11 years later: Can we still turn the tide?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
11 years later: Can we still turn the tide?
By Michael Brown, CP Op-Ed Contributor
(PHOTO: PIXABAY/NANCY DOWD)
The last chapter to my 700-page, 2011 book A Queer Thing Happened to America: And What a Long Strange Trip It’s Been was titled, “GLBT and Beyond: Reflections On Our Current Trajectory.” (In those days, it was customary to put the G before the L.) In that chapter, I laid out where LGBT activism was heading, describing just where the trajectory would take us.
Yet, as disturbing as that trajectory was — and has proven to be — the last paragraphs of the book issued a word of hope coupled with a call to action, beginning with these words: “It’s Not Too Late to Turn the Tide.”
Since then, we’ve witnessed the society continuing to lurch left, with the Supreme Court outrageously redefining marriage in 2015 and with “transgender rights” becoming a dominant theme of the day.
At the same time, the pushback against LGBTQ extremism has continued, as millions of Americans have awakened to the realities of this radical agenda while, at the same time, showing compassion to the individuals who identify as LGBTQ.
Here is how I ended A Queer Thing Happened to America , which, to repeat, came out in 2011. Do these words still ring true today? Is it still not too late to turn the tide?
Here’s what I wrote:
A queer thing, indeed, has happened to America, but there is a way forward (not backward), a better way, a “straighter” way. It is not too late to turn the tide, no matter how daunting the task might appear in light of the massive societal shifts that have taken place in the last generation. In times like these, when it is easy to be discouraged, we do well to recall the words of Mahatma Gandhi: “When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won.”
Without a doubt, those of us who oppose the current trajectory of GLBT and beyond will be told that we are on the “wrong side of history.” They will say we have branded ourselves as intolerant bigots and have marginalized ourselves to the point of no return.
So be it.
It is better to stand up for what is right than to have the approval of the masses. It is better to swim against the tide when it is going in the wrong direction than to be carried along with the (always fickle) whims of current public opinion.
Do we really have a choice? Can we simply sit back and let gender anarchy rule the day? What will we say to our children and grandchildren? How will we explain to them that it was on our watch that “Mother and Father” became “Parent A and Parent B”? That North American courts ruled that the public use of certain verses in the Bible was a hate crime punishable by law? How will we explain that businesses were penalized because they would not support gay activism? That college professors were fired and university students dismissed because they took issue with homosexual practices? How will we justify our silence and inaction?
To be sure, our work is cut out for us. Some of us need to get involved in our schools, from pre-school to high school, while others need to make an impact on the colleges and universities. Still, others need to help reshape the media and make our voices heard in the political realm and the business world. And all of us need to be a positive influence in society, giving attention to our own lives and marriages and families if they are out of order. (Fixing heterosexual marriage and sexuality is at the top of the list!)
As for those of us who claim to be followers of Jesus, we should understand the import of his words, “You are the salt of the earth . . . . You are the light of the world” (see Matthew 5:13-16). Put another way by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., “The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool.” Now is the time to put this into practice.
We need to recover scriptural truth in our houses of worship and win the battle of semantics — which is indeed, the battle for sanity — in the marketplace of ideas. And we need to do all this while walking in genuine love towards GLBT individuals, who will certainly view us as villains out to destroy their lives and steal their rights. Let us persevere through the inevitable vilification and misunderstanding that will be heaped upon us, and let us stand tall and unashamed.
History is awaiting our move.
Advertising deleted and copyrighted picture restored, SP
Article is LOCKED by moderator [Split Personality]
Who is online
460 visitors
What have gay people ever done to you?
Copy-paste. I can do that too. What have they done to you?
It’s not just a matter of what’s done to me personally. The above is how we individually deal with them as individuals.
The issue is a national social and values matter thus the point of the article.
So... No gay person has ever harmed you in any way? Why post this homophobic drivel then?
The author quotes Dr. King:
What say you?
Famous toxic homophobe and user of scripture to spread hate and fear instead of love.
Which is what, exactly? What is the “agenda?” Has anybody seen a copy of this agenda? I didn’t get one. How am I supposed to follow along?
That’s because you are. You oppose someone because of who and what they are, not because of what they do or say. That’s pretty much textbook bigotry. If you don’t like being labeled a bigot, try not being one.
Actually the homophobic tide of public opinion is what’s fickle. The word homosexual doesn’t appear in any Bible before 1947. The notion that homosexuals are some kind of threat is an invention of the 20th century.
Try minding your own business and not worrying about what other people’s “practices” are.
You wouldn’t know genuine love if it bit you in the ass.
Actually, he would and does know it. I’ve read lots of his work and he is a genuine compassionate Christian person. The rest of the response above is right out of the secular progressive urban elites playbook.
If that were true, he wouldn’t put conditions on love, nor would he judge people in place of Christ.
No, it’s actually out of real life and the Bible.
It’s Dr. Brown who is the one using the Bible in all of his messages including the one of the seed.
Yes. He “uses” it to justify his bigotry.
Famous? I take it, then, you are more than simply familiar with the man and what he has said. If so, your characterization must simply rest on the fact that Brown opposes sexual lifestyles such as homosexuality and the trans movement as against God's will for us according to His word. It couldn't be anything else since he doesn't advocate for denying the same sorts of rights anyone else has to the extent his faith allows. For instance, I'm pretty sure he doesn't argue that same sex marriage is unconstitutional under our secular system of laws, although that doesn't mean he supports the idea as moral. I have never seen or heard Brown advocate hate or mistreatment of anyone. In fact, your characterization contains more fear and hate than I've heard from Brown.
The definition of bigotry...
A position that homosexuality and... "practices other than historically heterosexual relationships within the bounds of marriage" let's call it, is hardly being obstinate or unreasonable from a Christian point of view because the Bible clearly states what is acceptable to God concerning such issues. Whether or not someone who holds such views is prejudicially bigoted towards homosexuals depends on how one acts out those views but holding such views is not necessarily bigoted, no matter how much people try to twist the definition.
For instance, a bigoted person or persons, would drag a homosexual to death behind their truck, as has happened. Dr. Brown has never even remotely suggested anything like that and, I'm pretty sure, has actually condemned it. Rather than judging Brown simply because he doesn't share your view of what constitutes reality you might try to understand that some of us consider reality to constitute something very different than you might. If you don't, are you not being bigoted?
