Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, but about divorce he was very clear in Matthew 5:
Why oh why do the conservative pundits love to attack gay people (which, as most of them admit [including Exodus International, famed "pray the gay away" group], is not a quality they choose), but never wage a war against divorce? Hell, Newt Gingrich, who up until two months ago was a legitimate contender for the White House, is on his third marriage. Even worse, he divorced one woman while she was in a hospital bed for cancer treatments, and divorced another after having liaisons with his current wife well before the divorce -- and he was getting the Evangelical vote!
Why is it that, in politics, the "Christian" thing to do is to ignore the actual teachings of Jesus and focus on the parts of the Bible that make your pet issues convenient? If you truly want to worry about the war on marriage, start with divorce. Start with Britney Spears and Kevin Federline, Angelina Jolie and Billy Bob Thornton, Kim Kardashian and whoever the hell she married.
They are more of the front line in the "war on marriage" than loving gay relationships will ever be.
So here's a novel concept: you really want to be a "Christian legislator"? Stop your war on homosexuals, and start your war on divorce. Sure, it might not be the kind of easily pandering to the evangelical base that anti-gay legislation may be, but it's
true to Jesus' teachings. And remember, it's not like Jesus was the most popular guy at the time of his proclamations, so why should you not follow in his footsteps and preach the true teachings of the Gospel rather than worry about reelection? Unless, of course, your Christian image is nothing more than a persona you use to get elected, you hypocritical, money-grubbing Judases.
What are your thoughts on this? Do you think that Christian legislators are missing the mark by fighting against homosexuality but not against divorce?
True
Comments (131)
I have to say I agree with your cause here. I can't get into all the comments -- it's just a bunch of drama I don't need to poke through -- but I love your post. I'm an evangelical Christian, in love with God, and, in a sense, ex-gay myself, but I must admit that the majority of political evangelical/religious people out there have their heads up their butts on this one. If they really cared about marriage, they'd be marching down the street with banners and shouting sneers at courthouses across the nation, condemning unwarranted divorce, demanding it be banned. But for them divorce is convenient and homosexuality is just gross, so that's what they're going after under the guise of "protecting marriage".
@stunning_dor2@xanga - Yeah. Civil discourse gets hard with that user. And rational discourse (imo) -- harder.
And you made me think of Peking roast duck.
@RevoHor@xanga - Always nice when an evangelical Christian and an atheist can get together and both agree on the hypocrisy in a movement. I'm sure we disagree on many, many topics, but I love when I can make a post that allows us to see eye-to-eye on something and discuss it civilly (unlike much of the commenting prior to this).
@Celestial_Teapot@xanga - Yummy.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - My suggestion, seeing as your are constantly the victim of such heinous abuse and disrespect, is to remove yourself from the situation and find safe harbor elsewhere. God bless.
@Celestial_Teapot@xanga - [You must be pretty stupid to play the victim on the very same page where your pettily and personally lash out.]
[Curtis Bell, you yourself are probably more representative of your choice adjatives (hateful, insulting, abusive) than that of your detractors put together.]
Thank you, Captain Obvious!! :P
Indeed, Curtis constantly shoots himself in the foot, and is one of the biggest hypocrites I've ever encountered. So, you're pointing out some extremely clear and obvious truths, but the moron either pretends not to notice, or perhaps he's really unaware that his behaviour exemplifies the exact hate he condemns. Either way, he's a fucking moron.
@stunning_dor2@xanga - Why should I give in to bullies?
All the hatred and bullying proves the righteousness of my argument.
And if you were really a Christian you would know that it is the highest honor to be punished for advocating Gospel teachings.
And if you were really a Christian you would not ask a Christian to given in to evil.
Sadly you are not a Christian and your earlier claim to be a Catholic is not true. How long has it been since you even went to church and participated in the Mass?
@Unstoppable_Inner_Strength@xanga - Hi, Hector. God Bless you.
I can always depend on you to make the best arguments in support of my case.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - I'm simply asking you to turn the other cheek. Perhaps that's one of the passages out of the Bible that you choose to ignore. You are no one to judge the validity of me being Catholic. It's alright, only God can judge me!!
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - Oh and to answer your question - just this past week. Not that it's your business, but thank you for your concern for my eternal soul.
You ask, "Do you think that Christian legislators are missing the mark by fighting against homosexuality but not against divorce?"
Gosh, it is easy to understand why they are fighting against homosexuality and not divorce. There are a lot fewer gays our there to defend themselves and a lot more people who have divorced or would like to keep that option open in the future!
