Why should leftists support gay rights?

[nvm]

I see many leftists supporting gay rights just because other leftists do so.
I'm not a homophobe , but can you explain to me why should we support gay rights?

PS: Is it true that Stalin punished gay people with 5 years in prison?

[PRC-UTE]

I see many leftists supporting gay rights just because other leftists do so.
I'm not a homophobe , but can you explain to me why should we support gay rights?

PS: Is it true that Stalin punished gay people with 5 years in prison?

You can't unite the working class if you allow for one section of it to be discriminated against. It makes us all weaker.

[KurtFF8]

Because homosexuality isn't some "choice" that people make, it's a natural way people are born. So to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual preference is no different than to discriminate against someone for their race: it's oppression at it's most blatant form.

Now if you disagree with it being natural (Which at this point is quite silly to do) then there is still no reason to oppress someone because of their sexual preference, as the only real argument against homosexuality is at that point a religious argument. And it would be odd to have leftists appealing to religion to support discrimination. I would certainly question their motives.

[Holden Caulfield]

why should anybody be discriminited against for the personal choices they make, or for what sexual orientation you are born with so long as it doesnt offend anybody else,

a fact i do know about homosexuality is that in Nazi Germany it was illegal for men to be gay, but no such law for women,

i think it is obvious why one should support gay rights, and you should know the reasons really,

i support gay rights but always say 'gay' as a negative term out of upbringing and habit, anybody else have this problem its like cultural torrets..

as for



Now if you disagree with it being natural (Which at this point is quite silly to do)

i dont know if it is genetic i think very little in us is genetic (i do a level pyschology and this brought me to this view) but either way even if it is a sub conscious choice or superfical peferance who cares either way

[Colonello Buendia]

I think it's a chemical anomaly in the brain that causes attraction to the same sex, not sure though.

I know what you mean hewhocontrolstheyouth, I have that to a degree thoug I've managed to seriously cut down.

[Redmau5]

Why should people support the rights of any minority group then? Christ, I know you're new and all but this is an extremely idiotic question.

[Dros]

Because we fight for the emancipation of all humanity and gay people are (believe it or not) human.

[Red October]

This is a ridiculous question. Objectively, homosexuals are different from other people only in who they're sexually or emotionally attracted to. I don't really care if it's a choice or not, it's a private matter and it's really no business of ours what someone's sexuality is, and certainly not anyone's business to discriminate against them for it. We can't support the liberation of humanity if we don't include people with different sexualities.

[Ultra-Violence]

Becuase thier Humyn Thier People to and every one has the right to be free. No matter what color class or race and creed they may be.

Also thier under attack by the christian right and its our duty as communist and anarchist to stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters!

[Cossack]

we don't support gay rights, we don't support womens rights, we don't support Africans rights, we support "equal" rights for all human beings, a homosexual is still a human, a women is still a human, an African is still a human.

Edit: apparently I should have taken the time to read the post of Ultra-Violence

[jake williams]

we don't support gay rights, we don't support womens rights, we don't support Africans rights, we support "equal" rights for all human beings, a homosexual is still a human, a women is still a human, an African is still a human.
They're not perfectly analogous though. Gay rights include the right to have gay relationships - the right to activity as a gay person. It's not the same with women's rights, not quite. You're still allowed to be a "woman", just a rather prescribed type of woman. Without gay rights you're not really allowed to be "gay" at all.


Also, re the thread question, and important point to consider is that when someone wants to do something - especially if they really want to do it - there's a heavy burden of argument against it. You have to really prove that there are opposing concerns that outweigh it. And there simply aren't at all in this case. So I don't really subscribe much to ideas about "leftists" supporting gay rights - it's about sensible, fair people supporting gay rights.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Stand for their rights and they'll stand for yours. Not only that but gay people rock, they throw the best parties and give good fashion advice... no joke.

[Dros]

Stand for their rights and they'll stand for yours. Not only that but gay people rock, they throw the best parties and give good fashion advice... no joke.

Jesus thinks we should kill gay people.

[Redmau5]

Jesus thinks we should kill gay people.

Where does Jesus say that?

[Rosa Provokateur]

Jesus thinks we should kill gay people.

37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." --Matthew22:37-40

[mykittyhasaboner]

37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." --Matthew22:37-40
ok now explain "what jesus said" in plain terms with out all of the christian rhetoric! sorry i dont mean to offend but i despise christianity(not people who are christians, if you misunderstood), and from what i know homosexuality is considered a "sin":scared:. so how can drosera99 be wrong?

[Dros]

37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." --Matthew22:37-40

Jesus upholds the laws of the Old Testament and lived by them and supported them fully.


"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-20

But also here (Matthew 5:17-20; Luke 16:17; Romans 10:4; Galatians 4:4; 1 John 3:4-5).

And here (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26; 1 Peter 2:22). These being quotes saying Jesus was sinless.

Here's the law that Jesus supported and upheld on gay people:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13

But also Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26-27.

Do the math.

[Lector Malibu]

Well it's a simple question of how can you claim to be for the people but not some of the people?

And if you think about it, is what homosexuals asking so wildly outlandsh that it should be pushed aside?

What is the GLBT community asking that is so complecated that it requires such debate and deliberation?

[BIG BROTHER]

Jesus upholds the laws of the Old Testament and lived by them and supported them fully.