I've never understood this argument. What relevance does this have to the subject? Is the idea that homosexuality didn't exist as a concept until someone coined this term? Or is it simply that someone created a specific word for modern English to describe a concept that's been around forever?
That would be historically incorrect, historically and today. I'll get to that when I address your request for 'What is the "agenda?'"
Same.
The agenda is to destroy the idea of heterosexuality as the moral norm for society. They are succeeding quite well, sorry to say. But I don't mean to indicate they alone are responsible. Their initial victory, however, opened the door for all the rest. Now there is a rush to outdo everyone else in being the most outrageously unusual sexual creature that can be imagined.
As bad as that I may find all that, it's their life and they can live it as they choose. I think they make a horrible mistake, but it's their life. The problem is that, while you may think it is people like me not minding my own business that is the problem, the real problem is everyone on the other side of this issue is forcing their morality into society at every level with the apparent goal of destroying anything resembling truth or even a place to stand on something solid. They are literally puking their fantasies and personal desires on society and doing their best to tear to shreds anyone who opposes them.
I remember when the fight for homosexual "rights" first started to make serious headway. The claim was what happens between consenting adults isn't anyone else's business. I don't disagree. I also knew that was misdirection. This was never going to be about what goes on in the privacy of the bedroom. I knew from the beginning that this was going to be so much more than that. I was right. Rather than keep it to themselves and in the bedroom, they sue religious institutions for not allowing homosexuals to work and teach in religious institutions. They are literally fighting to make people accept homosexuality as valid regardless of what their religion has to say about it. And God help someone if their religious convictions are at odds with what a homosexual asks, no, demands that they do.
Worse still, the public education system is helping them do it. The school system has no business teaching anything on this subject. That is the prerogative of the parents. But that isn't how it works. The State has decided it is the arbiter of morality, not parents. So, we have the school system actually encouraging children with next to zero life experience or what things mean being encouraged to explore their sexuality, as if they even understood the concept in the first place. In some states, like Washington, a child of any age can get an abortion without even notifying their parents. It's actually illegal to notify parents if the child doesn't want them to know. How much longer is it going to be before some genius starts pushing the idea that children have the right to have sex with whomever they wish? School systems teaching kids about puberty blockers and how to get them. Teaching them that gender is a social construct rather than an obvious biological fact. People demanding that other people believe they are the opposite sex that they were born to in order to protect their fantasy?
So, I don't know how much of all that you accept, reject or are indifferent to, but the point is, not everyone sees reality as being what you think it is. Nor is it religious people simply being "bigoted." We believe in a God who has definite opinions as to what is moral and what isn't. That's the reality we believe in. The vast majority of us aren't trying to get the other side to do anything except to stop doing what they claim we are doing. Forcing us and our children to accept their reality. We don't. We won't. We can't. Not and claim God is actually our God. Keep it in their bedrooms like they claimed and stop forcing it down everyone else's throat.
Thanks for taking this on and answering it all so very well. Bravo! 👏👍
Yes, I have seen him spew his judgmental intolerance and hate before.
Other people’s sexual lifestyles are none of Brown’s business. As for God’s word, it doesn’t even cover the topic. Brown opposes those things because he personally finds them “icky.” Like many hateful and dangerous people throughout our history, he tries to use the Bible to justify his hate and intolerance. It’s very sad, really.
When you go around telling people that what they are is against God, I call that hate and mistreatment.
Maybe if you got to know some of the people who suffer from the kind of preaching that he does, you would learn to have compassion for those people and realize how hateful the things are that he says.
No, it doesn’t. How could it? Hebrews of 2,000-3,000 years ago didn’t even understand how babies were made - they thought all the baby making stuff came from the man.
So no big surprise then, that they did not have an understanding of homosexuality. That’s there’s no word for it in scripture. Now that doesn’t mean people didn’t do similar acts, but an act can be done for many reasons within many contexts. Our modern understanding of sexuality and concepts of consenting homosexual adults in a mature, loving, monogamous relationship do not exist in the Bible.
You say “norm” but what you mean is “requirement.” You mean “exclusive.” But Jesus told his disciples that the life you think is the norm is not for everyone, and that’s ok.
How? By demanding that they be treated with the same dignity that you demand? I’d say that’s a pretty good agenda.
What would it mean to be not valid? If you truly don’t care about homosexuals living their life, why do you have a problem with it being “valid?” What makes you think it’s even your place to decide if they are valid?
Yeah, and His highest commandment is to love God. And #2 is to love each other. To me, that means you don’t get to go around telling people that living their life in a way that harms no one else is somehow a sin.
Why should they? Do you? Straight people don’t hide their love at all. They are very public about it. Why do homosexuals have to “keep it in their bedrooms?”
Wow. Rhetoric much? Let's just take the 'opening' and it call out as a "mistake."
1. I did not Choose to be a homosexual. I did DECIDE to follow Jesus Christ, the Gospel, and the Christian faith.
2. Why is a heterosexuality sexuality for heterosexuals? Ask any heterosexual man or woman WHEN they made a conscious choice to be attracted to the opposite sex.
3. You think it is a "horrible mistake"? Pray tell, you didn't bother to explain why. So, WHY?
4. It is the homosexual's life, indeed. And, heterosexuals can choose to take comfort in knowing who the homosexuals are in their community, if only so they can not bother trying to 'turn-on' their children to a girl, boy, woman, or man who has no true interest in ruining a life of another person who would prefer a "traditional" heterosexual marriage. That is, without 'sexual baggage'
We'll simply have to disagree on that, it seems.
So, you can provide a quote that says as much? If not, is this not simply your projection?
I've read enough of his posts to know that Brown sees everyone as people designed to bear God's image. What he actually does is make a distinction between that and what people actually do. I believe Brown sees no real difference between himself and a homosexual as far as personal sin is concerned. That is, we all have it. I think he would say that the difference would be that he has chosen to deny the natural sinful inclinations we all have and, instead, live the life God offers us in Jesus Christ in accordance with God's will for him.
I'm willing to listen. Can you provide an example of the kind of preaching you say he promotes that causes suffering? Other than simply saying that the Bible teaches something specific about God's intent concerning human sexual relations?
As far as getting to know "some of the people" I used to work in an industry that was mostly made up of homosexuals. Although I did not agree with what they chose for their life in regards to their homosexual desires, I didn't treat them any different than I would treat anyone else. I didn't preach to them. If they asked about my beliefs I would tell them. If they didn't I didn't talk to them about it. That's because, even as young as I was then, I knew I had my own sins.
