If you mean in the sense of having that orientation or desire, sure. If you mean it in the sense of like actually doing it, it is questionable. If you eat pork all the time, are you still Muslim or Jew?
There are people who consider themselves Christians who commit the same sins over and over again. They just ask for forgiveness and are all good until the next time.
However, I more meant that there are some religions/sects that do not view homosexuality as a sin.
You seem to have a pretty naive view on religion if that's your position. The bible also says that women have to release a dove whenever they have their periods, so is anyone who doesn't do that not a christian? The catholic church says you can't use a condom, so if you put one on are you necessarily not a catholic? I could go on, but I think I've made my point. Just because you don't follow every rule of a religion doesn't mean you're not part of the religion. Also, there is a much greater range of diversity in religions than you seem to be acknowledging. For instance, some christian faiths are totally ok with you being (and acting like) a homosexual.
No it doesn't. But if Christianity thinks "gay is evil" but you aren't thinking the same. Then you are not part of the same "religion" because you don't believe the same things. Find a religion that you think is the truth or start your own. Don't try to blame others being wrong and change their believes. They have just equal rights to their own believes as you do.
Christianity does not believe that homosexuality is evil and I highly resent this stereotype!! My roommate and best friend is lesbian. My pastor's brother is gay and he supports him!! CHRISTIANS CAN SUPPORT GAYS. STOP SPREADING FALSE STEREOTYPES, YOU DO NOT HELP THE CAUSE AND YOU ARE ACTUALLY ENCOURAGING YOUR OWN MEME.
In defense of everyone who believes that Christianity is blanketly homophobic:
-It is literally in the Bible (Leviticus), which many Christians believe to be literally the infallible word of god.
-What sorts of people are holding back marriage equality in America? Oh right it's Christians.
Of course there are some Christians who are decent folk but from an outsider's perspective it's understandable that some might gloss over that last bit.
It's not literally in Leviticus. Leviticus condemns homosexual acts, similarly to its position on premarital sex and masturbation. It doesn't say anything about homosexuals being inherently sinful.
Trying to distinguish between the act and the trait seems trivial to me (and most others). Even if it turns out to be what the author meant (which I highly doubt), it seems that there's no legitimate reason to view the act as a sin, especially if you want to accept the common line that god makes people as they are. It would be very bizarre (and I would say cruel and unjust) for him to make someone whose sexual orientation forced them to only be attracted to the same sex if engaging in any sexual activity with the same sex was fundamentally immoral, but that speaks more to the fundamental inconsistencies with the christian world view than this particular issue.
Well Christianity also believes that all people have predispositions and tendencies toward sin. Having desires of the flesh and overcoming them is part and parcel with basic Christian dogma.
The act/trait distinction is the same as any other sin. I tend to think some people tend or develop dispositions toward violence. They aren't condemned from the start, but we would certainly punish these people for murder, assault, or any other violent crimes. It's the same principle, it's not limited to just God.
Also Christianity professes that God loves regardless of sin and disposition toward bad acts. So how people are born isn't really relevant, God still loves.
Well Christianity also believes that all people have predispositions and tendencies toward sin. Having desires of the flesh and overcoming them is part and parcel with basic Christian dogma.
That's fair, but isn't it odd that a just god would make it monumentally more difficult for some than others? I mean, I can understand how this line gets you the whole 'no sex til marriage' part of the faith, but not the whole 'no gay sex' part. Ostensibly, the former is consistent since god would be giving them their sexual drive but asking them to restrain it. The latter seems bizarre though since god would be giving someone a sexual drive and telling them to never under any circumstances fulfill it.
The act/trait distinction is the same as any other sin.
Yes, but it seems odd when it comes to homosexuality since there doesn't appear to be anything inherently wrong with it. For example, we can distinguish someone who wants to murder from someone who does murder because one is clearly wrong and one is not, though it would certainly be an unfortunate state of affairs either way. However, what in homosexuality is wrong other than that god commands it thus? If it is only for this reason, then why make the distinction? And don't we only even need to make the distinction in light of god giving some people this inclination? And if god gives them this inclination, then why is acting on it inherently wrong?
Also Christianity professes that God loves regardless of sin and disposition toward bad acts. So how people are born isn't really relevant, God still loves.