But also here (Matthew 5:17-20; Luke 16:17; Romans 10:4; Galatians 4:4; 1 John 3:4-5).

And here (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26; 1 Peter 2:22). These being quotes saying Jesus was sinless.

Here's the law that Jesus supported and upheld on gay people:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13

But also Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26-27.

Do the math.

With all respect, Comrade drosera let me clear some stuf up. First acording to what the bible says, Jesus aparently broke some laws and rules from the old testament, like "working" on saturdays, and such.

Also he would condem homosexuals for their actions, but rather than say "stone them to death!" he would have probably told them to repent and stop sinnin. like that one time where a woman that was to be stonned to death for being a prostitute.

In my personal opinion the only minorty that deserves to be opressed is the burgoise.

[Everyday Anarchy]

And why does the bourgeois deserve to be oppressed?

[Dros]

With all respect, Comrade drosera let me clear some stuf up. First acording to what the bible says, Jesus aparently broke some laws and rules from the old testament, like "working" on saturdays, and such.

Ah, but that was just a rule of the rabbis who controlled the Jewish community.


Also he would condem homosexuals for their actions, but rather than say "stone them to death!" he would have probably told them to repent and stop sinnin. like that one time where a woman that was to be stonned to death for being a prostitute.

Perhaps. But he says that he agrees with the law and that's what the law says so he still doesn't denounce the murder of gays. So should we tell gay people not to continue there sins and to repent?


In my personal opinion the only minorty that deserves to be opressed is the burgoise.

Glad we agree on one thing.

[daniyaal]

Jesus upholds the laws of the Old Testament and lived by them and supported them fully.



But also here (Matthew 5:17-20; Luke 16:17; Romans 10:4; Galatians 4:4; 1 John 3:4-5).

And here (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26; 1 Peter 2:22). These being quotes saying Jesus was sinless.

Here\'s the law that Jesus supported and upheld on gay people:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13

But also Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26-27.

Do the math.

You\'re just going to keep trying new arguments to fit your antagonistic presuppositions until you find one that satisfies you. Jesus institutes the New Covenant at the Last Supper (see Luke 22:20). The New Covenant is referenced in the Old Testament in Jeremiah 31:31-32:
\"The time is coming,\" declares the LORD, \"when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,\" declares the LORD. The purpose of establishing a New Covenant is necessarily to replace the Old. God says the New Covenant will be unlike the Old, which is obviously the case with the Christian covenant. But for the new system to be in place, the old one must necessarily \"disappear.\"
By calling this covenant \"new,\" he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

[guevara2093]

And why does the bourgeois deserve to be oppressed?

Why don't they? They (at least all the ones I know) only care about gaining more and more, without caring for the people they tramp on. They think it is funny to take people's things.

[BIG BROTHER]

Quote:
Originally Posted by josefrancisco http://img.revleft.com/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1119617#post1119617)
With all respect, Comrade drosera let me clear some stuf up. First acording to what the bible says, Jesus aparently broke some laws and rules from the old testament, like "working" on saturdays, and such.

Ah, but that was just a rule of the rabbis who controlled the Jewish community.


With all due respect comrade, the rule of not working on saturdays, is part of the 10 comandments.


Quote:
Also he would condem homosexuals for their actions, but rather than say "stone them to death!" he would have probably told them to repent and stop sinnin. like that one time where a woman that was to be stonned to death for being a prostitute.
Perhaps. But he says that he agrees with the law and that's what the law says so he still doesn't denounce the murder of gays. So should we tell gay people not to continue there sins and to repent?

I just meant to point out what Jesus as portrayed in the bible would do.

I wasn't trying to impose that statement on you or anyone.


Quote:
In my personal opinion the only minorty that deserves to be opressed is the burgoise.
Glad we agree on one thing.

I'm glad to:D

[Dros]

With all due respect comrade, the rule of not working on saturdays, is part of the 10 comandments.

You are correct. I forgot which rule you were referring to. I read your post rather quickly and that is the usual response to the "Jesus broke the rules of the Rabbis" argument I hear a lot.

Sloppy reading on my part, I do know the 10 Commandments.

[QUOTE]I just meant to point out what Jesus as portrayed in the bible would do.

I wasn't trying to impose that statement on you or anyone.

I understand. I'm trying to show that Jesus is reactionary.


You\'re just going to keep trying new arguments to fit your antagonistic presuppositions until you find one that satisfies you.

What the fuck are you talking about?


Jesus institutes the New Covenant at the Last Supper (see Luke 22:20). The New Covenant is referenced in the Old Testament in Jeremiah 31:31-32:

This is irrelevant to what Jesus historically believed. He explicitly states that he intends to preserve the laws and in his lifetime he did. Jesus never states that the New Covenant must replace the laws of the old. If I recall the passage, he just says that his blood being shed for humanity is a new covenant between God and humanity.

[RHIZOMES]

Because how can we live in an egalitarian, classless society when people are discriminated against for being naturally born with an attraction for the same sex? it makes no sense. Also, you'll note most homophobes are homophobic for religious reasons, or if they aren't, religion is the root cause for the prejudice being prevalent in society.

[BobKKKindle$]

By forcing someone to conform to what is perceived as a "normal" sexuality you are limiting that person's capacity for happiness and personal fulfillment, as such it is important that we support the right of everyone to choose how to conduct their sexual relations with other human beings.