Another point in which we will simply have to disagree. I see no point in going through well established arguments and counter arguments that have been made and we both know well.
He said nothing even remotely like that. He said, "Repent! The kingdom of God is near!" He wasn't telling just a few who really needed to to repent. He was speaking to everyone. He gave us the way to reject the corrupt desires of our flesh and live the real life God provides through His Son, Jesus. He was inviting us to reject the evils of this world and within ourselves and live the life God intends for us. To be crystal clear, he was telling us we need to reject the things and thinking of this world and turn to God. Not as some sort of wish fulfiller but the God who has the right to command us to live according to His morality for the sake of His glory and, ultimately, our joy.
Way back in the Garden, we told God we could decide what was good and evil on our own, thank you very much. The whole of human history is filled with misery and suffering as a result and seems to be getting a lot worse. Those of us who take God at His word, or try to, have come to the realization that there is nothing more deceitful than the human heart. So we decided to believe God rather than our own heart. Not just homosexuality, but adultery, fornication, honesty, faithfulness, kindness and all the rest of it. Trust that God knows better than the desires of our corrupt heart.
There's dignity and there's morality. They are not the same thing. I can treat a homosexual with dignity without accepting their practice of same as moral. How many homosexuals do the same? Treat me with dignity even though they don't accept my morality? Calling me (or Brown) a bigot and a hater certainly isn't dignity.
Read what I said carefully. First, I didn't say I didn't care. What I said was it was their life. That doesn't mean I don't care where their decisions may lead them in the end. I do care but I can't force them to listen to me, let alone make them do anything they don't want to. It's their choice, not mine.
As for the quote above, you're missing the point of my statement. It wasn't about whether homosexuality is a valid, moral lifestyle. It was about homosexuals forcing everyone to accept it as a valid moral lifestyle, whether it is or isn't or whether anyone agrees or disagrees.
Lastly, it isn't my place to decide if homosexuality is valid or not. It's God's. In my reality, He has made it plain that it isn't.
Whether or not it harms others is very debatable but irrelevant to my post as a whole. My post is that homosexuals are doing exactly what you imply I am doing. Going around telling Christians who believe God about homosexuality are bigoted and haters and hurting society and all the rest. Trying to force what God's word actually says into some nonsense about it not really meaning what it says and God's really cool with it all. Trying to force religious institutions to be structured to homosexual beliefs concerning proper human sexual behavior. Forcing homosexual morality onto children beginning in grade school, telling them that it's okay and implying their parents are just superstitious bigots. Encouraging them to play with something they have no chance of even understanding to begin with. In short, the fantasy you hold in your head about what I do concerning homosexuals is actually what the homosexual agenda is doing every single day in this society. Homosexual proselytizing. But, of course, not just homosexuals anymore. It's every sexual deviation anyone can come up with trying to force their choices as perfectly moral. Freaking Canada will put you in prison for not using preferred pronouns. I can't believe California hasn't done it yet. Or Washington.
Why is it you never seem to know what the subject is? Since you seem to have missed it, it's about who's actually pushing what the most. As far as I can see, it's the other side of the fence that's doing all the pushing crap in everyone's face. If you don't want to talk about that, fine. Just don't expect responses from me.
If the shoe fits...
Living their lives is not pushing it in people's faces....
No, it usually isn't but did you read my post? If so, I'm hardly talking about that, am I?
Also, I keep using the word "homosexual" which gives the wrong impression, as if I am singling them out, when what I should have been using LGBTQ to indicate the whole spectrum. Please assume that, unless context specifically indicates I'm talking about homosexuals, I am speaking of the whole LGBTQ issue.
So the whole of the spectrum is what you are against.
Ok...
Unless it fits into your little mold you have made of how people should be....
This, however, is based on the reading of an ancient book and inferring that:
Viewing the Bible as divine communication from a supreme creator entity is demonstrably contradictory (and thus wrong). For example, if one is going to deem homosexuality a sin based on the Bible, then one should likewise consider slavery to be a practice sanctioned by God.
It is one thing to debate the form and degree to which the GLBTQ community pushes its agenda. But when one brings in the Bible and attempts to use it to argue that the supreme entity does not approve of homosexual acts, that commingling of the Bible (and its many interpretations and human sources) pollutes the debate.
Thing is, this is not even Drakk's mold. It is a mold derived by one of many interpretations of an ancient book that was, based on the evidence, merely the work of ancient men and not the perfect word of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent sentient supreme creator. Drakk's part is that he accepts this as truth.
This view of homosexuality as a sin is interpreting ancient words of men (whose worldview included slavery as a normal and fair economic system) and applying them to the modern world.
What gets me is the bible has been changed, edited, had parts removed for centuries.
Words have been changed etc.
It is weird to me that some people cannot see this. It has been changed to fit some people's perceptions.
Then how does the Bible (used as the surrogate for what God commands) have any applicability? When Paul speaks, is that the word of God or the bias of Paul?
The argument is that in spite of the edits, due to the number of extant translations biblical scholars feel confident that they have a good representation of what likely was originally written.
Regardless, what was originally written (as inferred) is contradictory and ipso facto NOT the word of a divine, perfect, omniscient supreme entity.
So you're just singling out everyone who fit within the LGBTQ spectrum, while utterly ignoring all of the other sinners the Bible lists in those verses.
Instead of using your energy to concentrate on mitigating any of the 'unacceptable' behaviors that heterosexuals practice on a daily basis [fornicators, adulterers, idolators, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers and robbers], it's much easier to point fingers at the ONLY sin true heterosexuals aren't tempted to commit, isn't it?
I was not expecting you to ANSWER. You rarely do. So please—don't. And I will just continue to make comment on what ever bull patty is being spread any given day. It's a new day and so I will continue where I left off.
Selfish much? A homosexual "keeping in the bedroom" while narrow-minded Christians and other people of faith go shallowly about the world enjoying freedoms and liberties and all their "sensitivities" too? One could ask why homosexuals don't just go back into the closet and stay there as far as some conservatives are concerned!
Drakkonis, homosexuals are in the fabric of America. As a group we are VIBRANT 'color' and evidently we are not MUTED.
It is tiresome and SHAMEFUL that the Church with its internal problems and issues and myriad of DENOMINATIONS can't bother to sweep around its own front door, instead of 'bailing' into the culture to seek others to mess up politically.
