Buddy, homosexuality is a sin according to the bible....or did you overlook that whole part about marriage, sex, what is natural, etc. etc. I'm certainly not saying I'm completely free of sins, but you can't sit here and call people "fools" for not being openly accepting of homosexuals if, in fact, they are Christians.

I can't speak for anyone else, but homosexuality doesn't make me "nervous" at all. I wouldn't be voting against you being in my house out of fear or something similar. I would be voting against you because the probability of you meshing well with our group of guys is probably very small. The fact that homosexuality is something that many, many members of our house morally object to is going to play a role as well.

On a similar note, I hate how anyone that doesn't openly embrace a homosexual lifestyle is labeled as "homophobic". There's a huge difference between fearing something and being disgusted by it. Insinuating that someone who dislikes homosexuals has some sort of moral flaw is essentially playing the same card as people who dislike homosexuals because they view it as immoral. Get off your high horse. You can be gay all you want, but not in my fraternity, my church, or my circle of friends.

In the past week or so the campus newspaper has been trying to make a big issue of gay faculty wanting health benefits for their partners. Regardless of whether the majority of students want this (which is up for debate), its completely outside the jurisdiction of the school. The university if funded by the Texas State legislature who have final say over basically everything. If the school tries to make an issue of this and fight the legislature its just going to hurt the school (not that the gay community cares about that).

If you read the newspaper regularly, you'd realize it's not gay faculty who've been pushing for it as much as heterosexual grad students (specifically one, who decided to write a proposal on this) who are politically aware. The was the one faculty member who in Middle Eastern Studies (I think) who did the hunger strike last semester to raise awareness of the issue and the campaign has been proposed & carried by grad students ever since. The article in the Texan on Friday focused on faculty perspectives but the initial move to have a vote on this in the senate of college councils was led by grad students.

I'm not really sure how it is going to hurt the school. Our current policy is already hurting us in terms of faculty recruitment and retention. That said, I'm also not sure how successful the campaign can be given the strictures put on by the legislature.

My pledge ed (OPhiA) was a lesbian. No one cared. But that was the nature of our particular chapter.

If you're going to join an organization where your [insert issue - gender, race, disability, religion, whatever the heck your deal is - here] is going to raise eyebrows, plus some tempers, then you just need to accept that upfront and go in aware and prepared to handle it. If you CANNOT HANDLE IT, then either choose another organization or stay away entirely. None of us needs your whiny drama.

after making my way through 6 pages of this thread, i've concluded that nothing of substance has been posted since page 2. its a shame i cant have the last 10 minutes of my life back.

To be precise, homosexual behavior is a sin according to the Bible. There is a difference.

Thanks for the warning.

The Bible interpreted through Lego shttp://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html

Yes, they illustrate the punishment for inappropriate food consumption and inappropriate bedroom behavior through plastic bricks.

Do we REALLY have to get into a discussion here about how people interpret the Bible??? Seriously?

You can't force someone to interpret a Biblical passage the same way you do. That's why there are different denominations of Christianity. Get over it, move along.

Yep. People are real sometimey when it comes to religion and religious texts. If you are going to be a literal stickler about something like homosexuality, why not be a literal stickler about everything else? That's why it's annoying when these types of discussions turn into "hellfire and damnation" discussions.

Great name, btw.

Yep and different interpretations and opinions within the same denomination. That's why I'm nondenominational but attend denominational churches. It allows me to dismiss everyone. :p

I don't interpret the Bible literally and I don't trust anyone's Scriptural interpretations. My pastor's sermons are equivalent to Bible as Literature sermons that are tied to life lessons and spirituality. He doesn't try to tell us how we should interpret texts as they relate to issues like homosexuality--we don't even discuss stuff like that thank God.

People are so obsessed with "religion as text" and need to move toward a spiritual relationship in which how you live your life is based on YOUR relationship with God.

Genesis, Romans, Corinthians, and Leviticus all speak about homosexuality.

That's besides the point though.

I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm not sitting here saying "you're wrong for being a homosexual because my King James pocket bible says so". I didn't say that at all actually, nor did I try to "pick and choose" a certain text from the bible to rationalize my beliefs. My statement had nothing to do with my beliefs as a Christian.

I simply stated that you can't call a bunch of people fools or hypocrites because they consider themselves Christians and are not accepting of homosexuality. You could certainly argue the Bible's stance on homosexuality if you wanted too but that's another discussion entirely.

AMEN.

As he noted, he's referring to more than the levitical law.

But as for shellfish, c'mon. The church has, say for about 2000 years, distinguished between the ritual law (such as the levitical laws regarding food or clothing materials) and the ethical law (such as laws governing moral, including sexual, behavior). There's actually some discussion about it in Acts, including the decision of the council in Jerusalem that Gentile converts did not have to be circumcised and the revelation to Peter that all foods were permissible. Paul discusses this as well, along with his not infrequent discussions about the degree to which the Law is binding in general. (And his condemnation of homosexual behavior in Romans.)

As for slavery, yes many did use Scripture to condone slavery. Unlike the passages regarding homosexuality, though, I don't think anyone has ever plausibly contended that Scripture affirmatively sanctions or commands slavery, just that it seems to accept it as a fact of the ancient world and does not condemn it. Using this lack of condemnation as justification for slavery is really not the same thing as relying on passages that expressly disapprove of homosexual conduct.

Granted, many Christians of good faith disagree on exectly how the relevant passages in Genesis, Leviticus, Romans and elsewhere should be interpreted and applied today. And perhaps you find the church's long-standing distinction between the ritual law and the ethical law one that misses the mark.

But to argue that anyone is picking and choosing which rules to follow bases one's argument on ignorance and a very shallow understanding of the totality of Scripture -- it sounds catchy, but it doesn't hold up to any close examination, IMHO.

And, now I am coming to the conclustions, who really gives a damn?:rolleyes:

This Poster had become a thorn. He is an independent think as it were and no matter what he thinks or says will not change anything.

You mean, it doesn't hold up in a Biblical Court of Law? LOL.

A lot of people don't understand the "totality of Scripture" so they do pick and choose. That may not be what's going on in this thread but, as always, the things being typed here are said everyday off of the internet.

I personally know several people who were openly gay or lesbian when they were collegiate in their respective fraternities or sororities. They were true to themselves and that is all their brothers and sisters expected of them. Even though some may not condone homosexual behavior, they were never rude nor disrespectful toward their brothers or sisters.