Ultimately, the central task of any social system of ideology should be to make people happy - and people are happy when they are given the freedom to make their own decisions, as we are all, as individuals, the best judges of what is best for us, whereas the state is only capable of making universal decisions that do not account for our individual preferences..

Debates about whether homosexuality is "natural" or something that is freely chosen are irrelevant - even if people choose to become homosexuals and it is not a "natural" part of human behaviour, that does not mean that homosexuality is bad, because there are many aspects of human life that cannot be considered "natural" and yet we would not wish to reject - for example, the use of medication, or synthetic fibers.


Without gay rights you're not really allowed to be "gay" at allThis is true, but gay rights extend beyond the decriminalization of homosexuality - we should also fight for the right to marry (even if we do not support marriage as an institution) and adopt children.


And why does the bourgeois deserve to be oppressed?To defend the power of the working class by defeating counter-revolutionary forces. Are you going to try and defend the bourgeoisie?

[Rosa Provokateur]

ok now explain "what jesus said" in plain terms with out all of the christian rhetoric! sorry i dont mean to offend but i despise christianity(not people who are christians, if you misunderstood), and from what i know homosexuality is considered a "sin":scared:. so how can drosera99 be wrong?

Basically, Jesus was saying that to fulfill the law you only have to love God and love people, treating them the way you yourself would want to be treated.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Because how can we live in an egalitarian, classless society when people are discriminated against for being naturally born with an attraction for the same sex? it makes no sense. Also, you'll note most homophobes are homophobic for religious reasons, or if they aren't, religion is the root cause for the prejudice being prevalent in society.

I am a christian, and as a christian I want to appologize on behalf of my entire faith and those who embrace it. I am against homophobia and I'm more strongky against the homophobia thats spread in the name of christianity. Those who preach that kind of rage are misguided and dont have the love of God in them since they cant love others themselves. I ask that anyone here whos ever been a victim of homophobia or has witnessed it, find it in there hearts to forgive those responsible.

[BobKKKindle$]

I am a christian, and as a christian I want to appologize on behalf of my entire faith and those who embrace it. I am against homophobia and I'm more strongky against the homophobia thats spread in the name of christianity.Christians who accept homosexuality or fight for homosexual rights are not acting in accordance with the bible, which makes clear that homosexuality is a sin, in addition to various other sexual acts, such as masturbation. This is but one example of the reactionary character of the Christian faith. The bible also contains reactionary ideas on the role of women in society - and I don't see how these ideas are consistent with any kind of political radicalism.

This is a reflection of the prevalent attitudes of the time period during which the bible was written - the bible is a human creation, comprised of works from many different authors, not, as you might believe or try to argue, the word of "god". If the bible was the word of "god", that would suggest that "god" is a misogynistic deity with no respect for human dignity.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Christians who accept homosexuality or fight for homosexual rights are not acting in accordance with the bible, which makes clear that homosexuality is a sin, in addition to various other sexual acts, such as masturbation. This is but one example of the reactionary character of the Christian faith. The bible also contains reactionary ideas on the role of women in society - and I don't see how these ideas are consistent with any kind of political radicalism.

This is a reflection of the prevalent attitudes of the time period during which the bible was written - the bible is a human creation, comprised of works from many different authors, not, as you might believe or try to argue, the word of "god". If the bible was the word of "god", that would suggest that "god" is a misogynistic deity with no respect for human dignity.

Jesus teaches that we are to love and to me that means making sure everyone has an equal shot at life, including gays. Christ died for them just as much as he did for me and in his eyes they're forgiven and theres nothing they can do that will make God love them any less. I'm not concerned about gay marriage because its marriage and not the state's place to restrict people from that right. I'm more concerned with the christians that are divorcing and re-marrying constantly because its they who are causing marriage to lose its value.

[chimx]

Jesus upholds the laws of the Old Testament and lived by them and supported them fully.



But also here (Matthew 5:17-20; Luke 16:17; Romans 10:4; Galatians 4:4; 1 John 3:4-5).

And here (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26; 1 Peter 2:22). These being quotes saying Jesus was sinless.

Here\'s the law that Jesus supported and upheld on gay people:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13

But also Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26-27.

Do the math.

Actually you are showing your ignorance of Christian theology with this post. Christians of course don't uphold Levitical Law.

I could point to other passages if you want that show the opposite of what you're trying to imply. In Luke 4, Jesus rejects government and acknowledges that Satan is a secret power behind all nation states.

Or if you want to look at the old testament, the fact that nearly all of kings of Israel eventually became corrupt or fucked up in some way is pretty damning, especially when they all started as being morally upstanding people.

The Book of Revelation is a clear attack on Roman imperialism and lashes out against the state.

[chimx]

Christians who accept homosexuality or fight for homosexual rights are not acting in accordance with the bible

So the majority of Anglicans in the United States aren't acting in accordance with the bible? You're being absurd. Episcopalians have elected self-affirmed gay priests and bishops. I'm sure numerous other denominations do as well.

This is because modern Christian theologians actually take the time to look at the historical context of biblical passages. For example, Drosera99 mentioned Leviticus 20, in which they lash out against gay men. Theologians today realize that the Jewish tribe that wrote that passage did so to differentiate themselves from the fertility cults that populated the same area as them.

Another popular one that right-wingers pull out is the story of Sodom that God turned into salt in Genesis. Modern theologians have since retranslated the passage and realized that the story isn't about "the men of sodom" that were trying to rape two angels, but "the people of sodom". Many theologians view it now as a condemnation of violence, and xenophobia to outsiders.


and I don't see how

The only thing you are failing to see is the majority of Christians that reject biblical literalism.



