A friend emailed this to me, and I wanted to pass it along to all of you. For those that don't know yet, Texas recently passed a proposition to ban same-sex marriage. The proposition passed by a staggering 76% for it, 24% against. This isn't just about banning marriage. This law closes all doors to civil unions.

===============================================================================


Grace and peace to you from the Father, and from our Lord, Jesus the Christ.

You know what? I am sick and tired of close-minded people using Christianity to push their agenda of hate. I am a Christian, and in the past, I have been
embarrassed to publically say so. This election is yet another instance
where I feel compelled to say I am a Buddhist or something else besides
the hate-mongering hypocrites who take the Lord's name in vain simply by
calling themselves Christians.

If you want to be literal about Scripture, then yes, homosexuality is a sin.
But what is funny in itself, is that no Christian today takes the whole
Bible literally, and if you want proof, check out the clothes hanging in
your closet. If you have any clothing that is cotton/poly or rayon/silk
or any blend, you have committed a sin in direct defiance of God's decree
as recorded in Leviticus 19:19. And if any of you have planted a fruit
tree and eaten its first fruit, then you have sinned against God, according to
Leviticus 19:23. You have to, by God's word(Leviticus 19:25), wait until the
fifth year after planting a tree to eat of its fruit.

Shall I continue down just this section of Leviticus? How many of you so-called Christians are guilty of the following:

...eaten a very rare, bloody steak? (a sin! Lev. 19:26)
...trimmed your beard? (a sin! Lev. 19:27)
...have a tattoo? (a sin! Lev. 19:28)

And here's a good one: "The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you
as the native among you, AND YOU SHALL LOVE HIM AS YOURSELF; for you were
strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God." Lev. 19:34 (RSV)

For you heterosexuals, who could be more of a stranger to you than a
homosexual? You don't allow the homosexual into your churches or allow them
to teach your children in the schools. Some of you don't allow them in your
home, especially those of of you who have thrown your gay children out of
your lives. You have never taken the time to get to know one, to strip away
the facade of lies and untruths to learn that the homosexual you so revile
is a human being, worthy of every right and respect you have by the sheer
fact that he or she draws breath?

And this is how you treat a stranger.

Well, guess what? Now you have committed another sin. This one is stated in
Leviticus 19:37:

"And you shall observe ALL my statutes and ALL my ordinances, and do them: I
am the LORD."

How many of you so-called Christians knew this? Not many, I would bet,
because in my life, I have dicovered that so many, too many Christians
hardly ever actually open a Bible because they have learned that it makes a
much better weapon when closed, when it can be used as a blunt object with
which one can bludgeon one's enemies.

And the sad part is, so many of you can't even recall history well enough to
see what you're doing. This is not new, this using the Bible as a weapon.
Were this 40 years ago, we would be voting to approve or reject a
constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one white man and one white woman, or one black man and one black woman. More than a century
before that, we would fighting to reinstate slavery, again using the Bible
to fuel our cause.

And why do you cling so vehemently to hatred of the Homosexual? Is it
because the government has already outlawed hating the Black, the Jew, or
even the Woman? Is it because if you drag a man to his death, you will be
punished? Or is it because if you don't let that same man into your country
club, the PGA won't stop the tour there?

You claim to follow Christ. I give you 1 John 2:1-11:

"1 My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not
sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours
only but also for the sins of the whole world. 3 And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 He who says "I know him" but
disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him; 5 but
whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. By this we
may be sure that we are in him: 6 he who says he abides in him ought to walk
in the same way in which he walked. 7 Beloved, I am writing you no new
commandment, but an old commandment which you had from the beginning; the
old commandment is the word which you have heard. 8 Yet I am writing you a
new commandment, which is true in him and in you, because the darkness is
passing away and the true light is already shining. 9 He who says he is in
the light and hates his brother is in the darkness still. 10 He who loves
his brother abides in the light, and in it there is no cause for stumbling.
11 But he who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the
darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has
blinded his eyes."

Stop being hypocrites. Truly follow God, follow Christ.

And God/Christ said: Love thy neighbor as thyself.

And he said it in Leviticus 19:18.

AND Matthew 19:19.

AND Matthew 22:39.

AND Mark 12:31.

AND Luke 10:27.

AND Romans 13:9.

AND Galatians 5:14.