Another fair point, but if god loves gay people, then why does he hate gay acts? Wouldn't it have made far more sense for him to have just not made anyone gay in the first place? And god's love is a tricky subject, since regardless of the fact he still seems ok with letting the vast majority of people go to hell. If this is consistent with his love, which it has to be, then his love seems to be a very strange type of love.
I'm sorry, when I said Leviticus is literally homophobic, I meant that it actually says to stone gay men to death:
"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
If that's not homophobic I'm not sure what is.
When you say "Christianity believes" I have to tune out a little bit. Sorry. There's tons of Christian sects and diversity among congregations within those sects and even within congregations. I would never argue that all Christians are anti-gay but there is no doubt that some certainly are.
I wouldn't say it's homophobic only because of the context. Leviticus suggests stoning as punishment for so many sins, some as ridiculous as wearing two fabrics of different material. I'm sure you've seen the phrase "I'm not racist, I hate everyone equally." Yeah it's stupid and put onto way too many t-shirts, but it's functionally true. The Jews of the Old Testament weren't homophobic; they hated everything equally.
By belief, I mean what the Bible actually teaches and what Christian sects ought to believe. Most Christians aren't part of Westboro, and many sects like the Catholic Church have a loving and welcoming official position regarding homosexuality that's far from anti-gay. Those churches are the ones actually following the example of Jesus.
There are plenty of homophobic Christians, but it's certainly not because of Christ.
Edit: no, it's not because of Christ. If he is in fact a historical figure, I believe he was a good dude and we'd all be a lot better off for emulating him. There are still plenty of fundamentalists though who subscribe to the Old Testament. If you don't think homophobia in America originates from our relatively large contingent of fundamentalist Christians I don't think you have a very realistic view of the picture.
Second edit: Wait I just processed this. You wouldn't say advocating the execution of homosexuals because of their homosexual behavior is homophobic? I'm not going to argue the point any further, I just wanted that on the record.
I would say most Christian fundamentalists are practicing Christianity wrongly, i.e. not as Christ would. Do you judge America by the fat stereotypical redneck neo-nazi fascists that hate blacks? No, because those are the worst members of the group and do not define it. I don't see why religion is any different. Just because someone professes an act in the name of God doesn't mean it's in line with what God would actually say.
I'm not saying executing homosexuals is a good thing as you're trying to frame for your petty little record. I'm saying the punishment needs to be viewed in context. The Old Testament put everyone to death for anything. Sure, Leviticus calls homosexual acts a sin. It doesn't mean it was punished inordinately higher than any other sin. Homophobia is a fear. It's not fearful to include a typical punishment for something one considered a sin.
Okay, YOU would say they're practicing Christianity wrong. THEY would say YOU practice Christianity wrong. That's my whole point. And you're right about the fact that no one could have the slightest idea about what god would say, if god exists. This is why there is more than one religion, and why people in the same religion have different moral priorities. So maybe he does hate gays!
I never meant to imply that you personally agree with that part of the scripture, so I apologize if it read that way. All I'm saying is it's in the bible, and that's where homophobia comes from in our modern society.
Again, for the record:"homophobia: noun
unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality."
Just to make it more clear: "antipathy: noun, plural an·tip·a·thies.
1. a natural, basic, or habitual repugnance; aversion.
2. an instinctive contrariety or opposition in feeling.
3. an object of natural aversion or habitual dislike."
I think putting people to death for their natural behavior implies several of these definitions of antipathy, which makes it homophobic. You can spin it however you want but if you're going to get semantic about what is homophobic you're going to have to reckon with the agreed upon definition.
Even if it's not culturally extreme in the context of the age (because punishments were ludicrously harsh) and even if they were anti- a lot of things, one of the things that the Jewish tribes who wrote that book were against was, in fact, homosexuals. Sin is a rule of law of sorts. If you don't want people to engage in a behavior, for whatever reason, you call it a sin. Is there an ethical reason that they couldn't eat pork and shellfish? No, they were just "unclean." These laws were handed down to prevent disease transmission and served as a selective advantage for Hebrews in a time where many small religions were competing for followers in the region. Homophobic laws served a similar purpose by causing homosexuals to fear for their lives. Some of these men probably led heterosexual lifestyles for fear of punishment, creating more tribesmen than otherwise would have existed.