This is a reflection of the prevalent attitudes of the time period during which the bible was written - the bible is a human creation, comprised of works from many different authors, not, as you might believe or try to argue, the word of "god".

Again, why do people so ignorant on subjects speak so authoritatively?

Not all Christians believe that the bible is the "Word of God". Many simply believe it was divinely inspired, meaning that human values did play a role in the authoring of the books that make up the Bible.


This is true, but gay rights extend beyond the decriminalization of homosexuality - we should also fight for the right to marry (even if we do not support marriage as an institution) and adopt children.

There is a lot of confusion, perhaps even in Christian circles, regarding the theological basis of marriage, and why gay men and women have historically always been excluded from the ceremony.

Actually it has nothing to do with the alleged "anti-gay" passages that many scholars interpret differently today. In reality it is based more in Genesis, specifically with Adam and Eve. Genesis 2:23-24 states, "(23)The man said, this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man. (24) For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

In Christian theology, the union between a man and a woman is a kind of unifying and mutualistic relationship analogous to the trinity. In a sense, an earthly manifestation of God's "love" or God's "image" -- whatever you want to call it. I'm sure there are some pro-gay theologians that point towards the separate souls that can become unified in marriage, rather than having a biological gender requirement, but that isn't not currently the norm -- although I suspect that many churches, especially in the United States and Western Europe are heading in that direction.

[BobKKKindle$]

This is because modern Christian theologians actually take the time to look at the historical context of biblical passages. For example, Drosera99 mentioned Leviticus 20, in which they lash out against gay men. Theologians today realize that the Jewish tribe that wrote that passage did so to differentiate themselves from the fertility cults that populated the same area as them.However, if the bible is the word of god (as is argued by many Christians) then why would god, as an all-powerful (omnipotent) being, create a system of morality that was subject to and dependent on change? Surely if god is all-powerful/knowing he would be able to create a universal system of moral laws that are applicable to any society regardless of historical contexts? Arguing that the bible is a product of human authors who were affected by the prevailing conditions and ideas of their societies (a view which I agree with) calls the existence of god into question - an obvious problem for theists.

You could of course argue in response that the Bible is not the word of god - but then why should the Bible serve as the basis of our morality? And why would god, as an all-loving (omnibenovolent) being, support a morality that is subject to interpretation and internally contradictory - given the bloodshed that has arisen as a result of disputes over the interpretation of religious texts?

Ultimately, there is no logical basis for morality based on a religious text. You sound like a Christian - which is laughable.

[chimx]

I already covered this:


Not all Christians believe that the bible is the "Word of God". Many simply believe it was divinely inspired, meaning that human values did play a role in the authoring of the books that make up the Bible.

Actually I would say that the majority of Christians just believe that it is divinely inspired. This is how we can explain dietary restrictions in the OT that were ignored in the NT, to cite just one example.

If the bible is the word of God, then why does Levitical Law ban the eating of seafood, but in Jesus' Feed of the 5000, he gives the crowd bread and fish?

[apathy maybe]

I see many leftists supporting black rights just because other leftists do so. I'm not a racist , but can you explain to me why should we support black rights?

PS: Is it true that (I can't think of a name here) punished black people with 5 years in prison?

[Kitskits]

I support gay rights but I view it as (necessary to achieve them but) totally independent from my economic communist beliefs. I disagree with leftists who thrash communists who are a bit skeptic about gays. It's just they are not used to them.

I totally dislike the status quo in leftists that goes from supporting gay right to gay admiration, it's becoming a fashion and I am against any lifestyle shit. If you ask me, stating something like "gays are cool" is like admiting that gays are worthy of more attention. In my opinion gays are not worthy of more attention, they are just HUMANS, just like women, women are more opressed than men, but I don't really admire these women's day and all this shit. I think all this is a bit sectarian and in some cases dangerous. I think we communists know that the only way to liberate gays from the conservative oppression is socialism and communism so why the fuck all the blah blah about gays?

I also dislike this paranoia about "bourgeoisie culture". You see in a thread I saw EVERYONE thrashing as bourgeois an individual about saying the expression "cock sucking". Cock sucking is a way to describe a display of erotic connection with someone. He said that in a flaming/ironic way and everyone thrashed him...

I sincerely hope you've understood my points and not start calling me conservative or any shit like that.

P.S. I really love it when drosera99 bashes christians! :lol: Go drosera go!

[Marsella]

I support gay rights but I view it as (necessary to achieve them but) totally independent from my economic communist beliefs. I disagree with leftists who thrash communists who are a bit skeptic about gays. It's just they are not used to them.

The view that all workers are equal is a prerequisite for any communist belief.


I totally dislike the status quo in leftists that goes from supporting gay right to gay admiration, it's becoming a fashion and I am against any lifestyle shit. If you ask me, stating something like "gays are cool" is like admiting that gays are worthy of more attention.
Where has anyone (at least on this site) expressed that? :confused:

And what is wrong with gay pride anyway?

What is wrong with black pride?


In my opinion gays are not worthy of more attention, they are just HUMANS, just like women, women are more opressed than men, but I don't really admire these women's day and all this shit.

You mean International Women's Day?

You do know that socialists began that, right?