As for people being made to accept homosexuality as valid. . . you don't have to do so. Just MUTE yourselves! Then, at the very least, some conservatives won't be part of the problem—EITHER.
So, heterosexuality is merely a sexual lifestyle too, right? Why aren't you and Brown opposing the 'heterosexual lifestyle' that is 'against God's will according to His word' Drakkonis?
You 'remember' wrong then. The Stonewall riot was when they 'first stated to make serious headway' and it had nothing to do with what they were doing 'in the privacy of the bedroom' and everything to do with being harassed and discriminated against by authorities.
Utter bullshit. The VAST majority of LGBT people who have been fired when the religious institution found out they were gay, NOT for actions as educators, but for living authentically OUTSIDE of their jobs.
BTFW, expecting LGBT people to crawl along the woodwork when required to participate in 'respectable society' can hardly be considered to be treating them with 'dignity'.
Therein lies the rub. That's an utter false narrative.
What we are literally fighting for is to make people acknowledge that homosexuals ARE valid citizens deserving the same rights and protections of the Constitution. You and yours have had over 200 years to codify discriminatory laws against those you see with disfavor. It is only right that they seek redress and argue for those laws to be repealed.
What could go wrong with that statement? Some parents have only brought it upon themselves, as they harden their minds and spirits around SILLY NOTIONS that children are CARBON COPIES of themselves! Some parents see these innocent ones, as their 'property' to be plied with all the wisdom and malicious nonsense "generations" of austere adults cut from a 'strict cloth' can stitch into their heads. Not everyone grows properly in those kinds of settings.
There are warped and distorted people who are 'stunted' mercilessly living lives full of resentment and mental illness, and they want to pass the sickness along indefinitely.
Better to look at ways of allowing children to grow up and 'bloom' and in this way learn new forms of beauty in society and culture, whether than labeling good crops of kids as "weeds" and always trashing them for the long haul.
Your 'declaration' has been received, read, and archived. We ACCEPT that some conservative PARENTS are going to fight DIVERSITY tooth and nail! Everybody can hunker down, for the 'long winter of political discontentment' continues indefinitely.
Meanwhile, I will offer a way out: Why don't some conservatives forsake BITTERNESS and entreat peace with their diverse children. Afterward, love is the greatest of emotions, why SHUT IT OFF. Become the beloved community. Even if only when you step out of your church.
It's called narrow-mindedness. A form of bigotry, no doubt!
Conservatives and now some conservatives do this kind of 'thing' every time. They simply do not wish or INTEND to accept change. So here they are again trying to navigate 'herding' LGBTQ people back into the closet and out of sight and out of mind.
Then they will be comfortable that the 'old ways' are at peace once more in the world. They can rest in the houses, homes, and sleep peacefully.
Blah!
LGBTQ communities like every other oppressed group need to EXPLORE liberty and freedoms denied them. This may take generations, yes, even longer. Forcing people to live in metaphorical caves of culture and subcultures and then scrutinizing their 'manners' and uncouthness in formal society is an old conservative shtick.
A model of how they fundraise, make book deals, start think-tanks, 'start-up' political careers, become "ideological symbols" (e.g., Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Bill O'Reilly, . . . .), all accomplished off the misery of those they force into "other-ization."
It's all so remindful of conservative snobs who 'graze' on the 'fat' of this great country for hundreds of years, pointing their 'bony' fingers at the newly freed from under their oppression and demanding 'get it together' —POSTE HASTE!
It's called, self-righteousness. (A sin, per se.) Some conservatives need something to focus their negative energy on, since they CLEARLY can't properly fix that believer sitting next to them who thinks s/he know 'everything' and is too arrogant to be humble (as God insists we be).
Not quite as simple as that. It has actually changed very little, depending on what is being talked about, specifically. The greatest difference would be what is included or excluded between the Roman Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible. For the parts that are common to both, they pretty much say what they've always said, with a few exceptions. Certainly not the sort of changes you seem to be implying.
In this conversation, yes, that would be correct. The reason is that the topic is a specific one and not some general treatment of what constitutes sin. Since you don't seem to understand what the topic is any more than CB does, I'll enlighten you. Tacos! condemned Dr. Brown because of what he considers to be a bigoted, hateful view of homosexuality and speaking about it. My response is that the LGBTQ has done much more of that than whatever he imagines Brown of doing. In short, who's actually being bigoted and hateful.
What this argument is not about is whether or not LBGTQ lifestyles are sins against God's will for us. That would be pointless to debate because everyone here already believes what they believe about that and will not change their minds about it. So, if you wish to have that conversation, have it with someone else.
This is because you claim to be a Christian but do not preach what Christ did. Instead, you dress up humanism as being of Christ and try to sell that instead. I don't want any part of someone who does that. In your Christianity, Jesus is your servant, not you his.
Really? I've known a few LGBT people, and never once did they try to convince me to try being LGBT.
So, the victims of religiously-motivated bigotry objecting to said bigotry is in itself bigotry, because the initial bigotry was motivated by religion?
Odd how LGBT people have no problem with denominations that don't promote bigotry against them. So the problem seems not to be religious bigotry by LGBT people. It seems more that some religious bigots don't like having what they do unto others done unto them, and dishonestly call it bigotry. Classic projection.
From your opening comment @2.2:
Thing is, you equate words from a collection of ancient books to be the divine word of a perfect, omniscient, omnibenevolent sentient supreme creator and then act upon them. You are using 'morality' expressed by ancient men and insist that this is actually what a supreme creator has defined.
(sigh) Have you read the post directed to Tacos!? Does it sound like I'm speaking of individuals or society as a whole? Try to shape your responses to what I said to what I actually said, please.
My response to Tacos! was concerning his response to Dr. Brown, not something like the Westborough Baptist Church. I haven't read Brown extensively, but what I have read leads me to believe that he is not the kind of person who goes out to fight directly against LGBTQ communities and issues. What I have observed him doing is talking about how Christians, and the church, should respond to those issues in order to be within God's will. How do we remain true to our faith and in what manner in order to be what God desires us to be. How do we avoid caving in on what we know is right for the expediency of avoiding the controversy and condemnation our stand for truth brings us? In other words, Brown's efforts are directed at the Church, not LGBTQ. And yet, Tacos! condemns him as a bigot, while not noticing the bigotry of his own statements.
Your, and it would seem, Tacos! idea of what constitutes bigotry appears to be any church or denomination that believes and teaches that LGBTQ are sinful lifestyles, so of course LGBTQ would not have a problem with denominations or churches that have abandoned God's word on the subject. Put more simply, anyone who thinks it sinful is a bigot simply because they believe it is sinful.
My point is that if this is to be the definition then LGBTQ are at least as bigoted for thinking and teaching that anyone who holds such a view is acting evilly or wrong or sinful, pick your descriptor. That is, diversity is only diversity as long as you agree with LGBTQ but doesn't actually include, oh, I don't know, diverse thinking such as LGBTQ is not moral. That's pretty hypocritical, don't you think? Not having room for people who think differently? We know this is true because every effort is being made to extinguish any disagreement with their view of what constitutes diversity, which isn't really diverse at all.
I did, actually. I particularly enjoyed your characterization of the "gay agenda". Nothing convinces folks that LGBT people are the real bigots like objecting to them telling people they aren't evil right in public. They should keep that filthy part of their agenda to themselves, amirite?
His own words reveal his views. Same-sex marriage is "outrageous" to him. The "better way" is the "straighter" way. These are the words of a bigot. Religiously-motivated bigotry is still bigotry.
And? Those are all statements about what positions on the subject are held, not an argument about whether or not LGBTQ is right or wrong.
Two things. First, that's your view of what we do, not ours. That is, just because you think this is true doesn't mean it is fact. Second, why we hold the beliefs we do isn't the subject. The subject, once again, is who's actually being bigoted. Why are you guys not addressing the subject? Is it that you can't without acknowledging that the LGTBQ are by far being the more bigoted and worse, more active in actually attacking the other side? Why else are you guys refusing to speak on topic?
Except that isn't what they are doing. They are using the public school system to indoctrinate children to their view of what's right or wrong, something the school system has no business in. They are trying to force religious institutions to accept LGBTQ as legitimate and moral lifestyles regardless of what that religion has to say about it. They are suing everyone they can who do not wish to participate in their events.
In other words, they are taking all the injustices they have claimed to have endured in the past and are now attempting to perpetrate those same injustices on their enemies.
Oh, and thank you, for being the first to actually make comments on the subject. I appreciate it.
I see. So, my views on pedophilia are also religiously motivated. Am I also a bigot for that as well?
To read your telling of it, LGBTQ members are trying to wipe out heterosexuality (a non-starter), don't want heterosexuals to attend church, would prefer no 'co-mingling' (hand-holding, kissing, or other signs of affection) in public, and oh and of course heterosexuals should IMMEDIATELY cut out scenes of bed-room hanky-panky" that goes on network and other streaming platforms.
That is the 'charge' you bring against LGBTQ folks? That, these folks do not want association and equality in the communities they inhabit, but would prefer to be rid (non-starter) of heterosexuality and its culture all-together?
Sounds ridiculous. Why?
Because homosexuals arrive in this world through the orifices of heterosexual women who - oh by way, have heterosexual sex with men. . .and then raise up every form of humanity you see around to sufficiency.
Why would LGBTQ hate their own mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers and cousins and. . . and voluntarily "X" them out of their lives with hatred and jealousy?
They would not, unless forced out by the same family members!
End stinking-thinking, NOW!
So, they're opposing bigotry in school? Should the public school system I attended not have had me read "Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry", or had me memorize Dr. Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech? I mean, that was indoctrination, wasn't it?
Or do you have a problem with LGBT people denying that they're evil in public schools because because calling them or their actions evil is bigotry of which you approve?
Perhaps schools should also be teaching women to stay home, have babies, submit themselves to their men, and keep their mouths shut, in deference to the more misogynistic religions or denominations thereof. Hey, that's religious bigotry, so it gets a pass, right?
Nobody is suing anybody to force them to participate in events. They are suing for equality of treatment by businesses that operate as public accommodations.
Seriously, Drakk, show me a lawsuit of anybody trying to drag somebody to a Pride parade.
They're objecting to being vilified. They wouldn't need to if they hadn't been vilified.
When you bring God into the equation you open the door for that dimension. And this seed is very much about homophobic views based on a religious perspective (in particular, a Biblical perspective).
You elevate your views to be those of Gods and implicitly hold your views to be pure and truth. I am pointing out that your views are unlikely to be those of a supreme creator but rather those of ancient men. As such, claiming that you are merely expressing the views of God is not much better than name-dropping. It is an argument from authority.
People are born with their base sexual orientations. And it is a spectrum from strictly homosexual to various degrees of bisexuality to strictly heterosexual (and include asexual as well). If you want to try to infer a creator's position on this the variation in orientation suggests that the creator is good with the entire spectrum.
Here is the Kinsey scale (for reference):
So the question of bigotry does not involve God. It involves the views of human beings. And note that the word bigotry means " Obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group. "
Clearly the LGBTQ group is the subject of bigotry. And bigotry in the 'name of God' ( as flawed as that reasoning might be ) is still bigotry. The LGBTQ group is definitely more vocal than they were in the 1980s (and before). They definitely want to be views as entirely legitimate and moral and they are not staying that heterosexuals are NOT legitimate or moral.
So the bigotry seems to be one-way as I see things.
Odd. The Bible doesn't say much about that, other than to encourage the sex slavery of girls from conquered nations.
My objections to pedophilia are based on lack of consent.
You didn't answer the question. Am I bigoted for my views on pedophilia?
Fine. Perhaps someone will engage you in that dimension. I won't.
Okay, well you did take the time out to try and insult me—nearly succeeded too. I was just sitting here with my sight momentarily blurred (my blood pressure shot up), and then I remembered something. . .wholesome and proper. So, I have decided to share it with you.
Drakkonis, now then, tell me Dr. King cared little for humanity. Tell me, you doubt Dr. King's faith in God and Jesus Christ. When you try to insult others get your 'claims' in order first—peace.
Well I am certainly willing to accept the label of 'bigot against pedophiles as a group'. I do not believe my objection against their views / practices is unreasonable but I obstinately do find them to be morally and ethically wrong in addition to being exploitative.
I do not care what ancient men have to say on the subject. Based on modern knowledge and reasoning, I have formed my position on pedophilia. By the same token, I am a bigot against those (as a group) who are born with the predisposition to engage in serial murders.
I am not, however, a bigot against those with red hair, left handedness, ... , or not strictly heterosexual.
Nope. Pedophiles cause harm via their pedophilia. LGBT people do not hurt anybody just by being LGBT.
But I'm curious, Drakk, how do verses like "save for yourselves every girl who had never slept with a man" translate to an objection to pedophilia? They condone it.
I'm betting you object to pedophilia because it's wrong, and you'd like to attribute that to your religion, but you really don't have a basis on which to do so.
That's what cherry-picking ancient religious texts written by men who liked virgin girls but hated gay men will get you.
A pedophile is no where near the same as being gay.
And honestly, trying to equate the two is disgusting and one of the ways bigots use to discredit gay people.
In keeping with the new year (2022), a time of "refreshing" is upon us. I extend to you an open hand outstretched in fellowship to meet and talk about our shared and "beloved community" of the Church, its saviour, and our God. Truth is truth. We can ferret out error and cast it down together or apart; I have tried doing so apart, and together is better. (Smile.)
Trouble is, your argument is predicated on what you believe God thinks is moral.
And still, these "self-righteous" heterosexuals who love God (better than most they say) fail to turn the mirror held up to the LGBTQ community, some being their own children no doubt, in introspection of themselves:
O heterosexual believer, when did you auspiciously choose to be a heterosexual?
What a day of celebration that must have been!
You chose heterosexuality!
What a relief. Now, you receive the benefits of 'majority.'
Oh, and you don't have to bother 'pitying' those who choose "black" and other "people of color" designators. Or, who choose to be "homosexual" -those children bought into a lie of becoming a minority upon themselves! /s
Why are you suddenly trying to hide behind Brown?
Take that supercilious bullshit elsewhere.
Here is the comment I replied to:
Now NOTHING in your post claims to be speaking for anyone but YOURSELF.
Thanks for highlighting your whataboutism. It's irrelevant.
The last half of your 2.2.4 post is YOUR opinion too.
Um, YOU are the one to insert the term 'God's will for us', NOT Brown.
Yet you persist, though you've been on the losing side every time.
No one is forcing you to reply to my comments Drakkonis.
Thank you for answering. Now, how do you know LGBTQ do not cause harm? Because they do not violate your personal standards?
If the God depicted in the Bible is true and real and what the Bible says about His views on what morality consists of, would it not cause harm if LGBTQ are not only doing what separates them from God but also doing their best to get society to join them? Or how about that the LGBTQ community and their supporters are indoctrinating children in the public education system on topics they have no chance of understanding in the first place.
Why does that you personally don't see that as an issue mean that I am a bigot? Are you not simply projecting your opinion rather than fact?
As for this, I'm not going to bother explaining why you're wrong about what the referenced verse actually means. It won't make a difference because you need it to mean what you think it does to satisfy what you want the Bible to be.
No one said they were the same things.
I don't recall anyone trying to equate the two except that they are both immoral, just as promiscuous sex is. Just as bearing false witness is. All are different things but have immorality in common. But hey, I'm used to people making these kinds of false arguments.
Yet you are the one that brought it up as an 'example'...
You do not recognize what you routinely do?
Nailed it! You hit the loaded words of the day squarely on its head. Here's another set: "Freedom of association."
You're wrong again. Brown does indeed fight directly against the LGBT community and writes extensively about it.
I would expect their partners, other LGBT people, to report any harm they caused just by being LGBT. When same-sex couples start complaining that their consensual relationships are somehow harming them, I'll pay attention. But so far...nada.
I suppose one could ask the same about religious zealots, now that you bring it up causing harm. Does bringing up children to feel guilt over sins they haven't committed harm them? How about convincing them that they need "salvation" from...something - apparently from the threats of the god doing the saving. Does encouraging bigotry in the name of some deity whose existence is mere speculation cause them psychological harm? Societal harm?
I'd say a case could easily be made that religious extremism can be harmful (I mean, we have 9/11, the Spanish Inquisition, the fires at Smithfield, the mess in the Middle East, and the Native American schools whose atrocities are only recently coming to light), but one would have to stretch to make a case for being gay causing harm.
It causes offense to those who are bigoted against LGBT people. That's not harm.
I understand you can't excuse it. It shouldn't be excused.
There's a lot that you'd like to think your Bible condemns that it doesn't actually condemn. And a lot that's allowed or encouraged that any reasonable person would condemn.
More projection.
It is the temerity to not show humility in every aspect of life, for there is a great deal we do not know about what drives this nation, our world, and the universe (and beyond). Yet, we have people who want to hold other people accountable to live long lives in ways that make them satisfied. SELFISHLY SELF-CENTERED indeed.
When young children see two men or women kissing, parenting, or in bed together on a television set, what intelligence or feelings come into play for those children? I ask this, because in California we have ads and commercials that are using 'blended' families and social/cultural moments. As a kid in the sixties, I could put "two and two together" and come up with—okay, that does not disturb my role in life.
Why let it bother you and yours that others are free and have liberties that do not harm or impact you? God is big enough, 'good' enough, and able to make round pegs into square ones, and still God CHOOSES diversity to be a highlight in our world.
I'm not here to talk of theology, sandy. Or, not in the manner you think, anyway. I don't want to waste my time that way anymore on people who have no interest in what the theology actually is. You preach your theology as much as anyone else here does. Everyone. And you can't see that you are doing exactly what you claim Christians do. You condemn us from what you consider to be your moral high ground based on your own belief system and 'theology'. You all do. You feel justified in doing so, too. So, really, how are you any different or any less guilty of what you accuse us of?
You think this is about condemning LGBTQ lifestyles. If you read what I said without your biases getting in your way, you'll see my complaint is all about the blatant hypocrisy your side perpetrates without batting an eye. You condemn us for what you yourselves do. If we Christians gained the political might to force Christianity into the school systems in order to indoctrinate children, whether their parents wanted them exposed to it or not, what would your reaction be? Yes, that's rhetorical. I already know the answer to it. So, why should Christianity, or people of other faiths, sit back and accept the indoctrination of our children in a theology we do not accept? That isn't the purpose of the school system. At least, it wasn't before progressives got their hooks into it. The LGBTQ and their supporters are literally forcing their theology in exactly the same manner they describe as religious oppression from my side. Worse, your side actually fights against anyone opting out of that system. They do all they can to kill charter schools so that they can better control what goes into a child's mind, especially if that school is religious in nature.
Further, if Christians had the political might to force laws accommodating religious considerations on the public, say, closing businesses on Sundays and suing those who refuse to close, or suing those who perform a service for a gay wedding, what would your reaction be? Maybe a law that states all abortion providers must hire a person of faith in order to try to change the patients mind? Imagine whatever you wish. How do you think that would be accepted by people of your theology?
So, is it really that hard for you to understand why some doctors or nurses do not want to be forced to provide services they find morally objectionable? A baker? Photographer? But you guys don't even care about understanding. The only thing that matters is that everyone operates according to your theology and you're doing your damnedest to make sure that they do. You've expressed your hatred of Christianity and of my God often enough. Your disdain for those like me is clear enough. That sure looks like bigotry from here.
There's nothing more to say. without repeating myself. Have a nice night.
Why did Jesus die?
If you're not here to talk theology, don't bring up religious reasons to excuse bigotry. You embrace theology until it doesn't say what you want it to say.
I don't have a theology. It kinda goes with that whole a-theist thing, ya know?
And you're just repeating past points. LGBT people aren't required to accept vilification, nor to stop resisting bigotry, because it offends some Christians. Same as blacks aren't required to be relegated to second class citizens just because equality offended some Christians (and it did). Same as interracial couples aren't required to give up their relationships because miscegenation offended some Christians. And women aren't required to give up their rights because Paul told them so.
Public schools, being funded by all (even LGBT people) have no business marginalizing some because their existence offends some folks who have an unhealthy interest in what they're doing with their genitals and the approval of some mythological being.
And speaking of schools, you know there are LGBT students, yes? Should those kids be made to feel guilty about living, to please some Christians? Should they be denied access to sex education that prevents the spread of STDs, because some people don't want to acknowledge that gay kids have sex the same as hetero kids? Is preventing STDs too "progressive"? Would Jesus want them to die of AIDS, instead? Or do we ban sex ed altogether, send pregnant girls off to their aunties for long visits, stock up on penicillin, and pretend no kid ever got past first base, especially not those icky gays?
You seem to forget that we have already had laws forcing religious accommodations. I can't buy beer or wine in WV before 1:00 on a Sunday. My county recently accepted a "religious education" proposal for public schools, because that's really going to get kids back on track after the virtual learning fiasco. I'm sure it will go over well as soon as there's an after-school Satan club or similar. And I must reiterate this point, it is silly to assert that an atheist has a theology.
What services would a gay person require that a doctor or nurse would find morally objectionable? Are they being required to have sex with patients of their same sex as part of some sort of extremely unorthodox medical treatment? No? Is a gay heart attack somehow treated differently than a hetero heart attack? No, that can't be it. Oh, I get it. Somehow, denying medical treatment to a gay person, and maybe even letting them die, is something that gay people should just accept, lest somehow they are labelled as bigots for wanting to live.
I don't hate Christianity. I hate the type of Christianity that attempts to force itself on others, then when it meets resistance, especially from those it has vilified, cries "How dare you be intolerant of my intolerance?" Not all Christians practice that type of Christianity.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
|
Why do you think Jesus died? Because this can go in multiple directions and yet end up at John 3:16. Thus, belief is the operative word in salvation.
|
In furtherance:
Luke 39 One of the criminals who hung there heaped abuse on Him. “Are You not the Christ?” he said. “Save Yourself and us!”
40 But the other one rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same judgment? 41 We are punished justly, for we are receiving what our actions deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when You come into Your kingdom!”
43 And Jesus said to him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”
Why did Jesus save this thief? Why not allow this thief to 'rot in Hell' for his sins which drove councils of men to judge this thief worthy of the most excruciating pain of Roman execution?
Let me tell you. Because Jesus illustrates the point that salvation is God's to give to whomsoever God wills based upon God's approval. That is, this thief turned to Jesus and believed and his belief of itself supplied sufficiency to remove the stain of his damnation.
Jesus was always doing the unexpected of what men supposed God ought to do. It is humanity who makes a drastic mistake of thinking God can be 'boxed in' to a doctrine. As the Jewish leaders thought they understood what was right even as they crucified their promised Messiah. (A Christian perspective.)
It is God that has the power to forgive sin and so Jesus did so on authority. While letting the other two continue as it were in their unbelief (and subsequent entry into Hell).
We, me and you, have no authority to place humanity into Heaven or Hell and as has been evidenced in scripture: God can do the unexpected and liberate the 'hell-bound' with a word.
So what is it you doth 'protesteth' against (again)?
Our responsibility as Christians (after a period of time in the Faith):
That is, at some point, we have to get up off our knees groveling before God about our trespasses, and humbly and boldly walk in the 'newness' of our trust that God can save anybody God wishes. And none God wishes shall perish. As God has declared. Therefore, what do we have to worry about? Nothing.
Just love EVERYBODY as best we can. Leave God to do as God does: the unexpected and the extending of salvation in Jesus Christ.
I'll ask again. Why did Jesus die? It has a simple answer.
Because all life dies. period
An agnostic atheist preaching theology would —at best— mean advocating that there is insufficient reasons to persuade one to believe in a god.
This is a tired game of trying to remove the weaknesses of religious belief by making all viewpoints equivalent. It attempts to equate belief without evidence with not being convinced without persuasive evidence. It is an attempt to raise the credibility of believing something to be true simply because another human being claimed it true.
100% agree! Very well said.
It is God who inspired the thoughts that Paul wrote down. Biblical writers write in their own words the thoughts that God inspired them to. Other than red letter direct quotes of Jesus and the Exodus quote of God the Father stating His eternal law to the people around the mountain. Which are directly divine, the rest is inspired by God but written by humans.
(In my best Gordy impersonation) That's nice! Prove it!
If Paul wrote down 'inspired words', are they to be taken as the word of God or not?
If Paul wrote it does that mean God stated it?
All life affected by sin dies. All around the universe there are creations of God who have lived eternally since their creation. Death is not natural anywhere but here.
What a load of tripe.
No, what a load of utter BS! And piled quite high too.
That is not the same as the actual words of god himself.
I was going to say because he was murdered by the state....
Yes, due to the traumatic injuries and blood loss he (supposedly) sustained.
I guess stars sin because they die, planets die....
The reason you already know the answer is because isn't NOT rhetorical, it's historical. The vast majority of school systems included religious 'indoctrination' until the SCOTUS put a stop to it.
So now it's not just an 'agenda', it's a theology.
Hyperbolic much?
The Constitution got its hooks into the school system. Deal with it.
Please site one law that has been passed to deny your 'side' an enumerated Constitutional right Drakk. I'll wait.
What an utter load of bullshit. Now you're just pulling crap out of your nether region.
Again, you seem to be ignorant of historical facts. Look up 'blue laws', 28 states still have them.
For the longest time, Indiana didn't allow the sale of alcohol on Sunday, then they FINALLY amended that to until after noon, after church.
There are a plethora of abortion laws that require abortion providers to meet standards that are required of no other medical facility. You should be proud.
Yes. Doctors at least, take an oath. Nurses may not but should be held to the same standard of care.
Yes again. They are public accommodation and or licensed business and must follow state law.
Oh I understand perfectly. They want their cake and eat it too. They want all the protection of the state while picking and choosing what laws they want to follow.
It drips with hypocrisy.
What have YOU been forced to do against your will Drakkonis? Be specific.
Your hyperbolic crap is getting old.
What you're reading is disdain for your posits Drakkonis. That isn't bigotry, it's logic.
Promise?
Even plants. You don't want to know what my poinsettia did to deserve death.
And when stars die, they make destroy planets orbiting close enough to them. What if there's life on those planets? They must be sinners of they die, especially by starfire, right?
Maybe it cross pollinated with a plant it wasn't supposed to?
It's apologetics and irrational too.
That's very unfair to tripe.
Incredible edible tripe is most often made from large sheep, goats and cows stomachs.
Ever meet a sinful sheep or cow?
Also true but my answer elicited such an inane response ...
Maybe it self-pollinated.
I'll take your word for it.
I've met some pretty mean bulls.
There's probably a Bible verse that forbids that too.
Angry doesn't mean sinful or stupid.
A lifetime ago I used to cut through some pastures but never without carrots apples or sweets
I befriended a lot of cows and a few race horses.
One day a couple of angry men came out of the tree line threatening to shoot rock salt.
The cows closed in around me and escorted me to the fence along Joshua Rd.
As I got to the other side of the fence, they lined up for candy.
cmtsu
They are smarter than we think.
It tried to poison the dog...honest....
True that
I actually got rid of it because the cats were way too interested in it. Guess that's my last poinsettia for a while. The spray bottle does nothing to keep my cats off the tables.
I got mine to stop with spray bottles, esp with a hint of vinegar in the water.
Mind you, when i approached the house I could see that they were asleep everywhere I did not want them.
But when I opened the door....
Not a cat in sight, lol.
The bigger one is just plain old defiant. He'll jump on the counter while I'm standing right there, and look at me, daring me to spray him. I'm starting to think he likes being sprayed.
He's the same one who trained me to turn on the bathtub faucet (he's obsessed) by clawing the bathroom curtains. I'd turn on the faucet to toss a handful of water at him, and instead of running away, he'd run to the faucet and slap at the water.
It's possible he's smarter than I am, until there are poisonous plants involved.
Maybe I'll have to add some vinegar.
Mist me....
Haha
I don’t have to. People will choose to believe or not. The vast majority will choose not to believe until they see Him and his angels fill the entire sky.
All life on this earth and the planet itself are affected by the presence of sin and the absence of God here.
That's ok. Nobody expected you to be able to.
Isn't he supposed to be omnipresent?
That will be bad news for the 350,000 Christian congregations in the USA.
...North American courts ruled that the public use of certain verses in the Bible was a hate crime...
Any backup for the above statement?
The references are to Canada and it’s courts interpretation of certain “human rights” commissions
So what the hell does that have to with us?
I'm going to guess absolutely nothing.
That's what I'm thinking. This mixed metaphor shit does nothing for me.
So the next question becomes, just what the hell is the dude talking about? And where?
That I do not have an answer for.
So the seed states that heterosexuals should get the beam out of their own eye BEFORE they worry about the mote in others.
Get back to me when that gets done...
Oh and BTFW, I await a post about Brown's plan for getting that done rather than whining about what he thinks the LGBT community is doing TO him.
No.
No what, my friend? ("Howdy.")
Near as I can tell, this picture is not from the seed, so I’m going to assume the seeder choose this picture and supports what is in it.
That’s interesting because this banner “sodomy is sin” shows how ignorant so many of these bigots are about the scripture they claim informs their homophobia. “Sodomy” comes the story of Sodom in Genesis, and these people think that story is all about how evil it is to be gay. But that’s not what the story is about. The ancient Hebrews knew better.
Within the story of Sodom, itself, when the prospect of gay sex is brought up, the problem is that the men of the town want to force themselves on strangers. Instead of being hospitable to the strangers (something very important to ancient people), they wanted to rape them. The expressed objection to this in the story makes no mention of the sex of the participants being the problem. There is no admonition like “you know men having sex with men is wrong.” Heck, they don’t even have a problem with rape! Instead, it says the townsfolk should not have their way with the visitors because,
So it’s not a problem because they are men and it’s not even really a problem because it might be non-consensual. It’s a problem because they are guests .
Even if you’re not able to discern the lesson of Sodom on your own, other scripture explains it:
That’s from Isaiah 1:10-17 (Not a word about homosexuality, but lots of stuff about burnt offerings, worthless assemblies, insincere prayer, justice, and the way they ignored orphans and widows.)
And then there’s this:
That’s from Jeremiah 23:14. Here, the sin of Sodom is not being gay. It’s adultery.
That’s from Ezekiel 16: 49-50. See anything about gay sex? Nope. It’s not there. The problem here is that Sodom was rich while ignoring the poor. Then there’s this:
That’s from Zephaniah 2: 8-11. Again, nothing about being gay. Here, the sin of Sodom was pride, and bullying God’s people.
Ignorant, bigoted people want to be cruel to people they don’t understand and they look to the Bible for support in their bigotry. The problem is they only look long enough to find some snippet of text that they imagine supports their cruelty.
There is also much to be said for the sin of Sodom being a lack of hospitality.
You know, I also find it telling that homosexual rape is somehow seen as being so terrible that cities should be destroyed over it. But Lot offering his virgin daughters to be gang-raped somehow gets him safe passage out of town (to then be raped himself by those same daughters - why is it that so many of the Abrahamic religion's "great" leaders get busy with blood relatives?). It's almost like women are valued much less than men in some religions, even by those who adhere to those religions and their supposed condemnations to this day. I mean, that's the only way to read homosexuality being the real sin in Sodom and Gomorrah.