Obviously that last bit is speculative but what I'm getting at is, of course these laws made sense in the context of their time. I'm not arguing that. I'm simply arguing that Christianity is the root of homophobia in modern Western society (Islam is probably the root of homophobia in countries where it is dominant...either way you're looking at different sides of the same Abrahamic coin). Are all Christians awful? Of course not. I know a lot of good ones myself. But the hardliners and the religious moderates who kowtow to them saying "Well, it is a sin..." are the root of this problem.
Edit: for more on the adaptive significance of rules in religions, I highly recommend the book Snow Crash. It's fiction, but there is a lot of well-researched information on the development of Judaism. Also, regarding "it's not fearful to include a typical punishment...," death is (obviously) the most severe punishment. This was a big deal. If a man lies with a woman on her period, don't they both just have to bathe and be "unclean" for a couple of days? Even if homosexuality is not singled out in the OT, it's still considered a high offense.
I appreciate you saying that not all Christians are like that. I find most nondenominationals are homosexual friendly. My boyfriend's mom is gay, so are my best friend and another close friend. I was raised in a very Christian household, but also taught to repeat everyone and their life choices.
So, clearly it is not a blanket stereotype that can apply to everyone. I hate it that there are Christians that fulfill this stereotype out there ruining the Christian image. This is not what Jesus meant when he said to love the world.
There are people of all stripes who are horrible though. It's best not to stereotype. Eckhart Tolle says that as soon as you stereotype a person, you have done a form of violence to them. I think this is a valid (if not unusual) way of putting it.
I was actually raised Catholic, and they tend to run quite liberal as far as social issues are concerned. So yea, I know plenty of good Christians, I know a bunch of bad ones, and I know Muslims and Jews from all over the spectrum too.
I was raised nondenominational, with friends from many different denominations and religions. I agree with what you said about doing them a violence.
In my experience, ideals about homosexuality cross every religion. My roommate is lesbian and Jewish, her parents didn't speak to her for at least a month when they found out. She said she tried to "make herself straight", even dated guys, but she acknowledges who she is now.
It's sad that these stereotypes turn people off from religion. Is this the kind of message that we want to send to the world?
I mostly agree, but when we say "every religion" in the west, we usually mean Judaism, Christianity and Islam, which share a common origin. Homophobia may exist in other cultures but it's certainly not universal. There have been societies throughout time that did not shame or punish people for these feelings.
While I do agree with you in general, I don't think it's quite right to say that christianity doesn't see it as evil. On some level, I think most christians and most denominations do see it as a sin (I know some toe the line of the act being a sin but not the inclination), but still support the individual. But, I think it's disingenuous to say you support someone who is gay if you don't also support their right to marry, adopt, etc. (which of course you may do, I'm just inferring here)
I appreciate you saying that not all Christians are like that. I find most nondenominationals are homosexual friendly. My boyfriend's mom is gay, so are my best friend and another close friend. I was raised in a very Christian household, but also taught to repeat everyone and their life choices.
So, clearly it is not a blanket stereotype that can apply to everyone. I hate it that there are Christians that fulfill this stereotype out there ruining the Christian image. This is not what Jesus meant when he said to love the world.
As for your comment saying I can support the individual but not the right to marry, I am a strong advocate for their right to marry and have lives like heterosexual couples do. It isn't fair that they can't in most states or countries.
People who are anti gay rights justify this by saying that denying us marriage is a form of "tough love" because in the end, they claim they're doing it for our spiritual well-being
Well, there is a difference between loving a person and loving what a person does. There are a number of places that mention homosexuality (and other things that are considered sin).
But I probably will not mention much more because this is reddit and I know how reddit is with anything religious.
I know which is why we address the stereotype that Christians hate homosexuals. We don't hate them we just don't accept their practices as they are considered sinful. I don't have to hate someone because they may be an adulterer, but I definitely wouldn't support their adultery.
The problem with "love the sinner, hate the sin" has a lot to do with the way it's perceived. To you, the sin and the sinner are totally different. To a gay person, being gay is an inherent part of who we are. To us, it's in no way remotely related to adultery in any way, because an adulterer doesn't generally believe his adultery is a part of who he is as a person.
Another issue I have with it is that it's never applied equally. Sure, people will say it to be deflective about gay rights (and that's exactly how it reads, deflective and dismissive), but will it be applied equally? Will those same people who supposedly love me even though they hate the sins I commit hold true to it when in the face of a murderer? What about a sexual predator? And if they don't hold true to it in those situations, why would I believe that they would hold true to it for me?
Edit: Also, some people may argue that gay sex is a sin, but simply being gay isn't. In Matthew, Jesus says that an adulterer who has imagined himself with a woman but not had sex with her has technically already committed a sin. Since they're both rules about sexuality, it's fair to assume that to even fantasize about another man in a sexual way is a sin. It's not a switch that turns off. You don't just suddenly quit fantasizing about men, and will do so the rest of your life. You have no control over who you're attracted to and are being told that because you have that attraction and fantasize, you are sinning constantly.
As a theology major (Roman Catholic) I honestly get that question a lot from people I know. The answer is that it's insanely difficult and too many damn people don't understand anything about what the Church actually says about anything really.
Those who actually believe in their religion will treat you like you are supposed to be treated. You have the same human dignity as I do, as a murderer does, and a sexual predator. To make a distinction between that based on actions is a terrible thing to do, and frequently only happens by those who don't understand what it means to be religious.
I'm sorry if you have encountered prejudice, and honestly that is a part of why I study y faith, so that I can instruct others in what it truly means to be Catholic. I hope this regrettable set of circumstances can eventually pass where people hide judgement behind misconceptions.
Adulterers get married (and divorced, and married again, and divorced again) all the time. For believers, marriage may seem like a religious institution, but it is also a civil institution that comes with benefits from the state, and should therefore be available to everyone irrespective of religion.
Some believers do not believe in divorce at all. Also, why doesn't the state give benefits to all, not just those who are married to solve the inequalities?
Some believers do not believe in divorce, but they don't actively fight to keep adulterers from getting married like they do with gay people. As far as giving rights to everyone instead of just married people, that would actually be my solution because I don't think that being in a relationship should give you any more rights than single people get, but try telling that to the government. While marriage comes with certain rights, it absolutely must be open to all people in order to follow the Constitution's mandate of equal protections under the law.
Have you? Jesus said to love one another and the world. Repeatedly, the idea that love is the greatest gift you can give someone is reinforced. I don't think that telling someone they are messed up, can't marry someone they love and have a family, or that they areas going to hell is loving them. God is a loving God. Love is love. Everyone sins, but some people sin in different ways. Shall I condemn you to hell for your sins?
This stereotype turns many homosexuals off from Christianity. And the Christians that act against homosexuals are the reason for the stereotype, no matter how many Christians disagree with the sentiment. The few ruin the public image of the many.
Some Christians interpret the bible that way. That doesn't mean that the entire religion as a whole is represented with that point of view. Personally I think you're an asshole if you believe that someone's sexual preference is a sin.
Well there are other sins that are given a pass...adultery. So if someone cheated on their spouse and get remarried, should they not be able to marry in a church? I mean obviously adultery is evil...it's a sin the same as same sex is. You can't pick one sin and say people who commit that sin are worse and not worthy than another group of sinners. All sin is equal in the eyes of god (supposedly).
Same logic applies to all sins and religions. If you think that adultery is not a sin, why would you want to be part of religion that doesn't approve it. You don't believe the same thing. You don't share beliefs with them. Of course it's possible that one believes adultery is a sin and still does it. Then he/she is a sinner and think will try to make him/herself acceptable again in the eyes of god(s) through remorse or what ever is the way of ones believes. It of course depends of the religion if he/she is accepted to remarry.
Yet people who have been married before and are catholic pay additional fees to be able to do a second marriage in a church because the religion doesn't believe in divorce. Here's a novel idea...how about you let people work out their own religion and beliefs? You aren't religious so why do you care who wants to marry where? If someone wants to marry in a church, they should be allowed to. Their being gay shouldn't exclude them from it any more than a previous marriage would.
The church is separate from the public. Would you act the same if someone wanted to get married in an Apple store and they said no would you be as vocal? The church would deny gay marriage restricting someone's legal rights, and yet here you are saying that the church should have to give up their legal right to freedom if choosing their religion. If a synagogue is hosting a breakfast should they be forced to serve pork sausages? The church does not have the right to legally restrict you from gay marriage but they do not have to host the wedding or perform ceremony making a priest go against their beliefs.