I think all this is a bit sectarian and in some cases dangerous. I think we communists know that the only way to liberate gays from the conservative oppression is socialism and communism so why the fuck all the blah blah about gays?

Homosexual discrimination is not inherently linked to capitalism. It has existed long before it and will probably continue well into the future.

We shouldn't drop our hands and say 'why am I fighting for this, socialism will cure it!'

That's a fucking excuse.


I also dislike this paranoia about "bourgeoisie culture". You see in a thread I saw EVERYONE thrashing as bourgeois an individual about saying the expression "cock sucking". Cock sucking is a way to describe a display of erotic connection with someone. He said that in a flaming/ironic way and everyone thrashed him...

So If I called you a dirty nigger, in a flaming/ironic way, it would be acceptable?

Using 'cock sucker' as an insult implies that there is something wrong with sucking cocks, and when used amongst males its a homophobic insult.


I sincerely hope you've understood my points and not start calling me conservative or any shit like that.

Yes you do have conservatice social views.

[Module]

I already covered this:



Actually I would say that the majority of Christians just believe that it is divinely inspired. This is how we can explain dietary restrictions in the OT that were ignored in the NT, to cite just one example.

If the bible is the word of God, then why does Levitical Law ban the eating of seafood, but in Jesus' Feed of the 5000, he gives the crowd bread and fish?

"14:10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you"
Fish have fins and scales.

Chimx, most Christians don't act in accordance to the Bible, that is plain and simple fact.
The Bible says all sorts of absurd things that are ignored by today's Christians. People pick and choose the parts they like, and ignore all the things that by modern standards are considered 'crazy'.

That doesn't change what the Bible says, or the fact that Christianity is supposed to be based on the Christian god, and it's scripture - the Bible. If you don't obey the Bible, you are, according to true Christian morality, going to hell. Plain and simple.
People like to consider themselves Christians, but it's simply a hope(/paranoia)thing, or something which is culturally important to them, due to their family, or general community. It's mostly not any sort genuine conviction.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Bible is against homosexuality, regardless of the personal views of individual 'Christians'.
The Bible says some good stuff, which is constantly preached by Christians from a Christian perspective "Love thy neighbour" and so on. The Bible also includes some really disgusting things, too many to list, infact.
To pick and choose from them undermines the very notion of claiming to be a 'Christian'.

[Kitskits]

The view that all workers are equal is a prerequisite for any communist belief.


Where has anyone (at least on this site) expressed that? :confused:

And what is wrong with gay pride anyway?

What is wrong with black pride?



You mean International Women's Day?

You do know that socialists began that, right?



Homosexual discrimination is not inherently linked to capitalism. It has existed long before it and will probably continue well into the future.

We shouldn't drop our hands and say 'why am I fighting for this, socialism will cure it!'

That's a fucking excuse.



So If I called you a dirty nigger, in a flaming/ironic way, it would be acceptable?

Using 'cock sucker' as an insult implies that there is something wrong with sucking cocks, and when used amongst males its a homophobic insult.



Yes you do have conservatice social views.

The insulting thing in that sentence was the 'erotic' connection with the anti-communist source. If he said he/she is cocksucking lenin would you view it as an insult? I wouldn't if someone said it to me. I would just say hehe it's a strange way to say it but yes I'm cock sucking lenin if it means I have a attraction to lenin (the fact that it is imposed that it is erotic is just humorous if we consider it is not true).

What do I mean by sectarian and dangerous? In a bourgeoisie dominated world, women's day and gay pride and all this can very easily be manipulated to DIVIDE the movement by promoting that gays are for some reason special.

I am against gay pride or female pride or black pride or whatever because I don't think that their oppresion (which EXISTS I don't deny that for fucks sake) is a reason to feel proud. It's a reason to feel revolutionary but not a reason to feel proud (of course they shouldn't feel depressed but why the fuck proud?). I also feel that this pride thing is counter-revolutionary because it might promote an ideology of "we are oppressed but we are connected, progressive and proud" and this might shadow the opression which is really the only thing that must be destroyed as quickly as possible.

Can you please explain to me where are the conservative social values? Did I say anything against gay liberation? And where the hell did i say that all workers arent equal???!

[Marsella]

The insulting thing in that sentence was the 'erotic' connection with the anti-communist source. If he said he/she is cocksucking lenin would you view it as an insult? I wouldn't if someone said it to me. I would just say hehe it's a strange way to say it but yes I'm cock sucking lenin if it means I have a attraction to lenin (the fact that it is imposed that it is erotic is just humorous if we consider it is not true).

I understand that you can use the term insult to imply slavishly following someone.

But what is so slavish about sucking someone's cock?

When used amongst males it is a homophobic insult, when directed at a female its chauvinistic.


What do I mean by sectarian and dangerous? In a bourgeoisie dominated world, women's day and gay pride and all this can very easily be manipulated to DIVIDE the movement by promoting that gays are for some reason special.

They are special.

A gay worker will face more oppression than a straight worker.

A female worker will face more shit than a male worker.

A black worker will have to put up with more shit than a white worker.

Recognising that is not sectarian, its just the plain truth. If anything, it is a liberal attitude to think that 'we're all equal and dandy and we should ignore these things because they have nothing to do with class struggle.'

All sorts of movements can be dominated by liberal crap, even workers movements.


I am against gay pride or female pride or black pride or whatever because I don't think that their oppresion (which EXISTS I don't deny that for fucks sake) is a reason to feel proud.

