5 Gay Teens commit suicide within a 3 week time frame. Do you give a damn?

[SamsungVibrant]

Exactly. Twice it has been voted against with a majority vote in California, yet the minority vote prevails as the only constitutional resolution, since for some reason a majority vote is now unconstitutional.

The ultimate way that I see it, logically (and, anybody who is very logical will agree), if practicing straight sex is the only way to continue our species as humans, then anything other than that would ultimately lead to the extinction of our kind. You can develop your own thoughts and conclusions on that, but it doesn't change the fact of the end result.

Wow, we sure have gotten off topic.

Howetechnical, apparently you are unaware that our history books are full of examples where the majority has been in favor of injustice. When the majority is in favor of injustice do we just accept this or challenge the majority. We challenge it.

Clearly you are someone who believes that the vote has been cast, thus inequality therefor must continue. No, you are wrong, and your vote and everyone else who has voted yes on Prop8 in California is wrong. A vote in favor of prop 8 was a voted in favor of inequality.

50 years from now, we will look back and say "wow, can you believe that once in our history we treated gays and lesbians as inferior and denied them equality." 50 years from now, we will be ashamed of voted in favor of this inequality.

History has shown the majority can and often is wrong. The majority must be challenged, injustice must be corrected.

I fear if this was 100 years ago, you, yes you, Mr. Howetechnical would be casting your vote in favor of Jim Crow laws. After all the majority was in favor of "separate but equal." Thankfully, the minority stood up against injustice.

Voting no on prop 8 is the equivalent of "separate but equal" for the gay rights movement.

In short time this injustice too shall pass, and in short time the majority will be ashamed.

 

[pantlesspenguin]

The ultimate way that I see it, logically (and, anybody who is very logical will agree), if practicing straight sex is the only way to continue our species as humans, then anything other than that would ultimately lead to the extinction of our kind. You uucan develop your own thoughts and conclusions on that, but it doesn't change the fact of the end result.

Wow, we sure have gotten off topic.

Sorry to go even more off topic...but I want to say I completely agree with this. I hate it when people think it's part of the "gay agenda" to try to "make" everyone gay. Because...as you said...humanity can't reproduce without straight couples. The way I see it, gay people may just be God's answer to overpopulation. I believe 10% of people are gay. Humans are reproducing just fine without the other 10% of us helping out.

I love straight couples. My parents are a straight couple and they gave me life. My bro and his fiance will make me an aunt.
Anyway, what were we talking about?

 

[SamsungVibrant]

Sorry to go even more off topic...but I want to say I completely agree with this. I hate it when people think it's part of the "gay agenda" to try to "make" everyone gay. Because...as you said...humanity can't reproduce without straight couples. The way I see it, gay people may just be God's answer to overpopulation. I believe 10% of people are gay. Humans are reproducing just fine without the other 10% of us helping out.

I love straight couples. My parents are a straight couple and they gave me life. My bro and his fiance will make me an aunt.
Anyway, what were we talking about?

I don't think you understood howetechnicals argument. It appears he is trying to argue that being gay is wrong, because nature intended us to reproduce, thus being gay prevents reproduction leading to extinction. Therefor a vote in favor of gay equality is a vote in favor of extinction of mankind.

Your argument is different than howtechnicals, you are saying nature intended this, and that 10percent of the population being gay WILL NOT lead to extinction... you said "Humans are reproducing JUST FINE w/o the other 10% of us helping out."

See the difference?

Also I'm a bit confused pantless penguin, your bro and your fiance will make you an aunt, implying you are lesbian? If so, then why did you thank howtechnical for his California voting comment.

Are you a lesbian who believes since prop 8 passed, we should just leave it at that?

 

[pantlesspenguin]

B

Nobody is "born gay". We are "born with a gene that has the ability of altering our sexual preference if we choose to do so". Those who are gay and gay-er (even gays will agree that there are some who are way gay-er than them...) have first chosen to be as such, thereby increasing the influence of that gene, and ultimately making it "official".

For the record...I'm almost positive I was born gay. My first crush was on Catherine Bach, aka Daisy Duke. I was 3 or 4 years old...but I was undeniably attracted to her. Why didn't I feel the same about John Schneider or Tom Wopat? Who knows. But 25 or so years later and here I am...still liking girls.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Exactly. Twice it has been voted against with a majority vote in California, yet the minority vote prevails as the only constitutional resolution, since for some reason a majority vote is now unconstitutional.

The ultimate way that I see it, logically (and, anybody who is very logical will agree), if practicing straight sex is the only way to continue our species as humans, then anything other than that would ultimately lead to the extinction of our kind. You can develop your own thoughts and conclusions on that, but it doesn't change the fact of the end result.

Wow, we sure have gotten off topic.[/QUOTE

I think you are correct. The biological imperative is to mate and reproduce. I cant see nature embracing homosexuality because it goes against a basic biological mandate.

But what do I know, anyway. I am a Nutbar.

Cranky Bob

 

[pantlesspenguin]

I don't think you understood howetechnicals argument. It appears he is trying to argue that being gay is wrong, because nature intended us to reproduce, thus being gay prevents reproduction leading to extinction. Therefor a vote in favor of gay equality is a vote in favor of extinction of mankind.

Your argument is different than howtechnicals, you are saying nature intended this, and that 10percent of the population being gay WILL NOT lead to extinction... you said "Humans are reproducing JUST FINE w/o the other 10% of us helping out."

See the difference?

Also I'm a bit confused pantless penguin, your bro and your fiance will make you an aunt, implying you are lesbian? If so, then why did you thank howtechnical for his California voting comment.

Are you a lesbian who believes since prop 8 passed, we should just leave it at that?

I'm as gay as gay can be. I understood his argument, & agreed with him that humanity cannot continue without straight couples reproducing. That's a fact. You can't deny that.

I'm not a big fan of the "us against them" mentality. I live in Kansas...Fred Phelps country. As much as I despise the man & his clan, he's united gay people, & people that may not be pro-gay, but they hate Fred. I guess I'm just used to finding things I have in common w/ people instead of our differences.

I hope that one day all 50 states will have equal LGBT rights. I hated seeing my idols, Del Martin & Phyllis Lyons FINALLY get to have their union recognized in California...only to have that taken away. But then here comes lil ninja state Iowa, granting gay marriages. Midwest queers rejoiced when that happened.

Of course I'm not a big fan of what is happening in California. It's not fair, & it's sad. But I can't change that. I'm doing what I can in my corner of the world & I hope it will make a difference someday.

 

[SamsungVibrant]

The medical studies show that there is a gene that does alter one's sexual preference to that of the same sex; this gene is in most mammals. The medical studies also show that by practicing and giving attention to the possibility of being gay, one is actually increasing the strength of this gene in altering their mental sexual preference.

Nobody is "born gay". We are "born with a gene that has the ability of altering our sexual preference if we choose to do so". Those who are gay and gay-er (even gays will agree that there are some who are way gay-er than them...) have first chosen to be as such, thereby increasing the influence of that gene, and ultimately making it "official".

Medical studies? Huh?

Anyway.. I don't think you should comment about genes, this is an area you clearly do not know anything about. Stick to batteries. Unlike you I don't brag about being a battery expert or being in this field or that field for the past 10 yrs. However, in this case I think it is appropriate to give you a little warning, I don't think you want to get into a debate about genetics with me. Trust me on this.

By the way, can you please tell me the name of the gene that alters ones sexual preference to that of the same sex. This is going to make for some interesting conversation on Monday, and to think all these years I thought I knew a thing or two about molecular genetics.

Also, you say it's one gene? Gee are you sure of this? So I assume this one gene was found in lower vertebrates, so there must be knockout mice in some lab somewhere that are unable to influence their sexuality preference for the same sex. Who would have thought, something so complex would have been coded by one gene.

Please let me know what model organism this one gene was discovered in, I'd love to read about its human homolog. You also say this is ubiquitous amongst mammals, yes? Are you sure about all of this?

I can't find it anywhere in worldcat, please give me the published study or rather you used plural, studieS.

 

[SamsungVibrant]

You're ignorant if you really believe that. Have you ever heard about any other "minorities"? Have you ever visited less fortunate areas of the world and witnessed the hate crimes and ridicule that other nationalities and races recieve? I think you should re-write your position to say, "Gay teens do have it harder [in upper class white populated areas], research has shown that".

Go watch CNN.

You have just proved your intelligence is limited to batteries. I think you need a recharge, your brain isn't working.

Go watch Fox News.

 

[_J.J._]

I am not quite clear on something and perhaps I am missing the point. If some issue is put to a vote and the majority votes no, how is this a problem? Our foundation is built, in part, upon the right to vote. As for enslavement, well, I suppose that could happen and I suppose one can think of all sorts of ways things can go wrong when people use their right to vote.

If 51% vote for making all gays get a "WARNING: Potential AIDS Carrier" warning tattoo on the head, well that is a problem. Unless you are straight and you sell tattoo guns.

But, we live in a decent country and 51% would most likely not vote yes.

As for your comment about marriage not being a right, I agree. Far too often gay people claim marriage to be a right. Or gay marriage is a right. Far too many people quoting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have never read either. Case in point, this incorrect idea that the Constitution mentions 'Separation of Church and State."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . ." In other words, no state church.

Bob

majority rules does not apply when it comes to constitutional items. 51% can never vote to reinstate slavery because slavery is unconstitutional. It denies the right to liberty.

so, in that sense, I agree that the majority shouldn't be able to vote away the minorities constitutional rights.


However, with that said, I DO NOT think gay marraige is a constitutionally protected right. Neither is straight marriage. So in this case, 51% of the people SHOULD be able to vote against something they don't want. To me, this is no different than a country voting for dropping drinking age from 21 to 18 if they choose.

it seems you are confusing a DEMOCRACY (which the U.S. is NOT) and a constitutional republic (which we are)

In a PURE democracy, 51% CAN vote the minority into slavery if they choose.

 

[_J.J._]

kids in 3rd world nations don't know if they are getting food from day to day.
gay kid gets embarrassed after getting laid
kids in Bosnia have to worry about stepping on landmines trying to go to school
gay kid is called a queer


yeah.... I see how these gay kids' suicide was warranted.... I mean, getting called a *** is so tough compared to being in a war torn nation where 10 y.o.'s are shoved on the front lines with an AK....

 

[Familyguy1]

Suicide is still a Taboo word in most societies, especially here in America. The thing is, it is not a matter of that they are gay or straight, the problem is the mis-information and stereotypes that we have with Suicide. Most people that talk about sucide are just throwing the word out there without considering what people have to go through to get to this mental state.

Samsung: Please tone down your anger that seems to boil to a breaking point whenever anyone tries to refute your points, thus which starts a vicious cycle that will never end..

 

[Bob Maxey]

majority rules does not apply when it comes to constitutional items. 51% can never vote to reinstate slavery because slavery is unconstitutional. It denies the right to liberty.

so, in that sense, I agree that the majority shouldn't be able to vote away the minorities constitutional rights.


However, with that said, I DO NOT think gay marraige is a constitutionally protected right. Neither is straight marriage. So in this case, 51% of the people SHOULD be able to vote against something they don't want. To me, this is no different than a country voting for dropping drinking age from 21 to 18 if they choose.

it seems you are confusing a DEMOCRACY (which the U.S. is NOT) and a constitutional republic (which we are)

In a PURE democracy, 51% CAN vote the minority into slavery if they choose.

No, I am not confused and I do not think I mentioned slavery. Certainly, even a 99% majority vote would not pass something that is unconstitutional. It would not make the ballot. That said, there could be a constitutional amendment to help any idiotic cause pass into law. Fortunately, that is far easier said than accomplished.

Bob

 

[mpw]

...As I recall, the citizens of California voted down a gay marriage proposal. So what the estimable Ms. Silverman is upset about is Americans voting against something, which is, apparently, an un-American act, if you vote no?...

I think the problem with this issue is that people are voting to maintain a prejudice and inequality. I don't think same-sex marriages should be a right, I don't think marriage should be either, but I do think that equality should be.

 

[mpw]

...The ultimate way that I see it, logically (and, anybody who is very logical will agree)...

I consider myself logical, and you're very wrong.

 

[Bob Maxey]

If this read "5 teens commit suicide within a 3 week time frame" would we still have celebrities coming out and making videos about how they give a damn?

I think one celebrety will make a statement of support then three or twelve follow. Not because they care, but because they do not want the public to think they don't care.

Trust me, I'll bet there are as many people in Hollywood that dislike gays as there are out of Hollywood.

Bob

 

[Bob Maxey]

Howetechnical, apparently you are unaware that our history books are full of examples where the majority has been in favor of injustice. When the majority is in favor of injustice do we just accept this or challenge the majority. We challenge it.

Clearly you are someone who believes that the vote has been cast, thus inequality therefor must continue. No, you are wrong, and your vote and everyone else who has voted yes on Prop8 in California is wrong. A vote in favor of prop 8 was a voted in favor of inequality.

Voting no on prop 8 is the equivalent of "separate but equal" for the gay rights movement.

In short time this injustice too shall pass, and in short time the majority will be ashamed.

Actually, it is their (Californians) right to vote no and it is your right to vote yes. Tis the American way and the system we live by. Do you have a better idea? You are mad because you did not get your way; when that happens, we are wrong. Had it passed, you and the rest of your ilk would be telling us how well the system works.

Bob

 

[Bob Maxey]

Medical studies? Huh?

Anyway.. I don't think you should comment about genes, this is an area you clearly do not know anything about. Stick to batteries. Unlike you I don't brag about being a battery expert or being in this field or that field for the past 10 yrs. However, in this case I think it is appropriate to give you a little warning, I don't think you want to get into a debate about genetics with me. Trust me on this.

By the way, can you please tell me the name of the gene that alters ones sexual preference to that of the same sex. This is going to make for some interesting conversation on Monday, and to think all these years I thought I knew a thing or two about molecular genetics.

Also, you say it's one gene? Gee are you sure of this? So I assume this one gene was found in lower vertebrates, so there must be knockout mice in some lab somewhere that are unable to influence their sexuality preference for the same sex. Who would have thought, something so complex would have been coded by one gene.

Please let me know what model organism this one gene was discovered in, I'd love to read about its human homolog. You also say this is ubiquitous amongst mammals, yes? Are you sure about all of this?

I can't find it anywhere in worldcat, please give me the published study or rather you used plural, studieS.

WOW a real expert.

Do you think it is a single gene, a combination of genes, or something that just happens to a small percentage of people and we might never know for sure what that X-Factor might be that makes some folks gay?

Bob

 

[MJM128]

I'm more sympathetic to people who die not by choice. If a person chooses their to take their life. That's sad, but people that can't do anything about dying from hunger, cancer, aids, murder, and the endless examples of things not self inflicted. Those are the things that bring me to tears. I do care, but quite simply not as much.

 

[hakr100]

I don't believe that being gay is a choice. Even the bible says that it is not a choice. I can even show you the scripture that says that GOD makes people gay (warning: you aren't gonna like what else it says about being gay.)

Christians who say that being gay is a choice... haven't read their Bible.

I don't believe being gay is a choice, either. I also understand why you are referencing the bible here. That being said, and no reflection on your comment, but isn't it odd that anyone quotes the bible as a source of this sort of scientific data? Why, I wonder, does anyone give credence in such matters to a document like the bible?

 

[_J.J._]

I have undeniable proof that gay is a choice, I have links, and eveything, but after saying all that.... I won't post them. lol Sound suspicious? Yeah, it does to me too.

So post up Bible verses then? I have no doubt you have them. I just think you are misinterpreting them, or taking them out of context. But I would love to entertain the idea that 1000's of years of theologists have missed those verses and in 2010, a gay droid owner figured it out.

 

[pantlesspenguin]

But I would love to entertain the idea that 1000's of years of theologists have missed those verses and in 2010, a gay droid owner figured it out.

1000s of years, eh? Did you know the word homosexual didn't even appear in the bible until 1948? It was put there by someone interpreting the words. The original text is *believed to be "sexual deviancy" which could mean a number of things, but given the context and time period it most likely means prostitution.

The bible has been used to torment certain groups for a very long time. It "teaches" that women are inferior and it's ok to keep slaves. Why have we put those teachings to rest, but still use the bible as justification for hating gay people?


*my father is a widely known and well respected United Methodist pastor. He teaches a seminar about the biblical texts that are used to condemn gays and this is where I got this info.

 

[Crude]

1000s of years, eh? Did you know the word homosexual didn't even appear in the bible until 1948? It was put there by someone interpreting the words. The original text is *believed to be "sexual deviancy" which could mean a number of things, but given the context and time period it most likely means prostitution.

The bible has been used to torment certain groups for a very long time. It "teaches" that women are inferior and it's ok to keep slaves. Why have we put those teachings to rest, but still use the bible as justification for hating gay people?


*my father is a widely known and well respected United Methodist pastor. He teaches a seminar about the biblical texts that are used to condemn gays and this is where I got this info.

Not true, the original Hebrew and Aramaic make a destinction between prostitutes and gays. True, some of the meaning of the bible is lost in translation but if you went over it in the original language it would be even more condemning.