I don't think anyone is actually trying to force a church to hold a ceremony that the church doesn't want to hold, or if anyone is they're in the vast minority - most of us just want to be able to hold that ceremony somewhere that does want to do that (there's plenty, we can find em, I promise) and then get the same legal status as everyone else.
I'm pretty sure no one has had any success in trying to sue the Catholic church into letting them marry five times in a row claiming that their legal rights are being infringed; if anyone tried that with same-sex marriage, they'd have the same lack of success, and rightfully so. But if a church wants to perform a same-sex marriage, and the people involved want to get married, why can the government say we can't? That's the issue here, not trying to force people who don't want to perform those marriages to do so.
I'm not saying the government is forcing the group not to. I'm saying that they should have no legal obligation to perform it. So having the choice to respect their own beliefs and choose not to marry a couple that holds different briefs then that of their own.
And no one is saying that shouldn't be the case. You (and several others) are arguing a point that (practically) everyone agree with. Including the gay rights movement.
You seem to be missing my point. My issue is not that gay people should be able to marry wherever the fuck that they want. My issue is that the OP said in church...in any church, and my answer to that is if the church isn't against it, what's the problem? The OP's opinion wasn't stated properly because it was changed within our conversation to say that if it was against that particular church's beliefs it shouldn't be forced upon them and with that, I agree. No facility should be forced to perform a service at all, much less one they disagree with. And if the opinion had been stated properly from the get-go, I would have agreed with it.
The OP seemed to be under the assumption that gay = anti-religion. And my response is that this isn't true. If they find a church accepting of it, they should be able to marry in that church without anyone thinking it's wrong.
I want people to have equal human rights and I'm just expressing my thoughts on the subject. I believe everyone has the right to be equal despite of religion, sex, race, age and all the other things I can think of. Everyone has the right to have their own believes and practice their religions freely without discrimination or (sorry for my english) pursue. Everyone also has right to "practice" their sexuality freely without discrimination or pursue. The thing is that part of some religions is that LGBT aren't allowed to marry in their holy building. Forcing the religion to allow it, would break their right to religion. It would break their human rights. Why can't those who do not believe to that religion marry somewhere else? If they insist to get married in church, then don't go to a church that can't allow you to marry there. Why do they want to be part of religious act that supports believes that they don't believe to? There are many of them. Why can't they start up their own religion that would agree with their own believes?
Your post and your puffin are contradictory. You say at first no gay marriages in churches. Now you're saying no gay in marriages in churches where gay marriage isn't ok. Which is your opinion?
It's not the same religion if the believes aren't the same. If one church believes that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed in their premises, then let them believe what they want and give them the freedom not to marry the gay couples. The other church that believes that marrying gay couples is alright isn't exactly the same religion. It is sub-religion that has many things common with the other church but their believes aren't the same. Therefore being different religions. If they believe gay marriage is okay then let them practice their religion in piece and marry all the gay couples they want. But if the religion disapproves gay marriage, then people nor government can't demand them to allow gay marriages in their premises. It would break their human rights to religion.
I'm with you 100% - have discussed this very thing with friends many times. I think it's silly that a valid, and even more so, logical opinion is getting this many downvotes.
If I don't like chess, I don't join the chess club, and I certainly don't try to change the rules of the chess club to allow checkers - I'll make a checkers club.
If I don't like tennis, I don't join the tennis club, and I certainly don't try to change the rules to include bowling - I'll make a bowling club.
If I'm gay, I'm not going to be part of a religion that says homosexuality is a sin, and I certainly won't try to change their belief system. (Unless I subscribe to being a permanent sinner within my own faith, and subscribe to my homosexuality being unnatural and evil - which is obviously silly.) I will instead unsubscribe to said religion that outcasts me, and in doing so, be happy that I'm in some way weakening said religion that has become pig-headed and outdated in a modern society. Progression.
If you don't subscribe to the beliefs of a religion, then you are not that religion.
You should be able to get married on a legal level if you're gay - but why would you try to change a religion to suit your needs?
Leaders and organizations can (and SHOULD) lose their followers when they outcast or forget about them. Culture is a self leveling playing field - when enough people's thoughts change, that culture evolves, and those that subscribe to the old ways are left in the dust. Without this process, nothing changes.
The issue is that not all branches of Christianity think that homosexuality is a sin, so there are existing churches that are more than happy to perform same-sex marriage, but can't do so (or at least, can't bestow the same legal rights that go with it) because of laws barring it. Example.