You fundamentally misunderstand what gay pride or any other pride amongst minorities is about.

Its about highlighting the fact that they have faced this shit - and are still a present force - and that oppression continues to exist.

Gay pride, in a world where homosexuality is seen as something to not be proud of, stands right in face of this reactionary opinion.


I also feel that this pride thing is counter-revolutionary because it might promote an ideology of "we are oppressed but we are connected, progressive and proud" and this might shadow the opression which is really the only thing that must be destroyed as quickly as possible.

Arguing for equal rights doesn't necessarily mean a revolutionary stance, but for communists to turn their back on it ignores the fact that in a society which we want to strive for such rights are necessary.


Can you please explain to me where are the conservative social
values?

'Where's the class struggle in woman's oppression'


Did I say anything against gay liberation? And where the hell did i say that all workers arent equal???!

Go back and re-read what I said.

I didn't say you were opposed to 'gay liberation.' Just that you thought they were secondary things to worker emancipation.

As I've pointed out, unless such rights are attained whatever hypothetical communist society you wish for will be fruitless.

[quevivafidel]

I really don't think about it very much; I just am automatically programmed now to be in support of the rights of every group of people as long as they are not exploiting other people. I am 100% for gay rights. Of course, I wouldn't approve of a gay person if they're i.e. somebody who hires illegal immigrants and doesn't pay them enough to live...See, the only thing I'm against is when equal rights means automatically liking somebody better because they are gay or a woman or whatever; I've met gay people who were as bad as straight people. But in terms of equality, nobody should be discriminated against unless they are discriminating/exploiting others themselves, period.

[chimx]

or the fact that Christianity is supposed to be based on the Christian god, and it's scripture

Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ, which were recorded by human beings, and are subject therefore to human error.


If you don't obey the Bible, you are, according to true Christian morality, going to hell.

lol. More bullshit. The bible never says that.


The simple fact of the matter is that the Bible is against homosexuality

I've already covered this. Please try and keep up.

[Unicorn]

PS: Is it true that Stalin punished gay people with 5 years in prison?
Not only Stalin but also Khruschev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and Gorbachev. Homosexuality was criminalized in the Soviet Union and stayed criminalized long after it was generally known to be a normal form of human sexuality. This was one of the things which were wrong in the USSR.

However, the number of imprisoned homosexuals was very small. They were mainly males who suffered from rectal STD's and were exposed when they went to a hospital.

[bezdomni]

Jesus was bipolar.

And on the subject of homosexuality being criminalized in the USSR. Yeah, it was, and that was very wrong...but it was very hapazardly enforced and there were notable members of the CPSU who were open homosexuals.

[Kitskits]

I believe that homosexuality was regarded by a wrong prespective in the whole world back then. So saying that about Stalin is selective vision.

[Module]

Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ, which were recorded by human beings, and are subject therefore to human error.
And how do you know what is error and what is not? By picking a choosing what you'd like to be error? As I said, this undermines the very concept of following a religion.


lol. More bullshit. The bible never says that.The Bible says that sinners will go to hell, and Christians will not go to hell, Christians are those which believe in God and do not sin. What is considered as sin is outlined in the Bible.


I've already covered this. Please try and keep up.Please don't insult me when I'm trying to have a discussion with you.
You've 'covered' this by claiming that Christians don't uphold 'Levitical Law'. And yet, if you see this as an indication of the genuine Christian faith, then you should recognise that Christians are, on the whole, opposed to homosexuality.

[Red_or_Dead]

Ignoring the religious debate, I agree with what most other ppl have said so far, and I would add this as well: being against gay rights, or the rights of any minority group is as reactionary as it gets (well... Maybe not in the case of various supremacist movements). I think that in this debate on wheter gay ppl should have equal rights, the reactionary side is winning a very important battle, as it is in the debates on immigrants, national minorities ect. Its channeling the atention of the working class from real oppressors to imaginary threats, from the bourgeoisie to the movements who are basicly just struggling for emancipation. So, instead having the working class engage in an open class struggle against the bourgeoisie, the working class is being kept at bay with imaginary threats from oppressed minorities, gay people among them.

[chimx]

And how do you know what is error and what is not?

It's called theology and it's always changing. A few hundred years ago Catholics persecuted people for heliocentricism. Now 80-some years ago Catholics invented the Big Bang theory.

Just because you insist people must read the bible literally doesn't mean most Christians actually do this.


What is considered as sin is outlined in the Bible.

Other than the ten commandments, most sinning is left up to interpretation. See my example above.


You've 'covered' this by claiming that Christians don't uphold 'Levitical Law'. And yet, if you see this as an indication of the genuine Christian faith, then you should recognise that Christians are, on the whole, opposed to homosexuality.

No, I think people in general, not just Christians, have moral qualms with homosexuality due to the long years of biological ignorance on the subject. As we learn more about it, we become more tolerant as a species, and our little cultural institutions like churches and legislatures adapt accordingly.

This is why some states have slowly started allowing for civil unions of gay couples, some Christians churches have begun to embrace homosexual couples and even ordain them as priests and bishops.

[Module]

It's called theology and it's always changing. A few hundred years ago Catholics persecuted people for heliocentricism. Now 80-some years ago Catholics invented the Big Bang theory.
I am sure that perspectives and interpretations change over time, but a conscious picking and choosing, as I said, undermines the notion of following a religion.
Can you tell me why it doesn't other than just giving it a name?



