Clerics of 3 Faiths Protest Gay Festival Planned for Jerusal

Clerics of 3 Faiths Protest Gay Festival Planned for Jerusalem

International gay leaders are planning a 10-day WorldPride festival and parade in Jerusalem in August, saying they want to make a statement about tolerance and diversity in the Holy City, home to three great religious traditions.

Now major leaders of the three faiths - Christianity, Judaism and Islam - are making a rare show of unity to try to stop the festival. They say the event would desecrate the city and convey the erroneous impression that homosexuality is acceptable.

Instead of working together for better understanding and relations between poeple here, the only thing that can make them come together is picking on gays. What a bunch of assholes.

Sticking one’s reproductive organ - a relatively fragile and important body part - into someone else’s stored-up biological waste - stuff that is so inherently toxic to the body we’re hard-wired to be revolted at the mere sight or smell of it - just is not something that anyone will ever be able to convince me is a good idea or worthy of any praise whatsoever.

That the leaders of these religions say that God tells us not to do just that seems like relatively sane advice. That they say that God thinks homosexuals have a negative effect on family structures and morals in general is not a surprising argument either - in a world of perfectly objective and open-minded people, it may not be true, but this is not that world.

There is no “working together for better understanding” to be done here. They understand exactly what they are dealing with, and have decided they don’t approve.

It’s not clear to me why it is unreasonable for them to not want to publicize bad examples.

What i don’t understand is the Gay movement’s (in some places) overwhelming desire to be accepted by every demographic group. It says pretty straightfowardly in the Bible Teh Gay = bad, and also in Judaism and Islam. So why is it discriminatory if these religions don’t want any part of the homosexual movement - and more importantly - why the hell would you want anything to do with them in the first place?

It just seems like a profound lack of perspective on the part of some of the Gay community - or else an overwhelming insecurity. If someone or some group, somewhere, anywhere, dislikes homosexuality, we cannot let that stand.

I agree with you in one sense, SG, i.e. that Gay Christians make about as much sense to me as Jewish Nazis. If they don’t want you to be a member of their society then don’t bother trying to get in. However, I do completely sympathise with them when they take to the streets to demostrate against these religious groups’ intolerence towards them. These religious faiths hold a great deal of sway over billions of people, and they all, to differing degrees, unashamedly promote anti-homosexual attitudes. Now if Jewish people were protesting that Christian churches wouldn’t let them join, I’d think they were insane, but if the Christian church was promoting anti-Jewish attitudes, I would fully support Jewish people protesting against that.

You are aware that lesbians and many gay men do not have anal sex? And that many heterosexual couples do? Also, I don’t think they are looking for praise. Not being demonized would be fine by them, I think.

To answer a question stated earlier … that’s probably the reason gays try to identify themselves with blacks and women when it comes to civil rights. There’s a side that says that it is better to just exist quietly and hopefully people will grow tolerant versus the side that says it is necessary to press the issues of public inclusion and public awareness.

I think if blacks and women had tried to wait for the majority to accept them, they’d still be waiting.

Both sides are needed. You need the person who goes about his business and doesn’t attract attention … the person who just does their job well and being gay has nothing to do with it (Ellen DeGeneres?). On the other hand, you need organizations out there interested in maintaining visibility.

It’s definitely changing. For example, there are many attractive actresses who are openly gay and working. The girl who plays Sophie on Carnivale, Portia DeRossi from Arrested Development, etc.

Sometime when you aren’t struggling to sound like a pseudo-medical expert rather than bigot, you should pause your ravings to consider the fact that half of the population uses the same organ for eliminating biological waste and reproduction.

Now you know how your wife feels.

hahahaha…

Sometime when you aren’t struggling to sound like a pseudo-medical expert rather than bigot, you should pause your ravings to consider the fact that half of the population uses the same organ for eliminating biological waste and reproduction.

Now you know how your wife feels.[/quote]

The other half still uses their reproductive zone as a kind of biological waste clearing-house.

I don’t know what area of the country you are in, but the gay & lesbian community in my area is more concerned with gay marriage, losing domestic partnership benefits, promoting safe-sex education to combat AIDS, and curbing sexual violence than acceptance by every monotheistic faith.

When I have talked to gay Christians about this, they usually mention that prominent leaders within various Christian traditions have come to different conclusions regarding Biblical passages regarding homosexuality. Some have suggested it was limited to coercive relationships, some have said it was culture bound and no longer applies (much like the decree to stone women who commit adultery), some say it forbids homosexual behavior but not homosexual identification. The fire & brimstone crowd is one approach, but gets the most airtime on media outlets concerned with sensationalist antics that will drive up ratings. There’s an openly gay Episcopal bishop, and the Anglican/Episcopal church leadership is figuring out how to handle it without resorting to Jerry Springer-type antics.

There’s no relationship between one’s sexual orientation and their interest in a fulfilling spiritual life. I hope all the great religious traditions continue to have progressive wings that allow for debate and reinterpretation of spiritual teachings in the context of new knowledge and conditions. It’s much like the debate on evolution – most progressive Christians have no problem with well-supported scientific theory, while the conservative wings are more likely to reject it.

It says pretty straightfowardly in the Bible Teh Gay = bad,

No, it doesn’t. It gives a few statements that may be taken to mean as such (what exactly does “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.” MEAN), but may be taken to mean several things.

What ELSE is an abomination or is CLEARLY SAID TO BE WRONG AND BAD in the bible?