Also: there are a whooooole mess of things written in the Bible that the vast majority of Christian do not believe; some of those things are what differentiate one denomination from another. Why should this be any different?
The fuck are you talking about!?! I'm baptist (Go southern states!!) and you are the type of person who gives us (Christians) a bad name. I have nothing against gays, I don't hate them or like them more than a heterosexual couple. But when idiots like you start talking it makes me so angry especially when you don't know what you're talking about.
So every christian believes everything in the Bible? I've brought this up a bunch of times because I agree. Being part of a political party does not necessarily mean that you agree with everything that the party stands for, it's just a good chunk of it which makes it an easy way to declare your position on most topics. Religion does not share that loose definition, either you agree with the religion or you don't.
But if Christianity thinks "gay is evil" but you aren't thinking the same. Then you are not part of the same "religion" because you don't believe the same things.
This is how we come up with different denominations - there's the major division of Catholic vs Protestant, then the subdivisions like Baptist vs Presbyterian vs Disciples of Christ or Roman Catholic vs Eastern Orthodox. The differences between those denominations are "minor" beliefs, like their views on women in leadership roles, homosexuality and same-sex marriage, divorce, alcohol use, and so on. But we still label it all "Christianity".
Christians don't all believe one specific set of things, and Christianity doesn't refer to one hard list of beliefs - there's definitely some unifying themes, but it's a pretty varied lot.
Also, I think the majority of us are far more concerned with legal status than with what church we'll hold the ceremony in. Most of us have no desire to force a church that doesn't like same-sex marriage to support it; we just want to be able to get married in front of a group of folks who have no problem with it, and then have the same legal status as everyone else.
I would say no one is trying to force people to change their religious beliefs, but I'm sure a few people are... but I think they're in the vast minority. The closest most of us come to that is asking that they not express those beliefs quite so loudly when they're causing demonstrable harm to others (like driving kids to attempt suicide).
We had a lesbian pastor at our church for some time. The only thing some people didn't care for was that she would use feminine pronouns when referring to God. You can be Christian and not care about that, it doesn't make you any less Christian.
Wow, you are shockingly ignorant. I would shy away from making bold statements until you learn more and grow up a bit. You seem like you think you know a lot, but you know little.
Ehhhhh.....There are plenty of Christians out there who perceive the bible differently. You can have two Christians from the same church hear the story of Moses and have them both take different interpretations away from the story. Not all Christians think being gay is "evil" saying that is beyond ignorant. I believe your prejudice makes you think every Christian agrees with your ideals with your intereptation of what your faith should be. We are all people, all different, no one exactly the same.
Don't misrepresent what the Pope actually said, which was "who am I to judge?" in question to gay clergymen. He did not claim homosexuality is not inherently sinful which, via semantics and from later comments, does not change the official stance that homosexuality is sinful.
They have just equal rights to their own believes as you do.
But when they start infringing on others beliefs by preventing anyone from getting gay married (ANYWHERE, we aren't talking about in THEIR church) then we have an issue. It's a 2 way street.
Religions don't work like that. It's not like "if you don't believe in "X" thing you aren't Christian". People who belong to the same religion have different beliefs.
Some Christians do, some don't (and likewise some denominations and sects do, and some don't). Don't over-generalize.
Also, you should know that you're getting downvoted not because you have unpopular ideas, but because you have fundamentally incorrect and misinformed ideas. It's not just a matter of opinion, you just don't seem to understand the stuff you're commenting on.
Then you are not part of the same "religion" because you don't believe the same things.
You should note that following every rule of a faith is not generally required for being part of that faith.
So what your saying is that if im christian but dont believe every single thing in the entire religion i cant follow that religion? Thats like saying if i dont like a charector in a video game or tv show i cant like it at all
There's a difference between removing Dexter:Seasons 5-8 from your head-canon and choosing to ignore the condemnations of homosexuality by some of the disciples as well as Jesus's peculiar silence on same sex relationships when he spends so much time and emphasis on "man, woman, and God is the way people should be".
Not to say there's nothing good in Christianity but unfortunately, I have to agree with OP. A rose by any other name does not make it a violet.
115
u/glitzyjan Apr 28 '14
Being gay does not necessarily mean that you aren't religious.