Just because you insist people must read the bible literally doesn't mean most Christians actually do this.I don't insist that they should read the Bible literally. I'd prefer if Christians weren't Christians at all, but that's not what we're arguing about.
If Christianity refers to a certain religion, and not just a personal spiritual choice, then you would need some sort of ideological grounding to call yourself a Christian, which is the Bible.
Common interpretations can form the basis of how you follow the Bible, but only to the extent that it doesn't separate itself from the original scripture. If you make a personal change to how you interpret the Bible, to do it from a genuinely Christian perspective you would have to base this change on the Bible itself, and not the specific interpretation.



Other than the ten commandments, most sinning is left up to interpretation. See my example above.I am aware that this is the case, but for something such as homosexuality, which is mentioned so explicitly, the misinterpretation of that simply becomes dishonesty.



No, I think people in general, not just Christians, have moral qualms with homosexuality due to the long years of biological ignorance on the subject. As we learn more about it, we become more tolerant as a species, and our little cultural institutions like churches and legislatures adapt accordingly.Are you denying that religion has played it's part in creating and maintaining these 'moral qualms'?
If intolerance of homosexuality are due to long years of biological ignorance, then why is it that the people of the United States, one of the most scientifically advanced nations in the world is still so against it?
And why is it that homosexual sex was for a long time acceptable in Ancient Rome, where they were far more biologically ignorant of why homosexual attractions occurred?
Apparently, (according to Wikipedia, take it or leave it.) homosexuality became increasingly unacceptable at the 'arrival' of Christianity.
Christian institutions in American have only began to adapt to accept homosexuality because they have been forced by the religion's increasing alienation from a society increasingly influenced by science and technology.
This is not just a gradual change of "Christian theology", but a conscious attempt to make Christianity, on the part of very few churches, from what I gather, seem less morally offensive.
Religious institutions do not just 'adapt accordingly' to changing social norms. They, for the most part, actively fight against this change, especially in the case of homosexuality.


This is why some states have slowly started allowing for civil unions of gay couples, some Christians churches have begun to embrace homosexual couples and even ordain them as priests and bishops.These states are only 9 out of 50, only 2 of which have allowed it for over 10 years.
According to this survey (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/02/25/religion.survey.ap/index.html), more and more people in America are abandoning their religion. This is because religion is becoming increasingly irrelevant to their lives - and that is why Christian churches defy their religious texts and accept homosexuality, and generally become more liberal.
They have no choice. They are forced to change by the increasingly socially progressive forces in the United States which now far more openly criticise, and humiliate them, or just ignore them altogether.

[Luís Henrique]

Because we fight for the emancipation of all humanity and gay people are (believe it or not) human.

That is beautiful, but doesn't follow. Thieves, homophobes, scabs, are (believe it or not) human, yet we don't support thieving rights, homophobic rights, or scabbing rights.

We support "gay rights", first, because we can: because the sexual preferences of an adult cannot be changed, because homosexuality does not harm society at large, because it is not a "contagious" behaviour, and because what people do with their bodies when no unconsenting people are around is no one else's business.

Second, because we should. Patriarchy is an oppressive force in any society, it divides workers, it pushes class struggle out from the front scene, and makes workers instrumental in maintaining oppression against themselves. And the suppression of sexual and civil rights of gay people is an integral part of patriarchy.

Luís Henrique

[RadioRaheem84]

But also here (Matthew 5:17-20; Luke 16:17; Romans 10:4; Galatians 4:4; 1 John 3:4-5).

And here (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26; 1 Peter 2:22). These being quotes saying Jesus was sinless.

Here's the law that Jesus supported and upheld on gay people:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13

But also Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26-27.

Do the math.



I believe those laws were for the nation of Israel at a time when God wanted all of Israel to sternly follow a law that they couldn't and wouldn't keep. It was to serve a purpose to bring about the birth of Christ. Once Christ died for the sins of the world, the law was internalized and made void. When a person lives like a Christian, he is keeping the law, without being legalisitc.




Also he would condem homosexuals for their actions, but rather than say "stone them to death!" he would have probably told them to repent and stop sinnin. like that one time where a woman that was to be stonned to death for being a prostitute.



When the Pharises picked up the stones to stone the prostitute, Jesus knew that Israel had not legally stoned a person in hundreds of years, so they were trying to trick him. They knew that the Jews thought that law was grotesque and if Jesus were to approve of the law he would look bad in front of the jews. So Jesus turned it around on them and told them that he who is without sin cast the first stone. From the oldest to the youngest (because the older had sinned more) they threw their stones down.

[RadioRaheem84]

What is with all of this bickering? Marxist regimes have persecuted Homosexuals throughout the ages. I do not think Marx ever mentioned homosexuals anyways, and all of the rights in early political marxist thought were bestowed to the WORKER. Everyone else from the homeless, to peasents, were left out. It wasn't until the New Left 60's and Herbert Marcuse of the Berlin School that homosexuals, minorities, and others were included in the oppressed!

[F9]

Because as leftists we support the human right to have the chance to do whatever he likes whith himself.If we didnt support it we wouldnt be leftists but rascists.

Fuserg9:star:

[Andres Marcos]

I support the rights and liberation of my proletarian brothers and sisters regardless of sex, color, race, religious preference, sexual orientation etc. I have more in common with a gay white worker than I would with a Chicano straight businessman.