There is one difference between divorce and being gay that is pertinent to this discussion. You can hide being gay, but you can't hide being divorced unless it happened elsewhere. It's also more accepted to be divorced than to be gay in churches. I would expect that it's easier for a politician to pander to people's fear of gay people without much opposition because they won't or can't speak up. If a politician speaks against divorce he would lose a significant portion of the church crowd who are divorced.
@stunning_dor2@xanga - You aren't Christian or Catholic. That isn't a judgment it's an obvious fact based on your craven association and fraternization with the people who are committing acts of hate and also because of your lack of knowledge of Catholic theology.
And it isn't your place to ask someone to submit to a beating. It's your place to try and stop the beating. But you only encouraged the attackers.
You can't be Christian because your conscience is so deformed. You can't tell right from wrong.
Your own actions judge you, not I.
Be honest. Have ever even been to church? If so how many decades ago?
@GodlessLiberal@xanga - @christao408@xanga - Christian legislators are not fighting against homosexuality. That's a bogus claim.
Name one piece of legislation that "fights against homosexuality."
There isn't any.
31 states voting to preserve the traditional definition of marriage is not a fight against homosexuality.
Preserving a healthy, fully functional definition of marriage to remain as it always was is right and just even if you don't agree with it.
A 3500 year old culture has right to defend itself against assault from values and customs that are antithetical to it.
@brown_buffalo@xanga - Name one prominent politician who is pandering to people's "fear" of gays.
It's absolutely amazing how you people manufacture all these imaginary fears and wars on women, wars on gays, wars on this and wars on that.
Why should rational people give up their culture to people who are in a constant state of violent hallucination?
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - "Name one prominent politician who is pandering to people's "fear" of gays."
Romney.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - Hi again. Revelife's been posting a bunch of stuff related to gay rights and/or gay marriage, but the comment threads are typically heated so I avoid joining. But this time you said something that really rubs me the wrong way; you said, "Gay men praying on little boys is common."
This is a pretty disparaging comment, and it is really unfair. Men who are sexually attracted to young girls are not straight. Likewise, those attracted to young boys are not gay. The words "straight" and "gay" typically imply consensual attractions between adults. Sexuality is much broader than a binary gay/straight distinction, and pedophilia is a fundamentally different type of sexuality.
I'm truly sorry that you experienced inappropriate relationships with adult men when you were young. That's horrible, and no child should be in that situation. However, I think it's unfair (and illogical) to conclude that gay ment are pedophiles based on these experiences.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - I'd also like to address your question about "how many gay couples really want to get married."
The 2011 census can help answer questions about same-sex couple households. In the US, there are about 600,000 same-sex couple households, about 120,000 of which have children. I think it's probably fair to say that these numbers may be underestimates since there is a strong anti-gay stigma in many parts of the country (often enshrined in law) and couples may not want to self-identify as a gay on a government form.
About 160,000 (26%) of couples in same-sex households are married or in domestic partnerships or civil unions, and about 44,000 of these couples have children.
Marriage equality is an issue that is extremely important to more than half a million of families.
Because most religious people, in my experience, are all talk and no trousers. Hypocris(t)y is how it should be named according to this observer and I've viewed it close up from both sides for years each direction.
@iones_island@xanga - So if you're going to disregard his posts (which can only be assumed to be based off of personal bias and complete lack of understanding of anything outside of your own little bubble of reality), why bother commenting? I see other people discussing the issue and opening dialogue, yet here you are pratting on with false assertions and vitriol.
Sadly, and ironically, you're the one trolling. Along with PrisonerxOfxLove. You two would make an perfect Unexciting Twosome.
@Lynn Males@facebook - XD for once I agree with you. Sexual preference IS a non-issue and for some goddamn reason it is one here. Also, bear in mind that PrisonerxOfxLove is a troll, specifically Curtis (Lobornlytesthoughtpalace), so the argument will only go as far as "OMG WE ARE XTIAN YU BAD RARRARARARARR" with little to no substance left to discuss.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - Your opinion doesn't matter because it's actually NOT your opinion. You're just saying the things you do to rile people up. Since I do that now--and I'm a spry, young 20-something--what the hell am I going to be like when I'm as old as you and running through my last pension funds? @_@
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - You write "Preserving a healthy, fully functional definition of marriage to remain as it always was is right and just even if you don't agree with it."
I'd disagree that the current definition has always been the same as it is now in those 31 states. The definition of marriage varies among human cultures and has for as long as there has been human civilization. While same-sex marriage has been far from the norm, to claim that the definition of marriage has always been one man and one woman is inaccurate.
Secondly, given the state of heterosexual marriage, especially with the high divorce rates in the United States, I'd hardly describe it as "a healthy, fully functional definition of marriage". Sounds to me like letting committed, loving same-sex couples share in that definition might actually shore up the institution that people like Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich mock.
@RazielV@xanga - aww what a beautiful personal attack. you have shown me the error of my ways by equating me with someone you show unfettered hatred for. my original comment was not a comment on the post, therefore there was no need to acknowledge the comment of the post to make it, it was a question regarding the policies of revelife. as far as the basis of my experience as I said it's based on having read his comments and posts in the past which have been hateful and disrespectful especially toward Christianity. ironically you have latched on to one comment of mine in order to compare me to someone you clearly hate whereas i have stated that my concerns about the OPs credibility are based on multiple comments/entries. and while there are many things I have read from you that i both agree with and disagree with i smell hypocrisy here.
beyond his own claim that his intention is to attack Christianity, his word "religion", but let's face it we never hear how horrible Buddhism or Hinduism is. notice how when someone does a post on how important scripture is to them, not the best writing in the world but heartfelt and doing no harm to anyone, he can't just live and let live but must go on the attack. funny, the behavior in this link seems a lot like what you did a post complaining about atheists doing. yet, when i site this kind of behavior as an impeachment to his credibility to post on a Christian site, I'm the troll.
http://www.revelife.com/763093408/the-importance-of-the-bible/
@christao408@xanga - The definition of marriage does NOT vary among cultures. That's just more bogus gay rights propaganda that requires a complete denial of human history and reality.
Never, ever was homosexuality or gay love a virtue to be sought after. In the great Greek epics, heroes like Hektor were renown for loving their wife, not another boy or man.
There were never, ever any Greek or Roman Gods famous for the virtue of being gay. In fact rape and homosexuality were viewed as sexual vices.
Honor and glory were achieved by stealing other men's women, not gay boys.
The same goes for Middle Eastern culture, Buddhist and Hindu culture.
Homosexuality only came to the fore when the Left decided to use it as a means of destroying Western culture and traditions.
So far from being widespread, homosexuality as a means of redefining rights and marriage is purely political and purely modern.
@Celestial_Teapot@xanga - Thanks for answering that for me Cel, I would rather not feed this troll. Not that it will do any good, but, well that's why I don't blog here anymore, there are just too many crazy people who don't do anything but disrupt the place.
@iones_island@xanga - Hate? No, you definitely have no idea what you're on about. Hate is an emotion reserved for people who've done great wrong. A troll is no such person. As for it being a personal attack, again you're wrong. Your behaviour in the comment I replied to is based solely in the intent to cause disruption and aggression with no legitimate recourse. That is trolling.
I've read GL's posts and comments as well, so unless we're in alternate universes then it is safe to assume we're reading the same comments. I've yet to see him assert that he wants religion gone, or that his entire goal in life is to "attack" religion. His return pulse had more to do with the distortion of religion, not the evil of religion itself. If you want that, look up agnophile or that Reason/Trust Xangan. If you want two bigoted anti-religious folk, they're the ones you'll be looking up.
Also, keep in mind that Prisoner is a troll himself, so any venom lain at him is based on that; highly doubtful he is actually a Christian since a troll cannot be trusted.
Furthermore, what's the point in bringing his previous comments up on a post that does not attack anyone, but posits a legitimate legislative, moral, and religious question? It added nothing to the topic or conversation, and did nothing to enhance any discussion going on. Instead of holding onto your grudge, read the post and think about what it says and then join in.
I mean, hell, it could be worse. It could be a Jenn post.
------
After reading the post you linked to I think I get what comments you refer to. However, in the same thread I saw this comment: "Numbers 31:17-18 : Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
If God inspired that to be written, then He's a monster. Better to throw the book away". This was posted by Lovegrove, not GL. GL's comment, by comparison "Frankly, I feel like I could gain more wisdom applicable to my daily life by wandering blindfolded into the self-help section of a bookstore and purchasing the first Chicken Soup for the Soul my hands fall upon." looks less like a personal attack on Christianity.
But that's a comparison. And I do not see the comment as an attack, but a personal opinion, different from all the "OMG I LUV DA BIBLE" in that it states the Bible is not a very good source of inspiration. Yes it was snarky and a bit rude, but is it really as bad as you're making it to be? Can one not give a negative opinion on something in the midst of positivity? We could argue whether it is a constructive opinion or not, and I'd say the presentation would make it a "no". But is it an attack? No.
An attack would be something like, "You're stupid for reading the Bible and you should all be shot" (hyperbole, but I've seen this said before).