Onyx Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 snkhadd May 7th 2005 05:22 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 The original thread was so long that I decided to start a second thread for what you might call the second half to the discussion. The question has been raised about why those of us who are gay and christian do not participate more fully and I will get to that but first rather than attempt to type out all of the information necassary to present my case I am simply going to include the following link. This letter was written by a Baptist minister and includes a diverse number of sources including a number of respected conservative theologians and clergy. It is long but I believe you will find it enlightening if you read it with an open mind. Be sure to read all 3 of the appendix. Once a few people post back that they have read the piece and their thoughts then we will go on from here. http://www.godmademegay.com/Letter.htm jason May 7th 2005 05:40 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 I'm sorry I am hard pressed to read pass the lying heading. One. Homosexuality is an unchangeable nature; it is not a lifestyle choice. That is simply false. I personally know a number of recovered homosexuals. So the claim is simply false. Only 1 changed homosexual is needed to prove this statement false and I personally know more than one. The problem is if it starts out telling one lie, why should we trust the rest of it ? Reading down further I discover that they may have some legitimate points to make, but it is built upon an assumption that is false. You shouldn't build an argument on a lie. Jason snkhadd May 7th 2005 05:43 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 You realy should read further Jason. Unless of course you are too stuck in your views to carry on an open conversation on the subject? In which case why participate in discussion at all? jasonMay 7th 2005 05:48 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 Quote: Originally posted by snkhadd You realy should read further Jason. Unless of course you are too stuck in your views to carry on an open conversation on the subject? In which case why participate in discussion at all? I read under the heading that I know to be false. Recovered homosexuals exist, so the claim that homosexuality is an unchangeable nature is at best false and at worst a blatant lie. I will work through the rest, but I have little hope for a meaningful dialogue when the article you cite has a falsehood as a fundamental assumption. I might as well try and do physics with the assumption that all matter is composed of choruses of dancing hampsters. You can assume it if you like, but any physics built on such an assumption will have no connection to reality because the assumption is false. Jason snkhadd May 7th 2005 06:01 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 I don't understand something here. You have obviously closed your mind to the possibility that your view could be flawed and are not open to having an open discussion and exchange of ideas and philosophies on such a diverse issue? So why waste your time with a rather lengthy piece? Why enter into the discussion at all? What do you have to gain from it? jason May 7th 2005 06:02 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 This thing is just beyond belief. Look at this rubbish will you. Quote: but practically all behavioral scientists now accept this statement as a fact. All "scientists" :ahem: Quote: Advances in the sciences, particularly psychology, in the last 100 years have shown that not all people are heterosexual; some are homosexual, and their homosexuality is an unchangeable nature, not a choice. How would he know ? Of course homosexuality is not a "choice", just like depression is not a choice. Quote: The American Psychiatric Association (APA) officially recognized it in 1973 when it declassified homosexuality as being a mental illness. The American Psychological Association followed with similar action two years later. I notice he is silent about the threats and intimidation the APA suffered at the hands of homosexual activists when it came to this decision. I also notice that he conveniently forgets that no new research was brought forward that resulted in this declassification but that it came about as a result of political pressue. Also I would not suggest trusting the APA too much on this score as the DSM IV does not even list paedophillia as a mental illness unless it is considered undesirable by the subject. Quote: Evidence that homosexuality is unchangeable includes: What is presented is nothing of the sort. Quote: (a) ten thousand suicides each year of young homosexuals unwilling to face life with that orientation; Assuming this could actually be substantiated in some way, it does not demonstrate that homosexuality is unchangeable. Though I suspect the number is just made up. Quote: ( the high percentage of homosexuals who go to psychotherapists desperately wanting to change their orientation, and then © the very small percentage of them reportedly being changed after hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars being spent in psychotherapy; Again, many report varying degrees of success if removing the undesired "orientation". Also if the claim was true, that would also mean that because some people fail to quit smoking that it is an "immutable" condition as well. Quote: (d) the millions of homosexuals who remain "in the closet," not acting like homosexuals and not wanting anyone to learn of their orientation; Wow, that sure proves a lot. Convenient that there are "million of homosexuals in the closet" and so this "fact" cannot be disproved. Any failure to uncover these "millions of closeted homosexuals" will simply be dismissed as "well they are lying". Either this guy is incompetent or willingly spreads, at best, half truths. Quote: (e) the thousands who are reported as coming to pastors and counselors devastated to have to recognize their unchangeable orientation and wanting assistance in dealing with it. Please back this up. Also "unchangeable" has just been assumed to be the case and no critieria has been offered for what that means. Quote: A few, after psychotherapy, report successful change. It is believed that most of these are not true homosexuals, but because of some trauma in childhood they adopted homosexual traits; How convenient. What utter rubbish. How can anybody take seriously someone who will dismiss any conflicting data with the data "well they are not real homosexuals then". Quote: Scientists and sociologists do not know what causes homosexuality, just as they don't know what causes heterosexuality Hetrosexuality is not a disorder. Quote: but virtually all are convinced that whatever the cause, it is unchangeable. Homosexuals are homosexual by nature; it is never something they choose. Many I get tired of these sort of lies told and strawmen being burned. Very few people would argue homosexuality is a "choice" in the sense that they wake up and decide to do it. If the author is supposed to be a Christian then he is bearing false witness. Why do you think people are going to take something seriously when it is riddled with such obvious falsehoods ? Jason jason May 7th 2005 06:06 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 Quote: Originally posted by snkhadd You have obviously closed your mind to the possibility that your view could be flawed No that is false. You are welcome to try to convince me I am mistaken. The problem is that I am not going to buy into a bunch of lies and half-truths as an argument. Sorry about that, but I am interested in finding truth not shallow justifications for any old behavior. Quote: not open to having an open discussion and exchange of ideas and philosophies on such a diverse issue? I am quite open to it. What I am sick of is the lies told by those so keen to bless homosexuality. If you would like to offer an argument that is based in truth and evidence instead of half truth and lies, I would certianly be open to hearing it. But i've looked at study data on this issue for years and have thought about the problem extensivly, including knowing a number of homosexuals personally. Quote: Why enter into the discussion at all? What do you have to gain from it? Because the truth should be defended against lies. And I have nothing to gain. Jason Mad_Gerbil May 7th 2005 06:56 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 I know of at least two homosexuals, both practicing, who've looked into the matter and agree there is no way to reconcile homosexuality with the Bible. They'll admit that much, and I appreciate their honesty. I'd agree that the church needs to learn to project love and hope to people trapped in this sin, but accepting destructive behavior in another is a sign of indifference, not love. If G_d designed gays then you think he would have designed the body to withstand anal sex, but it doesn't at all. Nature at it's core makes it very obvious what goes where and why -- the effort to 'normalize' this behavior isn't refuted by Christianity only, but by the very way we were designed. jason May 7th 2005 08:05 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 Quote: Originally posted by Mad_Gerbil I know of at least two homosexuals, both practicing, who've looked into the matter and agree there is no way to reconcile homosexuality with the Bible. They'll admit that much, and I appreciate their honesty. That is it isn't it. I don't mind people who say, "Well I disagree with the Bible then", but I really get annoyed by people who try to weasel out of an obvious reality. Quote: I'd agree that the church needs to learn to project love and hope to people trapped in this sin, but accepting destructive behavior in another is a sign of indifference, not love. True my brother. I'm always puzzled by aspects of homosexuality. The homosexual often demands, "To love me you must accept my sexual practice" and people nod and agree. But you would never take seriously the alcholic who said "To love me you must accept my drinking habits". Quote: If G_d designed gays then you think he would have designed the body to withstand anal sex, but it doesn't at all. Nature at it's core makes it very obvious what goes where and why -- the effort to 'normalize' this behavior isn't refuted by Christianity only, but by the very way we were designed. :thumb: You know when Da Blonde sees this she will call you a homophobic bigot. join the club today :deal: Jason snkhadd May 7th 2005 08:14 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 It would appear that the first thing we need to establish is whether or not there is grounds in our modern culture on which to look at the Bible as something other than written in stone. Or whether it should be viewed with an understanding of to whom it was written and when. Then we must decide if it is appropriate to weigh it against the current culture and how that culture differs from the original audience. Or we must decide that it is the unchangable word of God and that modern man sins when he looks at ANY part of it and weighs it against his current condition and understanding and finds it wanting. In other words decides that it no longer pertains to the current day. I will approach that in another post after I have had some sleep. As it is currently 6 a.m. my time and I have yet to go to bed. First I would like make sure that I understand both of your possitions correctly. 1) You are both asserting that it is not possible to view homosexuality as anything but a sin based on the word of God ( I assume as printed in the English translations.) Is that correct? 2) That no other mode of thinking should enter into the discussion as none has a clear consensus among a given body of "experts" i.e. because not all psychologists agree we should not look at what any of them have to say. 3) And can we at least agree that due to the difficulties involved in translating the original Greek and Hebrew text into English that no competent study of any subject can be taken up without consulting closely with the original text? If you do not have a Lexicon you can access one for free as www.crosswalk.com you will need it for this study. I will take this back up in a few hours but for now I am going to bed. jason May 7th 2005 09:24 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 Quote: Originally posted by snkhadd It would appear that the first thing we need to establish is whether or not there is grounds in our modern culture on which to look at the Bible as something other than written in stone. Or whether it should be viewed with an understanding of to whom it was written and when. Then we must decide if it is appropriate to weigh it against the current culture and how that culture differs from the original audience. Or we must decide that it is the unchangable word of God and that modern man sins when he looks at ANY part of it and weighs it against his current condition and understanding and finds it wanting. In other words decides that it no longer pertains to the current day. There is another approach. The Bible is the written in stone word of God. That is an unwavering principle that cannot simply be dismissed. If you don't agree that the Bible is the Word of God and we should live and act in accordance with it (rightly understood) then we might as well give up now as we will never get anywhere. However, the text does need to be rightly understood. After all, many of the OT laws have served their purpose and have passed away (Peters vision in Act's, so i'm not just ignoring what I don't like as I have been accused by one raving looney on this board). Quote: 1) You are both asserting that it is not possible to view homosexuality as anything but a sin based on the word of God ( I assume as printed in the English translations.) Is that correct? More or less. Homosexual attraction is not wrong, the behavior (be it lust in the mind or physical actions) are what is wrong. There is no condemnation for the person who does not subcumb to temptation. And the problem with homosexual acts is that they run counter to the design and plan of human beings. Sex is intended for one relationship only (marriage between a man and a woman) or else celibacy. This is the clear and unmistakable teaching of the Bible. Even if I conceded (and i'm not, but just to make things clear) that homosexaul practice was permissible, it would only be permissible within an entirely monogamous life time union or else celibacy. Don't use this as an admission that I would consider entirely monogamous lifetime homosexual unions acceptable. Quote: 2) That no other mode of thinking should enter into the discussion as none has a clear consensus among a given body of "experts" i.e. because not all psychologists agree we should not look at what any of them have to say. The problem is that the findings of psychologists are largely irrelevant to the moral question involved. Depression or Schizophrenia and not sins yet are mental illnesses, while greed and lust are not mental illnesses but are sins. So even if psychologists claim that homosexuality is not "abnormal" it does not mean it is acceptable for the christian. Quote: 3) And can we at least agree that due to the difficulties involved in translating the original Greek and Hebrew text into English that no competent study of any subject can be taken up without consulting closely with the original text? Sure, but the consistent testimony of the Church from its beginning has been that homosexual practice is wrong. So even if you can argue that something could in theory be translated differently you would need to make a strong case for why nobody has noticed this error for 2000 years. It wont do to simply say "well they were just homophobes" or something else equally as stupid. But I am sure you would not do that, though some others would. Incidentally, noting something in the letter you referenced that is worth keeping in mind. It seemed to suggest that not having sex is somehow harmful. But the truth is sex is not a need, you can live without it and I don't think celibacy is impossible or even undesirable for the homosexual. Can you at least agree to the churches historic position that sex is intended to be limited only too two partner commited for life or else celibacy ? That at a bear minimum would need to be accepted by you for this to proceed anywhere as that teaching of scripture and God's great hatred for divorce and unfaithfulness is crystal clear in scripture. There is no room for ideas like "emotional monogamy" or other such rubbish that I have heard from some people. Can you agree to these modest and entirely reasonable parameters for discussion. No Christian could realistically entertain the idea of the sort of unlimited sexual "expression" practiced by the culture today. Jason NeilUnreal May 7th 2005 11:49 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 Quote: Originally posted by Mad_Gerbil If G_d designed gays then you think he would have designed the body to withstand anal sex, but it doesn't at all. Non-sequitur with respect to arguing against homosexuality. The same reasoning allows me to conclude that: 1) Potentially harmful sex acts between married heterosexual couples imply that marriage and heterosexuality are wrong. 2) Gay sex is OK as long it doesn't involve any sex act potentially more harmful than that which occurs between typical heterosexual couples. -Neil Forward05 May 7th 2005 01:06 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Being gay is not natural When a heterosexual couple wishes to start a family, all they have to do is have sex to reproduce. When a gay or lesbian couple wish to start a family, they either have to have heterosexual intercouse or adopt some other heterosexual couple's child. That should tell you something about how illogical the whole premise of homosexuality is. Does it sink in to anybody's skull that you can't change your sexuality (male or female) no matter who you choose to have sex with? jason May 7th 2005 01:11 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Being gay is not natural Quote: Originally posted by Forward05 When a heterosexual couple wishes to start a family, all they have to do is have sex to reproduce. When a gay or lesbian couple wish to start a family, they either have to have heterosexual intercouse or adopt some other heterosexual couple's child. That should tell you something about how illogical the whole premise of homosexuality is. Does it sink in to anybody's skull that you can't change your sexuality (male or female) no matter who you choose to have sex with? I don't disagree with you at all. A simple Natural Law argument like this should convince most people. However it does not, in large part I suspect because too many people have bought into the idea of "sexual fulfillment" or "sexual pleasure" as a right. Which is nonsense, but it is powerful nonsense that fuels ideas like abortion and the encouragment of people into deadly "lifestyles". Jason Mad_Gerbil May 7th 2005 07:54 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 Quote: Originally posted by NeilUnreal 1) Potentially harmful sex acts between married heterosexual couples imply that marriage and heterosexuality are wrong. The sex organs of the male and the female are designed to work with one another. The sex organ of the male are not designed to work with the anus of another human being. I'm not talking potential here, I'm talking probable. Quote: 2) Gay sex is OK as long it doesn't involve any sex act potentially more harmful than that which occurs between typical heterosexual couples. My comments are in the context of someone claiming G_d makes some people gay -- that it is a natural expression of his design. The human body testifies otherwise. You aren't designed to stick carrots in your ear either. You might be able to do it for