Secondly, the communist states stances on criminalizing homosexuality is something thats outdated, and is wrong now. FYI Trotsky, Marx, and Engels had these SAME positions

These people maintained male homosexuality as a product of the "degradation of the woman" in Ancient Greek society. Friedrich Engels, for example, maintained:
"This degradation of the woman was avenged on the men and degraded them also till they fell into the abominable practice of sodomy".


This position is now out of date as homosexuality is not a ''mental disorder'' thanks to science, and I cannot condemn Engels or Stalin for their backward views(again thanks to the revelation of science) anymore than I can condemn a peasant in the middle ages who thought the world was flat.

[Awful Reality]

Because homosexuality isn't some "choice" that people make, it's a natural way people are born.

Lie. Freudian analysis dictates that all humans are born bisexual, and it is conditions and upbringing that determine sexual orientation.

I'm for gay rights. ...We should support them because we are for equal rights? Just guessing.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

In my personal opinion the only minorty that deserves to be opressed is the burgoise.

What??? You hate Idaho too???















Oh nevermind, I thought you were talking about Boise, Idaho. (I hate Idaho due to bad experiences)

But yeah, I have experimented with/questioned my sexuality before, I've probably had intercourse with more men than womyn. I'm currently in a heterosexual relationship though. I have learned to keep my distance emotionally. I've grown increasingly cold hearted in recent times.

I fulfill the processes of life, but I might as well be dead.

I degressed...

Basicly, you are who you are and nobody should have to supress that.

[Module]

Lie. Freudian analysis dictates that all humans are born bisexual, and it is conditions and upbringing that determine sexual orientation.
Freud isn't some eternal authority on human sexuality - science has shown there is a genetic linkage.
Sexuality probably decided by a combination of both nature and nurture, regardless.

[daniyaal]

If I recall the passage

sure.


Jesus never states that the New Covenant must replace the laws of the old. You will not need to see Jesus abrogating the Old Law with the New Covenant, but that is because it is the direct logical outcome.



in addition to various other sexual acts, such as masturbation.

The Bible does not mention masturbation.

[gilhyle]

This is a very funny thread.....restores one's faith in the ability of people to argue about anything.

Human beings are endlessly amusing in a sad sort of way.

Sorry to look down (im trying not to) but, ok, the religious thing with homosexuality is part of the world we live in and no doubt all those guys who believe this crap dont cut their beards or eat seafood as the bible also demands.....and have never hit back in self defence (that one's new testament - less popular) and have given all their money away and either do or dont marry their brothers wives (depending on which bit of the bible you read) etc etc......but does this silliness really have to be rehearsed on this board - Im not arguing to ban it - Im just smiling and despairing (and trying not to be disrespectful) all at the same time.

(And btw, hell isnt really in the bible that much....cos Judaism didnt really believe in it for most of the time the bible was being written....the devil is, but not hell..Hell is a new testament idea taken from pagan Greek mythology....just another case of the New and Old Testament's disagreeing endlessly and leaving people to use it as a tabula rasa on which to write their own prejudices.)

And if you are reading the new testament very carefully, no doubt you have carefully read the bit about Jesus' special friend.:D

Gay rights, its so basic, it isnt even a matter of socialism, its basic democratic rights

[Destroy capitalism]

I am utterly horrified that there is any question whatsoever that socialists should adamantly defend gay and lesbian rights, aplogize for the horrors inflicted on gays and lesbians by the socialist states and be 100% in solidarity with the demands of gays and lesbians for an end to discrimaination. Socialism cherishes all the people equally who are willing to live in an egalitarian world.Oppose homophobia every time you meet it, it is the duty of all socialists to do so.

[chimurenga]

Chritinity is all about class the very same classes we want to put an end to, I know what the bible says about gays and it condenms them but communists exists to abolish the tradition chains that bind us.

[Dóchas]

I see many leftists supporting gay rights just because other leftists do so.
I'm not a homophobe , but can you explain to me why should we support gay rights?

PS: Is it true that Stalin punished gay people with 5 years in prison?

why shouldnt we? :confused: they are human beings a long with us.

[Communist Theory]

This is an idiotic thread.
Could it be the same reason we fight for workers rights?
Or minority rights?

[Bitter Ashes]

One hell of a necro. Nearly a whole year of lying dormant :laugh:
Anyway, the main points have long been brought up. A worker is a worker, whether they're gay, straight, bi, trans, cis, andro, black, white, brown, whatever. Divisions are just there to keep workers from accepting class unity.

[brigadista]

i think the question you should ask is why not?

[Communist Theory]

i think the question you should ask is why not?
So you want him to come up with reasons why we shouldn't support gay rights?

[brigadista]

So you want him to come up with reasons why we shouldn't support gay rights?


no my point was that if you ask your self why not -as any kind of left winger- you would be unable to justify NOT supporting gay rights because the arguments denying gay rights are so RW and reactionary

[Communist Theory]

Good, thats what I thought you were getting at.
Yes there are no real arguments against homosexuality except "God doesn't love them!" or "They can't have babies."
I see no problem with homosexuals not contributing to the already huge population.
And who cares what god thinks.
Edit: God doesn't love them isn't an agrument actually it's just a thing crazy right wingers say.

[F9]

Im closing this thread now, the member made the question is banned ages now, so this is out of date, if some have similar questions, open another one.
Closed

Fuserg9:star: