Need help countering this homophobic argument.

They all come from the same source, so either all of them are outdated or all of them are still relevant.

There's no reasoning with bigotry. Selectively picking the convenient bible verses to follow is ridiculous. And if it's that important why isn't it in the ten commandments?

I will stop before I get angry, but I genuinely believe there is some crazy hypocrisy goin on here.

 

Morals do change, they are relative to cultural and historical contexts.
some examples, at one time it was completely unacceptable to engage in premarital sex, especially if a pregnancy was involved and families kept this secret, and now it is much less a moral issue than it is a security issue.
Some places see anything other than monogamy as immoral, yet other places encourage polygamy as a form of survival.
Racism was a one time not considered a moral issue yet as more work is conducted on it, it is seen as partially a moral issue and because of this there is more covert racism (for example, at one time eugenics was not seen as a problem yet today it would be considered immoral)
Use these or something similar to counter-argue that morality does change. Society, not the bible determines what is and isn't considered moral, and every society is different. Morality is determined by what creates solidarity, it's an unwritten rule to ensure society is functioning well, but as society changes, so does morality.

 

i agree with the wanderringgirl , if you're gonna be religious then you better believe in everything your holy books says , you can't just take the parts that you like and say that the others are out-dated , if (for them) one part is outdated then every part is outdated and shouldn't be used in their arguments

and this is coming from a religious person

 

If you're going to point to a sacred text as your main rationale for thinking a certain way, I don't think you're allowed to start saying "OK, but these other parts aren't relevant anymore." That's called "cherry picking", and I don't think they look too favorably on that in any religion.

If you have to debate them on this, you might ask what Jesus had to say about it. You know Jesus - he's that Christ guy, from which Christianity gets its name. Ends up he didn't have anything to say about homosexuality, or any sexual thing for that matter. They may or may not bring up Matthew 5:17-18, which reads:

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

But if they believe that, why is it OK to eat the shellfish again?

Lex

 

I'm afraid they are being disingenuous and using selective morality to justify their position.

John Shelby Spong, former Episcopal Bishop of Newark, NJ wrote a book entitled The Sins of Scripture. If you want to have some strong counter arguments I would recommend his book. You will find he makes reference to the very passage from Leviticus that was quoted to you.

---------- Post added 26th Jul 2014 at 04:38 PM ----------

I agree with Lex about this:

The quotation in bold (and almost any other quote that is thrown at you) is countered with Mark 12:30-31, which simply and perfectly reads:

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.”
The second is this: “Love your neighbour as yourself.” There is no commandment greater than these.

This is really significant as Mark was the first gospel, even though it is presented second in the Bible. It becomes even more significant when you read Matthew (the second gospel) 22:36-40 and see the obvious contradiction to the earlier passage in the same gospel, referenced by Lex.

If you want to take it a step further you can reference the third gospel, Luke 10:27, which says almost the same thing as Mark 12:30-31 and Matthew 22:36-40.

Basically the writers of Matthew and Luke were confirming what had already been stated earlier in Mark.

And if you really, really want to cement this point about the greatest commandment, take a look at this:

Mark 12:31 Cross References (14 Verses)

Jesus said there is no commandment greater than these, so in two short sentences he summed up what Christianity is really all about. We can nit pick about details and ancient desert traditions all we like, but Jesus (the one it's all about) trashed all of that nonsense in less than fifty words. How much more simple does it get?

 

Well to start with they're cherry-picking, which doesn't exactly do wonders to the credibility of their position. This may be inflammatory, but there are OT Bible passages you could use which appear to defend sexism and slavery. Point them out to these people and ask them, given that these are "moral" passages (concerned with moral behaviour and ideal society) and that morals don't change, whether they would rush to the defence of these passages in the 21st century.

If they say "it would be ridiculous to hold such morals in modern times", you can proceed to tell them that they are contradicting themselves by admitting that morals do change and cherry-picking moral beliefs from the Bible. If that's the case, then it's obvious that just because a moral belief comes from the Bible isn't a satisfactory reason to adopt it; if the people pointing to the Bible reject parts of it, then it's obvious they're using their own set of rules and morals when it suits them. Then you can drill down to their aforementioned set of rules by asking them to define exactly what they see as moral behaviour/beliefs without leaning on the Bible (and you can also do this if they dismiss your passages in the same way as the tattoos and shellfish passages), and then maybe offer a counter-definition of your own. This probably won't dispel their views about homosexuality, but it should get you out of the Bible rut and onto more constructive debates. You might find the real reasons they're against homosexuality has more to do with their misconceptions and political outlook than anything else, and you should be able to find hard stats to bring their views into question.

Also in anticipation of their potential non-Bible arguments (if you ever get there), common non-Bible objections:
"Gay lifestyle" - examples of people who don't conform to stereotypes
"Unnatural" - ask them why unnatural is bad and if it is why they possess and use so many "unnatural" things
"Dangerous" - to who? It's not intrinsically harmful.
"HIV" - HIV isn't dependent on sexuality, it's also spread by heterosexual people. More to do with sexual practice than anything.
"Damages society" - studies that indicate same-sex parents can outperform heterosexual parents.

Remember, though, that if these people don't respond to reason or just insult you, then it's not worth investing time or mental capacity to counter their points. Also it's up to you how hard you want to push with regard to still being able to get along with them. As long as you're doing it in a calm and measured way then it should be easier for them to see from your side. Good luck

 

Why's that? Why is this moral and not shellfish? Why is this moral and not stoning women who aren't virgins on their wedding night, which is in the bible but we don't do it anymore? Why don't morals change over time?

I'd just ask a bunch of questions like this.

Also, I have an interesting perspective on this. I am Jewish and do not eat pork or shellfish because they are forbidden in Leviticus and also in subsequent codes of Jewish law. However, I have never told anyone else that they have to abide by these same practices just because I do. Don't bring your ham sandwich into my synagogue, but if you get a ham sandwich at Subway in front of me I won't give a shit; I'll just order my usual footlong oven roasted chicken. I won't get married in your church if your church doctrine forbids its clergy from issuing me a marriage license because I'm marrying a man, and I have no problem with that. But don't stop me from getting married by a judge or by a clergy member from a different denomination.

 

They are just cherry picking the bible. Sorry you have family members that question your existence.