a time with relatively little ill effect but it is still obvious to everyone that isn't the way a carrot is to be used -- nor your ears for that matter. I'm tired of homosexual advocates setting everyone else back on their heels over this issue. Our bodies make quite clear how things are to be used and you'd have to be pretty stubborn and mixed up in the head to not see that. The same can be said for any other sin -- it is obvious the liver isn't made to endure great amounts of alcohol -- that people don't do well when they gossip -- that stealing is bad for society as a whole. It all makes a great deal of sense and the propaganda of the homosexual advocacy groups cannot get past that with anything other than smoke and mirrors. sandlewood[/size] May 7th 2005 08:54 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 Quote: Originally posted by Forward05 When a heterosexual couple wishes to start a family, all they have to do is have sex to reproduce. When a gay or lesbian couple wish to start a family, they either have to have heterosexual intercouse or adopt some other heterosexual couple's child. That should tell you something about how illogical the whole premise of homosexuality is. The fact is that people are attracted to the same gender; whether we decide it’s logical or not is besides the point. Quote: Originally posted by jason Again, many report varying degrees of success if removing the undesired "orientation". Also if the claim was true, that would also mean that because some people fail to quit smoking that it is an "immutable" condition as well. Quote: Originally posted by jason True my brother. I'm always puzzled by aspects of homosexuality. The homosexual often demands, "To love me you must accept my sexual practice" and people nod and agree. But you would never take seriously the alcholic who said "To love me you must accept my drinking habits". These are clearly poor analogies. Homosexuality does not hurt anyone. Quote: Originally posted by jason If G_d designed gays then you think he would have designed the body to withstand anal sex, but it doesn't at all. Nature at it's core makes it very obvious what goes where and why -- the effort to 'normalize' this behavior isn't refuted by Christianity only, but by the very way we were designed. NeilUnreal pointed out the problem with this argument. Heterosexual people can and do put things in the “wrong” place as well. That doesn’t make heterosexuality wrong. This is just a sad way of thinking. Perhaps we can say that God never intended for white people to go outside. When they go in the sun they get painfully sunburned, and God would never have made the sun beat down on the Earth and have white people running around outside. That’s just bad design. So I guess you need to make a law that says all dark skinned people are allowed to go inside or outside, but light skinned people must stay inside during the day. The fact is, people don’t want you telling them what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. If someone wants to stick a carrot in his ear and it is not harming you, it’s not your business. It’s quite clear that Christianity does not want homosexuals. That’s fine. If your religion doesn’t consider homosexuality acceptable, then you don’t have to allow any homosexuals to become Christian. You don’t have to award Christian marriages to them. It’s your private club. It’s another thing, however, if you want to start imposing your religion and morals on other people outside of your religion who don’t agree. Obviously you think that atheists are immoral. But at least atheists are afforded the same civil rights in society (so far at least; although no atheist could realistically become president.) It would be wrong to extend your religious beliefs to government, passing laws to restrict the rights of someone simply because they are homosexual and your religion claims that to be immoral. There are people who are homosexual and who also want to be Christian, although I can’t imagine why they want so badly to be part of a club that doesn’t want them. Seems like the best bet for them is to forget about trying to change the existing denominations and create their own denomination. Not all Christians agree about what is true Christianity and what is not. That’s why you have Protestants, Catholics, and a thousand other groups. Might as well start a pro-homosexuality denomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onyx Posted May 9, 2005 Author Share Posted May 9, 2005 jason May 7th 2005 09:04 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 Quote: Originally posted by sandlewood The fact is that people are attracted to the same gender; whether we decide it’s logical or not is besides the point. Well actually it is not beside the point. Quote: These are clearly poor analogies. Homosexuality does not hurt anyone. Homosexual practice is very destructive. It must a be a coincidence that male homosexuals have significantly reduced life expectancy. Quote: The fact is, people don’t want you telling them what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. If someone wants to stick a carrot in his ear and it is not harming you, it’s not your business. Your shallow understanding of "not hurting anyone" is rather telling. Quote: It would be wrong to extend your religious beliefs to government, passing laws to restrict the rights of someone simply because they are homosexual and your religion claims that to be immoral. Don't offer this dross as an argument. All laws and moral discourse presumes some persons understanding of what is right. It cannot be otherwise and Christians like everyone should always act in what they think is the right manner. Are you seriously saying that Christians should not propose laws that they think are right ? Are you willing to apply that as a general principle or is this just typical anti-theist blinkered thinking. Jason raptors15jj May 7th 2005 09:08 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 I'll play Devil's Advocate for a moment.... Why would someone "choose" to be gay? Until recently, Being gay has carried a negative social connotation. If someone in my hometown (in a small southern state, about 1200 people in the town) came out of the closet, they would face public ridicule in addition to embarrassment their family would endure. The individual could lose their job, and I imagine some would choose not to do business with them because of it. Why would someone like Rock Hudson make such a choice when it could have a devastating effect on his career? Or any public figure for that matter? There has been a gay NFL football player (Esera Tualo(sp?)). A gay professional boxer (Emile Griffin, whose life story was recently made into a movie) who was a world champ, so being gay didn't affect his ability as a fighter. ........ On the other hand, I think of someone like Anne Heche (and I know anyone in Hollywood is a bad example to use) who was gay but now is not. Now, she is married(to a man) and has a child with him. Was she just confused? Or was it just a career move to capitalize on the publicity she would get from stating that she was gay? Even with the Rock Hudson example above it appears that he didn't go to great lengths to try to hide it, and that most of the locals knew that he was. What about gay male (I know this isn't true in all cases) that display effeminate characteristics, or lesbian females who display typically male tendencies? Why feel the need to display anything? This is more of a tangential issue to me, because I know we all act out our roles in society to a degree. Another question, could a teenager saying their gay be a tool to draw attention to themselves, or to possibly embarrass their parents? I have not read all of the article (I skipped down to the author's eisegesis of scripture, I'll finish the rest later) but in parts of it he seems to do a eisegetical dance around some of the OT verses and claims that anyone who disagrees is being overly legalistic. sandlewood May 7th 2005 11:00 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 Quote: Originally posted by jason Well actually it is not beside the point. But you choose not to explain further? Not much of an argument. Sounds like the Monty Python argument. Quote: Originally posted by jason Homosexual practice is very destructive. It must a be a coincidence that male homosexuals have significantly reduced life expectancy. Yes, well, eating at McDonald’s is not good for you. You’ll get heart disease. Perhaps we should tell these people they are abnormal and they can’t get married. Or perhaps we should slice it a different way. Maybe there are some ethnic groups that have shorter life spans and we should discourage them from being that ethnicity. Maybe we should tell the Japanese or the Hungarians to stop being Japanese and Hungarian because they statistically have shorter life spans. Can you tell me what specifically is it about homosexuality that causes shorter life spans? Is it “homosexual practice”? Do you believe it’s the act of someone having sex with the same gender that induces a speedy death? Do you believe that if a homosexual starts having sex with the opposite gender then they will increase their life span? What is the biological cause of this? Quote: Originally posted by jason Are you seriously saying that Christians should not propose laws that they think are right? Are you willing to apply that as a general principle or is this just typical anti-theist blinkered thinking. Are you seriously saying that it’s quite alright to provide different civil rights to different people depending on how closely they conform to Christian doctrine? Da Blonde May 7th 2005 11:32 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 Quote: Originally posted by snkhadd The original thread was so long that I decided to start a second thread for what you might call the second half to the discussion. The question has been raised about why those of us who are gay and christian do not participate more fully and I will get to that but first rather than attempt to type out all of the information necassary to present my case I am simply going to include the following link. This letter was written by a Baptist minister and includes a diverse number of sources including a number of respected conservative theologians and clergy. It is long but I believe you will find it enlightening if you read it with an open mind. Be sure to read all 3 of the appendix. Once a few people post back that they have read the piece and their thoughts then we will go on from here. http://www.godmademegay.com/Letter.htm Thank you, I've seen this before but appreciate being reacquainted with it. The article is incisive and thorough and accurately addresses the issues at hand. Da Blonde May 7th 2005 11:42 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 Quote: Originally posted by Mad_Gerbil accepting destructive behavior in another is a sign of indifference, not love. Loving relationships are not destructive. If a parent has a heterosexual adult child who enters a relationship with a person of opposite gender of whom the parent disapproves, while seriouys concerns should be stated directly one should support one's child nonetheless. Often we see criticizing the person with whom your relation is infatuated only serves to drive him or her toward that individual more. So it is with same gender relationships. Those close to the individual should affirm them and honor their significant other. To an individual in an abusive relationship I advise seeking change or ending the relationship. One should do such regardless of the orientations of the individuals involved. Da Blonde May 7th 2005 11:47 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Being gay is not natural Quote: Originally posted by Forward05 When a heterosexual couple wishes to start a family, all they have to do is have sex to reproduce. When a gay or lesbian couple wish to start a family, they either have to have heterosexual intercouse or adopt some other heterosexual couple's child. That should tell you something about how illogical the whole premise of homosexuality is. Does it sink in to anybody's skull that you can't change your sexuality (male or female) no matter who you choose to have sex with? Love and gender identity are not matters of logic. jason May 8th 2005 05:35 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 Quote: Originally posted by sandlewood Yes, well, eating at McDonald’s is not good for you. You’ll get heart disease. Perhaps we should tell these people they are abnormal and they can’t get married. Don't tell lies. Homosexuals like everyone else can get married under the same criteria as everyone else. If you are going to spread ignorance start your own thread. I will not be baited with this nonsense any further. Quote: Are you seriously saying that it’s quite alright to provide different civil rights to different people depending on how closely they conform to Christian doctrine? Nobody is being denied any civil rights. I will not drag the thread further off topic because you are ignorant of reality. There are plenty of other threads here on same-sex marriage, find one and read it. Jason Forward05 May 8th 2005 05:39 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 Quote: Originally posted by sandlewood Are you seriously saying that it’s quite alright to provide different civil rights to different people depending on how closely they conform to Christian doctrine? Different civil rights?? Get a grip. Gays and lesbians have exactly the same rights under the law as all straight men and women. What rights under the law do you believe gays and lesbians are denied? Free speech or the right to keep and bear arms? How about the right to a speedy trial by a jury of their peers? Mad_Gerbil May 8th 2005 05:50 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Being gay is not natural Quote: Originally posted by Da Blonde Love and gender identity are not matters of logic. Your gender, honey, is as simple as looking in your pants. If what is going on in your brain is uncertain, than your brain in confused. I'm not opposed to being effeminate, or men who like to arrange flowers. I'm not opposed to women who like to work as construction workers or have deep voices. Gender is NOT what you like to do for a living or whether or not you like to wear your emotions on your sleeve. The stereotypes of gender are silly, for the most part. However, when an adult male looks into his pants, then looks up and declares he's a woman trapped in a man's body he is telling me he is in need of consuling. The same is true if he thinks his male member is made for use with another man's anus. That is confusion on a very fundamental level and it should be fixed instead of embraced. Homosexual sin isn't the confusion, it isn't how one dresses, it isn't being effeminate, it isn't liking show tunes -- homosexual sin is giving in to the lie that one's sexuality is to be expressed with the same gender. This isn't hate speech -- but rather using physical cues to draw the mental into alignment. We would consider any person who is convinced he or she isa small red fox to get immediate help -- not because being a small red fox is immoral but rather because he or she isn't embracing the fundamentals of his or her own humanity, but instead sacrificing the glory that could be for a lie. I'm against homosexuality not because it is 'icky' but because I want each and every human to embrace the glory of their own humanity. You think you are being compassionate by affirming someone is actually a woman trapped in a man's body? That isn't compassionate, that is no different than telling a kid that smoking is cool -- it is encouraging the worst kind of delusion and self destructive behavior. Heterosexism Gender Identity Hogwash phrases all designed to make a self destructive lie look healthy. jason May 8th 2005 05:53 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 Quote: Originally posted by raptors15jj Why would someone "choose" to be gay? I don't think anybody is arguing that homosexuality is a choice in that sense. So to suggest people are arguing like that is a pure strawman. Quote: On the other hand, I think of someone like Anne Heche (and I know anyone in Hollywood is a bad example to use) who was gay but now is not. Now, she is married(to a man) and has a child with him. Was she just confused? No only those who are telling lies about the immutability of homosexual desire are confused about things like that. Quote: I have not read all of the article (I skipped down to the author's eisegesis of scripture, I'll finish the rest later) but in parts of it he seems to do a eisegetical dance around some of the OT verses and claims that anyone who disagrees is being overly legalistic. Of course they will claim that, it is like Da Blondes constant charge of "fundamentalist" against any Christian who takes scripture seriously instead of just ignoring all the parts that conflict with what they want. It is a typical smear tactic of those without an argument. Jason jason May 8th 2005 05:57 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Being gay is not natural Quote: Originally posted by Mad_Gerbil Your gender, honey, is as simple as looking in your pants. If what is going on in your brain is uncertain, than your brain in confused. Actually it isn't even that. Gender is something words have. People have sexes. Don't let them shift the terms of debate like that. Also, stop making me pick your totally brilliant posts. Jason JCA May 8th 2005 06:24 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 Quote: Originally posted by jason But the truth is sex is not a need, you can live without it and I don't think celibacy is impossible or even undesirable for the homosexual. HI Jason.. Just wanted to say something about this.. can you tell me where you get your information that sex is not a need? Just because some people choose to be celibate, does not mean they aren't denying their bodies natural 'needs'. Just as those people who refrain from eating because they can exist on 'light' ( :ahem: ), can't justify saying that food isn't needed. I thnk you will find even celibate people have erotic dreams where their bodies release pent up fluids etc. You have pointed out in this thread that an unsound premise can lead to misconclusions and misunderstandings. I think you will find that the human need for sexual contact and release IS a factor in the whole homosexual issue; and indeed in all our lives. Still, it is supposed to be more of a Godly morality to control such 'needs' and desires.. and that in itself is part of the main issue. Just some thoughts In Love and Peace JCA Forward05 May 8th 2005 07:30 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Being gay is not natural Quote: Originally posted by Da Blonde Love and gender identity are not matters of logic. Love is a pretty abstract concept and can mean different things to different people. Is sexual desire or attraction really love or just a chemical reaction? Gender identity was not the subject of my post so I'm completely puzzled by the inclusion of this in your statement. bhukkadakota May 8th 2005 08:58 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 Why do homosexuals have a shorter lifespan? Forward05 May 8th 2005 09:20 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 Quote: Originally posted by sandlewood Yes, well, eating at McDonald’s is not good for you. You’ll get heart disease. Perhaps we should tell these people they are abnormal and they can’t get married. The post you responded to does not mention anything about marriage. Nobody in this country is being told that they can't get married. Epoetker May 8th 2005 01:20 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 Homosexuality? Lesbianism? General human sexual practice? Ye Gods, where do I begin... How about here? Hint: Everybody's missing the fact that homosexuality is primarily a social evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onyx Posted May 9, 2005 Author Share Posted May 9, 2005 Rubens May 9th 2005 01:01 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 Quote: Originally posted by sandlewood These are clearly poor analogies. Homosexuality does not hurt anyone. It actually does. This has already been dealt with on this thread. Quote: It’s quite clear that Christianity does not want homosexuals. That’s fine. If your religion doesn’t consider homosexuality acceptable, then you don’t have to allow any homosexuals to become Christian. Spoken with a presupposition of Christianity being nothing more than a club, an opinion to which you are entitled. Us Christians, on the other hand, see "Christianity" as those people who follow a supernatural Creator and regard the Bible as a form of communication from that Creator. Therefore our presupposition is different. It is not a question of our club allowing people to join it. It is a question of someone forming a personal relationship with the supernatural Creator and dealing with their own shortcomings between them. Yes, occasionally fellow Christians feel compelled to encourage or counsel our fellow believers on certain issues. It is not a case of banging on rules. Quote: It’s another thing, however, if you want to start imposing your religion and morals on other people outside of your religion who don’t agree This thread was begun by a Christian attempting to justify homosexuality through scripture and dialogue with other believers. Perhaps this old tried and true "Nasty Fundy Bible-bashing (etc....) Christians forcing their will on others" argument is best left for another thread. Quote: There are people who are homosexual and who also want to be Christian, although I can’t imagine why they want so badly to be part of a club that doesn’t want them . See above. Quote: Seems like the best bet for them is to forget about trying to change the existing denominations and create their own denomination. .... Might as well start a pro-homosexuality denomination. Already been done. And, I question the motivations of those who form such denominations, especially if they consider themselves to have a personal relationship with the Creator. Presupposition is the key with this ongoing debate, as with any issue where Christianity (the "club" :teeth: ) stands alone in society. Atheists will always see this "club" as a nuisance bunch believing in something that isn't true. Therefore, Christians' opinions on anything are based on nothing and don't count. Snkhadd felt a need to discuss this issue on a level playing field. I don't think it is constructive or helpful to Snkhadd to plague the thread with "Christians hate Homosexuals" jibes. Again, perhaps that belongs on another thread. Snkhadd- I believe Jason and Gerbill have spoken some truths on the matter of Biblican defintion of sin and homosexuality. I have nothing to contribute in that vein. But I noted your signature and I am concerned that you understand this; whether it's apparent or not in some believers, we are called to regard sin just as Jesus did; -- sin. Whilst I believe we are called to counsel on specific issues where we believe a specific sin is a problem (and you did ask! ) you should not regard our attitude to your homosexuality as a superiority complex or piousness. I do not believe that God looks upon your homosexuality any differently than He looks upon my laziness, bad language, or the occasional peek at a woman who isn't my wife. It's all sin. You seem to be struggling with reconciling biblical definitions of sin and your lifestyle. I hope this struggle does not prevent you from seeing that Jesus Christ was sent for that very reason, that we have these struggles. sandlewood May 9th 2005 01:26 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 Quote: Originally posted by jason Nobody is being denied any civil rights. I will not drag the thread further off topic because you are ignorant of reality. There are plenty of other threads here on same-sex marriage, find one and read it. Well, the link in the original post does discuss marriage and homosexual acceptance into society in item nine. Also you mentioned it earlier: Quote: Originally posted by jason Even if I conceded (and i'm not, but just to make things clear) that homosexaul practice was permissible, it would only be permissible within an entirely monogamous life time union or else celibacy. Don't use this as an admission that I would consider entirely monogamous lifetime homosexual unions acceptable. However, you don’t have to post anything you don’t want to. If I’m drawing the thread off-topic, I apologize to snkhadd and I’ll let him (or her? Sorry) get on with it. Quote: Originally posted by Forward05 The post you responded to does not mention anything about marriage. Nobody in this country is being told that they can't get married. Is that why President Bush is advocating a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage? (You’re talking about the U.S., right? ) Gays can have civil unions which are not the same thing. They don’t provide the same privileges as mixed-sex marriages. They are not recognized in all states. If nobody in this country is being told that they can't get married, then why all the uproar when Mayor Gavin Newsom married 400 gays and lesbians in San Francisco? Quote: Originally posted by jason Gender is something words have. People have sexes. I thought you might have had a point there regarding diction. However gender can also mean sexual identity. I’m not sure what your objection is about. bhukkadakota May 9th 2005 01:47 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 And also again why do homosexuals have shorter lifespans? How does that work? Maybe its including all those teenage suicides? But then its not really homosexuality thats the cause of their short lifespan but societys treatment of homosexuals. Da Blonde May 9th 2005 01:59 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 Quote: Originally posted by Forward05 Different civil rights?? Get a grip. Gays and lesbians have exactly the same rights under the law as all straight men and women. What rights under the law do you believe gays and lesbians are denied? Free speech or the right to keep and bear arms? How about the right to a speedy trial by a jury of their peers? Georgia Award-Winning Cook Loses Job Under "No Gays" Policy Summary Cheryl Summerville worked as a cook at a Cracker Barrel res-taurant in an Atlanta suburb for three years. Then according to Summerville, the company, in 1991 instituted a sweeping