Eating shellfish, any kind. (Leviticus 11:10)
Wearing cloth with two different fibers. (Leviticus 19:19)
Wearing gold jewelry. (1 Peter 3:3)
Men getting a haircut.(Leviticus 19:27)
Touching/talking to a woman while she is menstruating. (Leviticus 15:19-24)
Planting two crops in the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)
Touching the skin of a dead pig. (Leviticus 11:6-8 )
Usury, of any kind. In fact, Jesus was pretty pissed at this one. (Leviticus 25:37, Deuteronomy 23:19, etc)
Marrying somebody that is divorced. (Matthew 5:32)
Working on Saturday. (Exodus 20:10)
Women talking in church. (Corinthians 14:34)

Now, take a good long look at that list.

Now, tell me why virtually every christian in the world would not think twice about doing any of them.

Now, tell me why they care what the bible says about homosexuality.

Am I allowed to field this one?

Aw heck, here goes anyway: because none of the things you listed (except for the last one, but women are different from other minority groups in a few key ways and are mostly off-limits for discrimination these days) provide a convenient justification for their hatred of a minority.

Am I allowed to field this one?

Aw heck, here goes anyway: because none of the things you listed (except for the last one, but women are different from other minority groups in a few key ways and are mostly off-limits for discrimination these days) provide a convenient justification for their hatred of a minority.[/quote]

Bingo!

It’s fair to say that agitation by some gays have caused some religious institutions to rethink their policies.

True. Some are fairly open to gays in general, like some Episcopalians. There has been progress, undoubtedly.

This is where it gets confusing, because this parade is ostensibly being held in Jerusalem because of its tolerant culture, “energized by Jerusalem’s unique diversity” (from InterPride’s site), but its clear the mission and message is pro-active. Instead of just picketing where bigotry exists, this seems to have a tinge of wierd post-modern co-option of the symbolism w/ regards to the city. It doesn’t seem that Jerusalem has been overwhelmingly open to Gay rights, although they have tolerated marches in recent years.

There’s no relationship between one’s sexual orientation and their interest in a fulfilling spiritual life. I hope all the great religious traditions continue to have progressive wings that allow for debate and reinterpretation of spiritual teachings in the context of new knowledge and conditions. It’s much like the debate on evolution – most progressive Christians have no problem with well-supported scientific theory, while the conservative wings are more likely to reject it.

I wonder if the emphasis on the biological origins of homosexuality hasn’t increased its palatability, at least in this instance - i’ve gone “on record” many times before insisting this emphasis on Nature over Nurture has hurt the movement’s ability to defend itself against accusations of immorality. But in this instance, if it was God who made them gay, and not a choice of free will, than they cannot be completely to blame, or so goes the logic. There remains the act of homosexuality to digest however - and here you see odd schisms in several denominations that accept Gay and Lesbian ministers as long as they don’t actually DO anything gay, not being able to reconcile orientation with biblical prohibitions.

No, it doesn’t. It gives a few statements that may be taken to mean as such (what exactly does “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.” MEAN), but may be taken to mean several things.

Yea, but, you know, Occam’s Razor. It’s like saying

“Well, sure it says DO NOT COVET THY NEIGHBORS WIFE, … hmmm … God gave Canaan to Joshua - so what this means is not to covet her, but if he cannot stop you, to take her!”

There are more straightfoward interpretations. :)

Along with my natural disinclination towards traditional religions i have a hard time understanding why Gay people would want to be a part of something which imo is so overtly against their lifestyle.

OTOH, gay rights and acceptance has made great strides in certain denominations, and i have to applaud the Episcopal Church; though i fear it will probably cause an irrepairable split. The majority of Evangelical Christianity, being more literal and fundamentalist, is squarely against accepting homosexuality, as evidenced by the recent US national elections.


Because most of them were part of the Mosaic Law which was for the Jews pre-Christ. <shrug> Short answer.

Because most of them were part of the Mosaic Law which was for the Jews pre-Christ. <shrug> Short answer.[/quote]

I’m not going to look into the Old Testament ones right now, so I’ll assume they all fall under your umbrella, although some may well not. Even so, what about the three that are from the New Testament?

Fair question. I’d give an answer which would quickly be rebuffed using some variant of accusing me of the True Scotsman Fallacy, to whit: that two of the three brief summaries posted aren’t what those verses actually say. I’m sure he cut-n-pasted them from his favorite bookmarked anti-Bible website, though.

1 Pt 3:3 doesn’t say one shouldn’t be beautiful on the outside, but that beauty should come from what is inside. I can’t find the part where wearing jewelry (specifically gold, but let’s generalize here) is somehow wrong or bad, unless he is extending it to mean “not only should beauty come from the inside, but any beauty on the outside is bad!”

Mt 5:32 says that divorce for any reason besides unfaithfulness is a sin, and anyone who marries a person who has had such a divorce is committing a sin. On this point, his post was more or less correct although I’d definitely not agree with his characterization that the Bible calls it “an abomination”. It is a sin.

Cor 14:34 (I presume he means First Cor, although his cut-n-paste didn’t specify) says that a woman shouldn’t hold authority over men to speak in a church. In other words, women shouldn’t be preachers.

In fairness, the “virtually every christian” that he meant in his original is probably (going out on a limb here) talking about the ones you see in the news: the hard core nutjob Evangelicals. Surely he hasn’t interviewed or surveyed a reasonable cross-section of non-politically active Christians and found their thoughts (or thinking twice) on the issues at hand? I could be wrong.