes he is a pervert because he is sexually attracted to a boy in his class. Undressing in the locker room for gym, he is terrified he will get an erection or his friends will notice him staring at the other boys and call him a homo.

 

At night, he lies in bed. He promised God he wouldn't look at pictures of naked men having sex anymore, but he did it again after school. As a punishment, he pinches his penis between his fingernails until he breaks the skin. He believes the pain is good for him. It is only a fraction of the pain that sinners feel when they go to hell, or what Jesus must have felt on the cross.

 

He sits in church on Sunday and knows the priest is referring to him: deviants whose unnatural desire will keep them from entering the Kingdom of God. When he takes communion, he prays that God will heal the sickness inside him and make him clean and perfect like his Son. He promises to try even harder not to sin than he's ever tried before.

 

After failing again, he decides he has no more tries left in him. He cannot stop the thoughts or change them. He believes God is disgusted with him and that He refuses to help. He stands looking in the bathroom mirror and wonders if he is what a homo looks like. He thinks of his youngest sister coming home from kindergarten with school papers tucked under her arm, and wonders if the boy from his class is in bed sleeping. He lifts his father's gun and shoots himself in the head.

 

On January 2, 1997, 14-year-old Robbie Kirkland committed suicide after struggling with his homosexuality for four years. His mother said at the time, "Our family loved, supported and accepted him but could not protect him from the rejection and harassment he experienced at his Catholic schools." On May 8, 1995, Bill Clayton, 17, took a fatal overdose after being hospitalized for depression. He'd been assaulted by a group of boys in his community because of his sexual orientation. Jacob Lawrence Orosco, 17, hanged himself on September 3, 1997, in his mother's home. When Jacob and nine of his friends tried to form a Gay/Straight student alliance at his school, a group of students at a nearby high school formed SAFE-Students against Fags Everywhere.

 

Anna Wakefield, a lesbian in her 20's from Virginia, hanged herself on February 27, 1997, after being rejected and estranged from her family; Private First Class Barry Winchell, 21, of Kansas City, Missouri, was bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat on July 5, 1999 after rumors that he was gay spread around the post; Steen Fenrich, 19, was killed and dismembered by his stepfather in a homophobic rage, his body found March 21, 2000; Juana Vega, 36, shot in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, November 11, 2001 by her girlfriend's brother, for "turning his sister gay"; Gwen Araujo, a 17-year-old transgender woman from Newark, California, savagely beaten to death on October 3, 2002 by a group of boys at a party; Sakia Gunn, 15, fatally stabbed at a bus stop in Newark, New Jersey, May 11, 2003 after her assailant was told she was a lesbian; Fred Martinez, Jr., a 16-year-old Native American high school student from Cortez, Colorado, found beaten to death, June 21, 2001, his skull crushed with a rock. His 19-year-old killer was heard to have said proudly, "I bug-smashed a fag."

 

A few days after Kerry's concession, Bill Clinton gave a speech at a conference of the Urban Land Institute in New York. The Daily News quoted him as saying that Kerry could have made more of an impact with small-town voters by emphasizing his opposition to gay marriage. "He said it once or twice, instead of 3,000 times, in rural communities. If we let people believe our party doesn't believe in faith and family, that's our fault." Clinton: our moral authority on marriage and sex. As a gay man in America, perhaps I am responsible for the unraveling of the moral fabric of this country, but I have never used a cigar in bed, and I absolutely draw the line at wearing a dress from the GAP.

 

America listens to its presidents, present and past. The president sets the tone for tolerance in the land. When a president proposes discriminatory legislation or supports it, however unlikely it may seem that it will be voted into law, the message he sends to the rest of the country is clear: these are the people you have my permission to harm. George W. Bush's proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage is more than just a vindictive president's desire to deprive gay men of bridal registry; it is the legislation of hate, and its direct consequence will be the sanctioned murder of America's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens.

 

I marvel at the vogue of hate today in this country; who you can freely hate these days and who you can't. You can hate women, and gays, and fat people. You can hate poor people, and the homeless. You can't, however, hate black people or Jews anymore, at least not on television or in print. (You can still hate blacks privately, but Jews are harder; some have blonde hair and it isn't easy to tell if they are in the room.)

 

Black and white Christians have been revitalized by the same-sex ban, agreeing to suspend their hatred for each other in favor of a combined, galvanized hatred for gays. The GOP hates us all year round, but Democrats are "holiday haters," reserving their hate for special occasions - like close elections. Holiday hate never counts as real hate, of course, it's just politics, like little white (water) lies, and promises (fingers crossed) to pass legislation protecting gays in the military once voted into office.

 

And finally, the passive-aggressive haters know a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage based on religious belief is wrong, not to mention unconstitutional, but since they are not "personally" affected by it, they’ve decided to watch from the sidelines. Newsflash: there are no sidelines in America anymore. Civil liberties in this country are an endangered species. We may not care that the Texas red wolf is almost extinct in North America, but, living in the same ecosystem, it might be worth noting, as we may be next.

 

Jesusland, can you honestly say, with all that is wrong in the world today, with millions of people infected with HIV and thousands of new infections each year, with record unemployment, families with no healthcare and billions spent on war, that the greatest moral challenge we face in America today is symbolized by a wedding cake figurine of two grooms?

 

Is homosexuality contagious or reaching epidemic proportions? How else can the sexuality of one section of the American population singly decide the outcome of an entire presidential election? Only one conclusion can be drawn: Gay people in the heartland are doing some serious fucking. I only wish someone had let me in on it. I thought we were supporting Kerry by voting for him. If gay sex is really that powerful, screw the oil in Iraq, Halliburton should be hooking us up to generators.

 

Is homosexuality so irresistible that straight men and women are leaving their homes, mesmerized and in droves, to join the gay ranks? The few straight friends I tried to seduce in my post-coming-out insecurity remained politely, but resolutely, straight. To all those who tried to manipulate me into being heterosexual to further their agendas (my mother), I remained resolutely, sometimes impolitely, gay. One might conclude from this that people are what they say they are and we can all get on with things.

 

Not in Jesusland. Three little words, one tiny sentence, and the best friend's face closes forever, the child is lifted from the lap of the favorite aunt, a mother sends her son his baby pictures with a note saying she no longer has a child, a girl runs away from home to escape her parents' attempts to "beat the devil out of her", a boy is forced to see a psychiatrist and take medication to fix his "problem", a transgender teen hangs herself to avoid being ridiculed at a school assembly the next day.

 

America: you do not have the right to throw your lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens in the garbage. You have a responsibility to protect us whether you like us or not. If you do not approve of gay marriage, do not attend gay weddings. It is not your prerogative to decide who is worthy of your care, or to deny protection to anyone. As American citizens our protection is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

 

We are in a holy war, a fundamentalist Christian jihad, where the possibility exists as never before that Jesusland will finally become Jesusworld. (I wonder what the rides will look like.) With a faith-based president who doesn't respect the Constitution as separate from his belief in God, there is no difference between extending democracy and extending Christianity. Once you free a citizen for elections, you have to free a soul for salvation.

 

Accosted by Christians on subway cars when I first came to New York City, I never ceased being amazed at the chutzpah of a stranger suddenly asking me about my relationship with God; not to mention being deeply insulted by the lack of subtlety that announced the intrusion. "That chocolate ice cream looks delicious; do you have a relationship with Jesus Christ?" I knew that no one would ever have the audacity to say to me, "Excuse me, Sir, how much money is in your bank account?" or "Pardon me for asking, how many times did you make love this week?" Yet somehow just anyone can demand to know on the spot what your relationship is with Jesus, which, if you have one, is arguably the most intimate relationship of them all. I admit it crossed my mind on more than one occasion to reply, "Why yes I do, actually, a pretty good one, and fuck you for asking such a personal question."

 

The most exasperating religious experience ever may be the attempt to convince a born-again Christian that God will allow someone into heaven that isn't "saved" through Jesus Christ. After a brief exchange, I inform the stranger that while I was “saved”, or at least baptized as a child, and my grandfather was a minister of his own church, I have no intention of being part of a religion that doesn't accept me because of my sexuality. My inquisition on the A-train ends and my Jesus interrogator trots off to his next victim, reminding me that "we’re all sinners." He hasn't achieved a new convert, but he's watered that seed of insecurity in me that maybe homosexuality is evil, that gay people do end up in hell and because of what I am, God doesn't like me anymore. It's a child's fear, like dark closets and monsters under the bed, but it can rule a life and last a lifetime.

 

During the six months after college that I ran around cracking people over the head with my Bible, I remember the extraordinary relief that came from finally having the Answer to Everything. No longer circling endlessly on the parking ramp of life, I had finally found a space. Trying to forge a gay identity on my own was too rangy and uncertain, and if I didn't succeed, what could be more disheartening than failing at being a pervert? The world was much easier to understand with my new faith and broken down into two distinct groups; those who were wrong, and us. I did exactly what they told me to do: love God, accept Jesus, and, like courting Santa Claus, try not to be naughty and always be nice.

 

Because my homosexuality, however, is dictated not by fashion or trend, but biology and DNA, I couldn't warp or mutilate myself into the desired new result. My naughtiness eventually outweighed my niceness and I was in deep shit. I wasn't told to leave, exactly, but knew that if I wanted to, I could stick around for a sort of exalted pervert status; the old "God loves you, homosexual, because He loves us all - even child molesters, rapists, and serial killers" line that some Christians think is generous.

 

Certain minds are vulnerable to fundamentalist thinking. Closet gays, immigrants, poor blacks, rich white women with philandering husbands--it draws so many. It's not easy to talk about why fundamentalism is attractive, why a heart might crave it. There comes a time in a life when the world simply becomes too painful for nuance, when it's freezing out and you just want to come inside and have someone say, Relax, we'll take care of you; in fact, we've been waiting for you. Here is the rulebook, no need to ask any questions: just sign here.

 

There isn't an oppressed person alive who at one point or another hasn't felt the seductive gravity of capitulation. The decision to resist always means thrusting oneself into the vast, unknown and dangerous wilderness of truly being free. One is tormented, at the same time, by the grim suspicion that while a secure existence may never be found in self-determination, a designated place always awaits one who will succumb to the State.

 

The violence against gay people, religious, emotional, physical or political, has done what social violence is supposed to; it's driven us underground, afraid to demand our rights or protect them when they are threatened. One good, well-publicized, gay murder can do wonders. Those of us who aren't brutalized or obliterated in elaborate campaigns by strangers or our families, are perpetually trapped in nets of chronic shame; our internalized hatred simplifying the work of the bashers by beating them to it.

 

I was astonished the day I discovered that I was a gay-killer. Indignant over the nationally publicized murders of Matthew Shepard and Brandon Teena, I'd demand a stop to gay bashing, leaving the rally or dinner party for a bashing session of my own with unsafe sex, alcohol and drugs. I had to finally consider the idea that my self-destruction wasn't fabulous or gloriously tragic; it was predictable, and (this hurt the most) not very imaginative. I was complicit with the anti-gay agendas that were aimed at me with the precision of a sniper’s bullet; an accomplice to my own gay assassination. I made a decision that although I wouldn't be able to save every gay life, I could definitely save the one I'd been given. (I'm still saving it; the mistaken assumption being that you only have to save your life once.)

 

I was a thirteen-year-old boy in East Lansing, Michigan on his way to school in 1983, attracted to a boy in my class, and flooded with the shame and terror that I was gay. My father also kept a Smith & Wesson in his closet. I don't believe I would have used it on myself, but a gun in any house has an aura of potential, waiting for the fatal chemistry of an escalating argument or a very, very bad day. What I did have was a lesbian friend in high school, who, one could say, "died for my sins." She came out of the closet first and when I saw that the coast was clear, I came out after her.

 

She was humiliated daily by notes shoved in her locker or jokes made as she walked down the hallway. Girls came up to her in groups during lunch and asked, "Are you gay?" to which she replied, "Why, are you interested?" Leaving a gas station one night, a boy, spurned by her refusals, called her a dyke and punched her in the face. She didn't allow the violence to derail her. I don't think Jesusland would have approved of her - a sassy, courageous, I'm-scared-to-death-but-you'll-never-know- it, 17-year-old black lesbian - but Jesus himself might have.

 

If Jesus is with us, I think he stands beside the black man who faces the lynch mob, the midwife who is brought before the church for being a witch, the bewildered and naked prisoner cowering against his cell wall in Abu Ghraib, the transgender teenager who has decided to dress as herself, no matter what her parents or the kids at school do or say. Jesus stands with all of us, but He especially knows what it's like to be innocent, to be violated and murdered for telling the truth, to face a violent mob and be alone.

 

America. If only you would purify your hate. When we walk into someone's country and wish to take what they have, let's just take it. Why call it liberating the Iraqi people or Operation Iraqi Freedom? Call it stealing and steal it. If you want to kill someone, don't refer to pre-emptive strikes or wars on terror. Kill them.

 

And if you want to hate homosexuals, Jesusland, just hate us. But don’t call it a "moral" or "family" issue, or try to legislate it and say, “I still support civil unions." And for Christ's sake, please stop dragging Jesus into it. Hasn't that poor man been through enough? Whether we believe He was the Savior or not, I think we probably all agree that He was a pretty nice guy that loved all kinds of people and never meant harm to anyone.

 

If He were alive to see this land today, I don't think He'd claim it.

 

 

© Max Gordon

http://maxgordonworks.blogspot.com

[email protected]

[Guest Cerebus]

I don't like what these guys are doing, but they're not a church and they're not priests. If they want to exclude gays they better exclude people who swear, covet people who aren't their spouses, drink to excess, download stuff illegally, and so on. Exclude one type of sinner exclude them all at least.

[EricMM 0]

Yeah I want to argue this point SP; I think that if you won't argue this point, you're conceeding that you have none.

 

I mean come on. This one should be easy for you. I'm probably not as well versed as you, as far as the bible is concerned. I don't know all the words. I spend more time listening to the sermon, and less time reading the scriptures. IF the UCC is wrong, then I'm wrong. But I don't think they are. I'm pretty darn sure you're wrong. Everything I've ever learned and believed about God, Jesus, and my religion says that you, sir, have been twisted by men and women who seek power, authority, and especially justification through their own religion, not peace. Not love. Not God.

[Special K 0]

^^^

Agreed. When the New Testament directly disagrees with the Old Testament, the New Testament is typically what is taken by Christians. It indicated the dawning of a new era. I don't believe there is anything in the gospel according to Mark, Matthew, Luke or John that singles out homosexuals.

So I'm sure this question has been posed to you ad nauseum, SP-1, but why, out of all the catalogued sins in the Old Testament is homosexuality singled out? The only realistic answer I've heard that makes sense is to use one's religion to justify one's personal revulsion.

[Twisted Intestine 0]

If anyone is handling the bible poorly it's you, using it to justify, JUSTIFY bigotry and inequality.

 

Just drop some verses.  Do it.

You see bigotry because you twist scripture to your worldview.

 

I have nothing to prove to you, Eric. I'm educated in Hermeneutical investigation. If I do pull on scripture to explain something, you can bet I've got at least a basic understanding of what was going on around it.

 

Scripture is not open to your personal interpretation. It is only open to what it says within its own context.

 

I'm not going to be pulled into an argument with you, because that's all you really want out of this confrontation: an argument. You don't really want to prove anything, you just want to show how wonderful your open interpretive bullshit skills are. Since I already know how good those are, I'll avoid giving you an exercise in them this time.

 

Thanks.

Scripture was written by man. Then translated by another man. And another. And another.

 

You can't twist what's already been twisted.

[Guest Jason]

I find this hilarious because it is so very hypocritical. First of all, could you imagine Christ saying "You are not welcome", to ANYBODY? I thought that was the whole point of Christianity.

 

Christ doesn't welcome non-believers into Heaven. That's pointed out very clearly in the Bible. And when he did dine with sinners, he didn't sit down and say "It's OK everyone, keep living in sin." He told them how live rightious, and he would tell Gays their lifestyles is wrong, plain and simple. I hate it when people try to say that God accepts sin.

 

But the society has to realize if it wants govt. grants then it is going to be under the rules and regulations of the govt., which unfortunetly in losing all and any morals it had. If they want to be funded, then they cannot discriminate against anyone. That doesn't mean that they can't preach against Homosexuallity if there are Homo's present. But like Loss said, why would someone want to join in first place place, if they were gay or athiest. But if they want the money, than something will have to give.

 

I don't see why don't they don't just become a non-funded group. They can hold meetings and enroll whoever they want or don't want. My college is private and doesn't accept any State or Govt. money. That way they could teach whatever they wanted and teach Bible in every class if they wanted. Despite being private and having exetremly cheap tuition, it is a multi-million dollar school/business.

[Twisted Intestine 0]

I find this hilarious because it is so very hypocritical. First of all, could you imagine Christ saying "You are not welcome", to ANYBODY? I thought that was the whole point of Christianity.

 

Christ doesn't welcome non-believers into Heaven. That's pointed out very clearly in the Bible. And when he did dine with sinners, he didn't sit down and say "It's OK everyone, keep living in sin." He told them how live rightious, and he would tell Gays their lifestyles is wrong, plain and simple. I hate it when people try to say that God accepts sin.

First of all... Why do you have to believe Christ is the messiah to get into heaven? That's the biggest lump of shit I've ever heard. WHY ARE YOU FORCED TO BELIEVE A STORY OF A MAN THAT OTHER MEN HAVE TOLD YOU!? Don't give me the "faith" argument either. Why would God expect you to have faith in what we are taught by man, when man is so currupt. If Hitler *cough* won WWII and made it scripture that Jews are evil, I guess we'd be expected to believe that.. or we wouldn't go to heaven.

 

Secondly, why is being gay wrong? You don't choose to be gay. Yes, there are some people who it is a choice for I'm sure. But what are you suppose to do if guys give you erections and girls don't? You can't change that.

 

I'll stop here, because I just think religion is all a load of horse shit, and I'm sure there are plenty on this board who will take offense to it and prosicute me. After all, it's the way Jesus would have wanted it.

[NoCalMike 0]

EDIT: double post.

[NoCalMike 0]

Homosexuality seems to be singled out by evangelicals as "THE sin" Now, they will never admit it, because it would show obvious bigotry, but it is pretty obvious by the way of their words and actions. With other "sins" there is almost a live and let live attitude and a "we don't like it, but we have to live with it, and it can't hurt us in our own daily lives as long as we keep praying and believing" yet with homosexuality issues there is an entirely different attitude and stategy to keep it away. Most of it stems from ignorance, but I think it also has to do with the fact that Anal Sex between two males is more visually disgusting to a heterosexual male, then cursing, or drugs, or premarital sex(between a boy and a girl) or eating shellfish, etc.....

[Guest SP-1]

^^^

Agreed. When the New Testament directly disagrees with the Old Testament, the New Testament is typically what is taken by Christians. It indicated the dawning of a new era. I don't believe there is anything in the gospel according to Mark, Matthew, Luke or John that singles out homosexuals.

So I'm sure this question has been posed to you ad nauseum, SP-1, but why, out of all the catalogued sins in the Old Testament is homosexuality singled out? The only realistic answer I've heard that makes sense is to use one's religion to justify one's personal revulsion.

There are no disagreements between the old and the new testaments.

 

 

Scripture was written by man. Then translated by another man. And another. And another.

 

You can't twist what's already been twisted

 

Show me where scripture was retranslated over time. There's a difference between copying for preservation and translating. Know what you're talking about before you talk.

 

First of all... Why do you have to believe Christ is the messiah to get into heaven?

 

Because God gave you a choice to follow His plan or not. His plan was the Messiah to handle the problem of sin FOR YOU so that you don't have to. It's a gift. But he gave you the option to reject it and still be under the effects and judgement of your sin.

 

If Christ's atonement were forced on you, you'd be bitching about the loss of free will.

 

Secondly, why is being gay wrong? You don't choose to be gay.

 

1. Because it's a sinful rebellion against the way God created humans. In case you didn't notice, the penis and vagina fit together and were designed to. The anal cavity is for the release of waste material and nothing more. You want science? There you go. Both of those are facts.

 

2. What you are alluding to is genetic THEORY WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. Sorry to burst your bubble. By the way, are you a believer in Darwin? Because a species built on survival of the fittest won't deny itself the ability to procreate (which a genetic turn towards homosexuality would do). It's an illogical "evolution" no matter how you look at it.

 

and I'm sure there are plenty on this board who will take offense to it and prosicute me. After all, it's the way Jesus would have wanted it.

 

Your lack of knowledge about the Bible and what it says has already been demonstrated so I don't have a reason tot ake your assessment of Christ's character seriously. However, in a way you are right. It's not my job to prosecute you. It is my job to point out what you don't understand or what you understand correctly and offer a correct view of scripture (based on academic hermenutical study). It's my job to love you, not prosecute you.

 

Eric: Keep typing. I'll keep ignoring your bait. I've argued the biblical case against homosexuality before and I'm pretty sure I provided the scriptural references in those cases. Go searching if you want to see it again.