AND James 2:8.

Do you GET it, yet?


===============================================================================

being that i'm anti-christian, that doesn't apply to me. i'm still anti-homosexuals, forso that they do not help to continue the population and what is life but many sets of chemical reactions that are capable of self duplication? they should be allowed to live for they can help the population economically, but to be so isn't helping it to remain living, so it shouldn't be allowed to be homosexual.
look at almost any natural culture(ants, for instance, being one of the closest to a perfect society) and there isn't homosexuality in there. in the wild, if one doesn't reproduce, their genes are gone. no success in that, is there?

I cannot believe you just said that. Singles don't have children either - they shouldn't be allowed to 'live'? What the hell? What about infertile people? Do they not have any reason to 'live' beyond 'contributing to the economy'? Old people that have no children? There are plenty of them - why not just kill them off, they barely contribute anything to the economy anyways.

What is life but a set of chemical reactions? No comment. You shouldn't be ALLOWED to be homosexual? WHAT?


Then you compared homosexuality to.. ants. You can't compare an anthill to human society. That would be like saying we should scrap the stock market - it doesn't appear in the wild, why on earth do we have it? Computers too. They're silly. Ants don't have computers, humans don't need them either. Human rights? Do you think ants would care if they tortured each other? No, so I guess we don't need any human rights either...

yes, but they are still capable of helping society altogether, just as homosexuals are. i did not say that homosexuals should be killed, as they are capable of helping society. just that they shouldn't be allowed to be so.


torture is a very effective means of punishment, as they say, oyusa kashrpa ku yakrpa. "the punishment must be greater than the crime" otherwise people will continue that action. humans don't need computers, yes. however computers do benifit the whole(can do work that would take much longer for humans to naturally do). and i didn't compare homosexuality to ants, i compared human society to ants, ants obviously the much greater. none conflict there, everything is done as planned.
too many rights causes much more problems than too few.

your post made absolutely no sence...? but still i will try to rebute it.
but again, i do not wish to get into bad arguements with you people for i'd like to regard you people as friends, and i believe most of you have weird philosophy so an arguement wouldn't help that because you all certainly wouldn't change opinions.

Made sense to me.

So what you're saying is: Homosexuals and others incapable of reproducing have essentially failed society, but they should be kept around because they DO contribute to the economy. The only thing I didn't understand was... shouldn't be allowed to. Allowed to do what?

that's pretty much what i was saying.
by allowed to though, i'd ment allowed to be homosexual, but that's a real hard thing to keep track of, so that doesn't make much sence now that i think much of it .
there's no harm coming from it, but none good either, so still being disallowed would encourage the rest to not be homosexual and would that would help.

There is more to life than procreation. And 2% of the population not contributing to the continuation of the human race is not going to cause a problem.

Allowed? Since when do we need permission to be who we are? It's not like we chose to be gay. Like it or not, we were born this way. And how do you "encourage" someone to not be gay? Noone is going to do anything they don't want to do (unless they're drunk.....)

"In the wild" homosexuality does occur on a regular basis. At least for mammals. Ants are insects. I wouldn't actually talk about sexuality at all in their case. If you'd like to see human society based on how ants do it... whatever.

The first part of your post I won't even comment on.

tsaephai - Life is not a strugle for survival anymore. By your own standards, shouldn't you be put to death? Your ignorant, and ignorance doesn't add anything to society, now does it?

By the way, its not a choice. Like, seriously, who the hell would choose to be homosexual, with societies norms? The subject of this topic shows what a lot of people (75% of Texas) think of homosexuals - they shouldn't even have the right to marraige WAIT not even the right to a civil union.

Heres a trick - What if I told you your eye color was inferior to a different color, because it was less sensitive, thus it couldn't protect you from danger as well? You are inferior! You don't help the humans evolve!
Should you die? Should you be banned from society?


Would you be so quick to remove your own rights as you would be to remove others'?

Christianity is not bullshit, but the bible is.
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/buddychristintl/<-- The church of buddy christ. In my eyes, its the best religion.

To play a little devil's advocate to Tsaephai: Isn't looking for more ways to add more to our species a bad thing, considering that our world population is growing as such a fanatical rate and there's going to quickly be (if there isn't already) a lacking of resources?

As such, the best thing for society might be to NOT encourage so many people to have babies. Homosexuality would, then, be a limiting factor: a sort of natural population control.