 

[SamsungVibrant]

WOW a real expert.

Do you think it is a single gene, a combination of genes, or something that just happens to a small percentage of people and we might never know for sure what that X-Factor might be that makes some folks gay?

Bob

Something as complex as sexuality wouldn't be encoded by one gene. Most likely sexuality is a combination of hundreds of genes working together.

Think of it like this, this is an over simplification just to make things clear. Lets say there are a pool of genes numbered lets say 1-100. These 100 genes are responsible for encoding the proteins that ultimately will determine ones sexuality via various centers in the brain. Now, you don't need all 100 genes lets say, just a combination of the right ones will produce functional proteins.

So person A and person B have access to the exact same gene pool, numbered 1-100. Person A ends up getting the odd numbered ones, and person B gets the even numbered ones. Both result in functional sexuality, but person A gets the combo that results in him/her being straight, while person B gets the combo that results in him/her being gay.

That is one possibility, however I think the above may not be the total story. I'm almost certain the sequence will be one part of the story, the second part will be epigenetics. So in my opinion two factors:
A)Actual coding sequence (the 1-100 hypothetical genes)
B)Epigenetics

I am going to put a gamble and say epigenetics will solve the mystery to sexuality. Here is a simplified model.

So lets say getting odd or even numbered 1-100 sexuality genes doesn't matter. Lets say person A and person B both received all odd. Now epigenetics kicks in. Think of epigenetics as above and beyond the control of the actual dna coding sequence. Think of it like this, lets say your Android device is able to run at 1.2ghz, but some outside influence has under-clocked it to 1ghz. The processor hardware is capable of running faster, but outside forces have set a limit for the end user. That's a horrible analogy but I'm trying to explain what epigenetics is.

Okay, so back to the genes. Person A and person B both have the exact same sequence of genes which code for sexuality. Now outside forces come in, regulators come in, environmental factors come in, and start regulating those 100 genes. Notice epigenetics opens the possibility of environment shaping sexuality, this is ones cellular molecular environment, I don't mean being gay cause you hang around woman all day.

So lets run with the environment being a factor. As those 100 genes are coding, the environment decides okay in person A I will allow expression of all genes(the original odd ones) but turn off expression of genes numbered 11, 31, 51, 81, and 5. While in personal B regulators decide..na I will allow expression of 11, 31, 51, 81, but I'll keep expression of 5 suppressed. Now what happened? Person A and person B got the exact same sequence of genes, exactly the same, but epigenetics kicked in as an outside force, possibly due to environmental ques, and made the executive decision that certain genes will not be expressed, they will be under suppression. This will lead into the person being gay or straight.

why is epigenetics significant?
1) If you try to search for the gay gene you may not find it, remember person A and person B had the exact same sequence of those 100 genes responsible for sexuality. Both person A and person B got the odd numbered ones. It was above and beyond the control of the DNA sequence, outside molecular regulators (i.e. methylation) ultimately decide expression.
2) This opens up the possibility that being gay could be outside the control of the actual DNA sequence, and instead could very well be due to the molecular environment where molecular regulators have the ultimate say.


I've tried to keep it simple, but Epigenetics is very complex and deals with an array of molecular regulators that are responsible for differential gene expression. Finding the genes responsible for sexuality is already a huge task, now take it one step up and beyond and try to find the regulators, the ultimate decision makers that regulate those genes. Epigenetics is an entire field of study on its own.

In either case, you are born gay, I have no doubt of this in my mind. Absolutely no doubt. It is not a choice. Within time this will be proven, we will know exactly which genes and which regulators are responsible. It may even be at the level of protein regulation, which makes things even more complex.

 

[pantlesspenguin]

Not true, the original Hebrew and Aramaic make a destinction between prostitutes and gays. True, some of the meaning of the bible is lost in translation but if you went over it in the original language it would be even more condemning.

It is my understanding that there weren't words in those languages to express "modern" same-sex relationships. Even if there were, the bible is basically a deity inspired history book. One can't just read the bible and learn everything from it. You have to also take into account the politics, socal norms, etc of the periods in which the bible refers to and when the bible was translated (each and every time).

The bible is a great book. There is a lot to learn from it. But it should not be used to persecute people centuries later.

 

[travelingfool]

Now don't everyone get mad at what I'm about to say. I didn't offer this up out of the blue for no reason. The only way to refute what SamsungVibrant said about what the Bible says is to show him what the Bible says. Make sense?

Look, the bible is a book that you choose to believe. The fundamental principles are only in affect if you are consciously aware.

HOW then can you sit there and argue with one of these people, and say that the Bible says this or says that, this is a sin, this is not.

If you are a Christian, then here's how you do it. You open up the book you claim to believe in and tell them what it says. That is, unless you (not you, but this hypothetical person we are discussing) don't really believe what the Bible says, which is that their sin will cause them to perish eternally without Jesus. In which case, this hypothetical person isn't a Christian, because he doesn't believe what the Bible says.

You can only make such arguments about the bible and scriptures, and sins, because these are things that you are aware of in your life. Someone who is unaware can not commit a sin, when the Christian idea of sin does not exist, or more importantly when Christianity itself as a religion doesn't exist, and the bible is non existent.

Absolutely wrong. The Bible states that it is a universal truth regardless of who is and isn't aware of it. It is an unargueable clear fact that the Bible makes it clear that it's truths and judgements apply universally to everyone whether they are aware of it or not. (Romans 1:18-3:26) However, the Bible doesn't even allow for them to say they are not aware of it. On the contrary:

Romans 1:18-20

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

And also here:

Romans 3:21-24

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it-- 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

To set the record straight, I am Christian. However, I also realize that not everyone else is. My religion and my God, is different from someone elses. So quoting the Bible, or quoting scriptures is nothing more than going in circles. More importantly, you CAN NOT argue the Bible to a group of people who are unaware of its existence.

Yes you can, because if you are talking to them, then as a Christian, (if you really believe the Bible, and if you don't, then you're not a Christian) it is your duty to tell them about the Bible. If you are a Christian, it is your duty to tell these aboriginals that there is only one way to be saved, and that is through the Jesus of the Bible. Again, if you don't believe this either, then you, by biblical definition, are not a Christian. Since you are a Christian, then you should tell these hypothetical natives with whom you've somehow come into contact about Jesus.

I would also hope as a Christian yourself, you also realize that judgment shouldn't be passed by you unto others.

Why do liberals insist on ripping scripture out of context to further their viewpoints? We are never told in the New Testament that we are not to judge, as a blanket statement, with no qualifiers. The scripture that liberals love to quote is Matthew 7:1 - "Judge not, that you be not judged." Somehow, they think that the context in which a scripture is written means nothing, when in actuality, without the surrounding context, it is meaningless.

For instance, I could tell you that Jeremiah gave a graphic account of farting like a trumpet:

Jeremiah 4:19 - My bowels, my bowels! I am pained at my very heart; my heart maketh a noise in me; I cannot hold my peace, because thou hast heard, O my soul, the sound of the trumpet, the alarm of war.

Or that the Bible talks about God beckoning Santa Clause to come forth:

Zechariah 2:6 - Ho, ho, come forth , and flee from the land of the north, saith the Lord: for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the Lord.

Or that Zechariah witnessed a food fight:

Zechariah 5:1 - Then I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a flying roll.

Text, without context, is pretext. It's meaningless. Here is the full passage of the oft-quoted and highly misused scripture about judging:

Matthew 7:1-5

1 Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, Let me take the speck out of your eye, when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

And here is Romans 2:1-3 for comparison:

Romans 2:1-3

1 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. 3 Do you suppose, O man--you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself--that you will escape the judgment of God?

Taken in its proper context, Jesus is saying that it is the hypocrite who is forbidden to judge. The passage in Romans doesnt even go as far as forbidding someone from judging if he has sin in his life that isn't related to that which he is judging his brother about at the moment. It is saying that we cannot judge someone regarding a sin if we do that very same sin. Also, rather that forbidding proper judging, the passage in Matthew actually condones it; "and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."

Now that we have clearly seen that this passage does not forbid proper judging, we need to see what else the Bible says about judging, because scripture always interprets itself. Here are some examples:

1 Corinthians 2:15

The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.

1 Corinthians 6:1-3

1 When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!

Proverbs 31:9

Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.

John 7:24

Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.

That's just a few examples. There are also literally dozens upon dozens of scriptures that implore us to judge whether or not someone is a false teacher, false believer, etc. So to take one scripture, rip it out of context, and parade it about as if it means something that it doesn't, is either ignorant at best or blatantly disingenuous at worst.