It makes sense in that light. The natural ecosystem supplies a means to offset procreation since unchecked growth either drains too many resources which eventualy starves the system or else creates imbalances that kill the very system the species relies on to live (i.e. the difference between natural cells and cancer cells). The food web, natural selection, creatures unable/unwilling to give birth: All of that counters to the ones that overpopulate.

If the human race over segregates itself (I can go crasy talking about how "keeping the line pure" is VERY destructive behavior but I'll avoid doing so) or simply can't keep it's birth rate up with the death rate then we can talk of getting people to procreate. Until then, a segment of the population deciding to sleep with the same sex is FAR from worth our time, compared to so many other factors going against us.


Of course that's the cold, logical side of the coin. I personaly follow a more spiritual mindset when it comes to what I do. Even then, I don't see a problem with people choosing homosexuality. The original post is a nice hit against hypocrital Christians though, though honestly, anything that helps to keep a christian humble is a good thing.

May i point out that in these days of science A homosexual man could give his sperm to a homosexual woman if either wanted to have a child.

not having children isn't restricted by your sexuality but by your choice about the matter

edit: aww a typo

You don't choose homosexuality, people. Ask anyone gay - you don't just wake up one morning during puberty and say to yourself "Hey, I'm going to be gay for the rest of my life." and then go on and have a lovely day. Just doesn't happen.

I've always was one of those that felt a person was a mix of Nature and Nurture. Your genes create your framework but the final choice lies with you.

As far as sexuality goes, your genes determine how stronly you feel towards a gender, with a generous range from absolute attraction towards the same gender down to absolute attraction towards the opposite gender. Most people fall on one side with some variance (thus you have the people who like opposite genders but can tell if someone of their own gender is attractive, people who are prone to experiment, folks who go with anything, so on..).

However, we aren't bound by those genes. Who you actualy hang out with/have sex with/fall in love with will lean towards what your genes suggest but the end choice is up to you. Just because you find women more attractive than men doesn't mean you CAN'T fall in love and have a sexual relationship with a guy, and the other way around.

Will it be easier to follow your genes? Yes.

Should you always? Depends on your ideals. A christian following the bible who's genes just scream out "I WANT HOMOSEXUALITY!" will probably end up choosing to fight it instead. It's similar to a person driven to Aggression deciding to be a pacifist.

So the fact a girl wants to sleep with other girls isn't something she can help, but declaring herself a lesbian and actualy doing it IS a choice. IMO, though, it's not her parents choice, her government's choice and it most certainly NOT the choice of any diety she does not follow. It's HER choice.

I think that for those of us that are not homosexual, we'll never really understand what it's like.

But in my opinion, no on gay marriage, yes on gay civil unions. Most people, gay friends that I have included, will not argue that too much.

Also, in my opinion, no on gays adopting children, JUST for the reason that there's evidence behind it that the best possible scenario is a mother and a father. Mom and Dad > Single parent/gay couple. I didn't have a dad for the early years of my life, and I needed a serious can of harden the up, cause I was raised by two women (my mom and grandma in this case). You can really screw up a kid that way (one of my girlfriend's friends has two moms...).

Anyway, I don't have any particular moral concerns with it, so don't bother flaming me. I just have those above mentioned social concerns.

If we follow Tsaephai argument, then feminine homosexuality should be encouraged. Why? because with a visit to a doctor (or a nice friend) they can be producing kids two at a time (or more, provided they have twins) so they're helping humanity much more than myself, poor boring hetero female that has spent at least 10 years of fertile life without giving little Iridiels to the human race for it to evolve. I mean, I could already have 7 or 8! After all, the only reason I could even be involved with a man would be having kids. Company, snuggles and cinema are out of the equation.

If people were so interested in being real christians and forcing everybody to follow their thruths, they should first take a look at their own lives. Of course, there we have the political interests of people who feel threatened if others have the same rights as they do by being married.

And regarding adoption, well, I've seen people in monoparental, biparental, homo and hetero families, and really, still have to find a difference. The only problem my lesbian friends kid had was when explaining the teacher why he drawed mother and mother instead of mother and dad when asked. But he's quite an average 7 years old... As bad as I was when I was his age

You cannot fairly say no to gay adoption based on the perfect family model without also saying not to other family models which are less than perfect.

My parents fought every day of my life that I remember them being together. Every day. I don't remeber them ever hugging or kissing or saying something sweet to eachother. I'd much rather I lived with one or the other from birth. I'd much rather be raised by two men or women who love me and eachother than by a male and a female who stay together just because they have children.

Quid's got a point there. True, a masculine and a feminine role model in one location offers alot to a child, but you can't say 'no' to doubled in a role model and say 'yes' to single parents, teenage births, children out of union, two-income families, Quid's example (I had a similar experience: eventualy they gave it up and split anyway), so on and so forth. Unless we're going to go and force people to become perfect American 50s couples (which, from what I'm hearing, didn't exactly work as advertized), using it to ban homosexual adoptions doesn't hold water.

Myself I'd prefer to get my country off it's idea that more money=better parent first.

Actually, homosexual behaviour has been noted in a large number of monkeys. As well as a multitude of other mammals - dogs, for instance. And cats. I'm sure dolphins would, as well, although they lack the necessary orifices.

Societies as far back as the greeks and probably before have endured, some even endorsed and forced, homosexuality. The Spartans were perhaps one of the most powerful countries - homosexuality was forced onto all males (and probably performed by females, as well) at a rather young age. However, all were also expected to breed.

On that note, breeding is over-rated. Do you believe those whom have suffered extra-uteran pregnancies, infertility, sterility, etc should not be allowed the right to remain living?

I believe you've stated before you're a muslim - or some deviation thereof. If so, eunuchs were a popular choice of guards for islamic king's and prince's harems - should they be disallowed the right to live, as they've chosen a far more righteous path?

What of those whom have no intent to breed, but instead to offer their life to your god in what they and others believe the most holy of sacrifices - martyrdom. Should they be disallowed the right to enjoy their lives while they have it?

On that note, most the ants are either female or androgynus (I don't really remember ant biology very well - I, for one, am far more partial to the human anatomy). Very, very few are males - this I'm certain. And only one ant can breed. On your arguement of homosexuals being incapable/unwilling to breed, they should not be allowed to live - only one ant breeds. Only one. Every other ant serves it's purpose as it lives - I highly doubt ants, in their spare time, have intercourse.

Ants live their lives with a single-minded determinedness - protection of the nest, and their Queen. Because she alone can breed. However, every other ant has a purpose - some dig, some protect. What I do in my off time between protecting, building, working in stores and whatever else I do, should be up to me.

As a homosexual, I still contribute to society as any single ant does - I fullfill my duty. Ants, as a whole, don't breed - where I get my kicks and giggles is my business.

Under the belief that ants are a near utopian society - we should do away with anything that is not work-related. Television, radio, movies, entertainment. Sports.

However, I, and you, as a human being, are flawed - we need those quirks and turn-ons. They are necessary for our efforts to further society.

The world is over-populated, anyway. I for one believe breeders are an abomination, and should be disallowed the right to live. All countries should enforce laws such as China - one child per couple, no more. Already we push our planet to the point of exhaustion - and unlike you, I do not believe I will have a place in some divine concept of paradise, and would like to leave a decent place for future generations.

Damn breeders - just because you can slam some girl and make her have a baby, you think you're better than me.

Sorry if this has been touched - I had to stop and respond before reading further.

In fact, only one ant breeds.

I find this to be an amusing argument primarily because the Honors Director at my University is a Population Geneticist that graduated from Harvard. He would argue that nature itself has created homosexuality as means to combat excessive over population. Look at the world. Look at the growth rates of population. Do the math and look at where we arrive in say 2020, 2050, 2075. Furthermore, there are several examples of homosexuality in nature. For example, a species of Chimpanzee known Bonobos (pan paniscus) use sex to decrease violence in their society. Specifically, the females are known to engage in sexual acts with each other to make peace with other females (note that some of these females will never reproduce so they are technically "lesbians"). They mutually mastubate with each other.

As for ants, I don't know how you gathered they were close to a "perfect" culture. That in itself speak volumes that I do not wish to delve into, but on a genetic standpoint, the Bonobos are 99% genetically similar to humans. The ants? Not even close.

And finally, what about people who are celebrant? What about people who are sterile? What about hermaphrodites (two hermaphrodites can legally marry in the US)? The list goes on and on. These people can all marry and do not "add to" the population.