anti-gay policy that officials used to force at least a dozen employees from their jobs--including Summerville. Facts Cheryl Summerville was an extremely reliable and well-liked cook at a Cracker Barrel restaurant in a suburb of Atlanta. She enjoyed her job and had just purchased a new home with her companion where they lived with Cheryl's son. Then according to Summerville, in 1991 the company adopted a policy refusing to employ anyone "whose sexual preferences fail to demonstrate normal heterosexual values." Soon after Cracker Barrel issued its new policy, Summerville learned that management had fired certain gay employees. She asked her manager to read her the new policy and then told her manager she was a lesbian. Her manager was very reluctant to fire such a good worker but, under pressure from the district manager, did so. Summerville's official separation notice reads: "This employee is being terminated due to violation of company policy. The employee is gay." Following negative publicity and picketing by civil rights groups at some of its locations, Cracker Barrel rescinded its official policy, but has not rehired the employees it fired and continues to fire gay and lesbian employees. Some of those employees have suffered dire financial consequences. Summerville, for example, has had to take odd jobs and has had problems making her mortgage payments Many more similar stories are documented at www.hrc.org Da Blonde May 9th 2005 02:04 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Being gay is not natural Quote: Originally posted by Mad_Gerbil Heterosexism Gender Identity Hogwash phrases all designed to make a self destructive lie look healthy. Nothing is more destructive in this area than misuse of religion to promote the concept you are better than others because they are different. jason May 9th 2005 02:11 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 Quote: Originally posted by bhukkadakota And also again why do homosexuals have shorter lifespans? Mortality from HIV and other diseases is a large contributor Quote: How does that work? Maybe its including all those teenage suicides? Could you provide numbers please. The last set of "gay teen suidide" figures I saw said that more teens commit suicide for being gay then there are suicides in a given year. Jason jason May 9th 2005 02:19 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 Quote: Originally posted by Epoetker Homosexuality? Lesbianism? General human sexual practice? Ye Gods, where do I begin... How about here? Hint: Everybody's missing the fact that homosexuality is primarily a social evil. Oh I quite agree, but in the interests of actually listening to what my opponent has to say, I will accord him respectful terms of debate. I want to see a case attempted that isn't just a bunch of childish name calling and so I will give him as much time as needed (Or enough rope to hang themselves). I'm sure we will get to the point where it becomes an issue that there do not exist monogomous homosexuals in the sense the bible describes as monogamy, and the general lack of any sexual discipline being practiced by "homosexual churches". Jason Jason jason May 9th 2005 02:24 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: The Bible and Homosexuality part 2 Quote: Originally posted by JCA Just wanted to say something about this.. can you tell me where you get your information that sex is not a need? If I lock you in a room and feed you and give you water but nobody to have sex with, you wont die. That is proof it is not a need in the same way food and water are. Yet people want to suggest that sex is a need on par with food and water. And that is obviously false. So it is certianly not a need in the sense that you will die without it. Quote: You have pointed out in this thread that an unsound premise can lead to misconclusions and misunderstandings. I think you will find that the human need for sexual contact and release IS a factor in the whole homosexual issue; and indeed in all our lives. It is a factor, but it is not a need as typically portrayed. Not having sex wont kill you. And uncontrolled "expression" of such needs will actually kill you funnily enough. The point was that it is not much of an argument to say, "How can you deny homosexuals sex" as if in saying such practice is wrong and they should abstain from it will kill them. Jason Rubens May 9th 2005 02:35 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Being gay is not natural Quote: Originally posted by Da Blonde Nothing is more destructive in this area than misuse of religion to promote the concept you are better than others because they are different. Here we go again. Regardless of the tone of Jason and Gerbs on the biblical definition of sin, they are not judging anyone. This statement is an emotional extreme and an "argument by outrage". This statement is, in itself, destructive. Let's all stop clambering for the moral high ground as to who is the biggest victim. Either the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, or it doesn't, which I thought was the core debate of this thread. If the Bible does say it is a sin, then it is a sin just like all the sins of Jason and Gerbil and myself. We are all judged by God. BUT that does NOT disqualify us from claiming the biblical truth (albeit our opinion, which seems to be what sknhadd was requesting via this thread). Nor does it disqualify us from trying to prevent others from being deceived about scriptural truth. Who was it that said; "Did God really say that??" It concerns me deeply when people who are afflicted by a particular sin, try to redeem themselves by claiming it no sin through scripture, rather than focus on claiming the redemption won by Christ and building that relationship. It also concerns me when I hear Christians using the "Judge not lest ye be judged" punchline (out of context) to shut other Christians up. I thought using scripture out of context for personal gain was the domain of atheism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 I find it really sad that Mad Gerbil had to go hunting for websites that would agree that his tripe on homosexuality was "clear and rational thinking". Obviously he couldn't find that kind of validation on exchristian.net. He knew these pitiful arguments would be knocked flat in seconds. Oh how the egos have fallen... In any case, all Christian pick and choose from the bible, so I fail to see why it should be such a big problem when one denomination's salad-bar picks are different from another's. No Christian can say for certain they know exactly what God wants. Those who say they can are liars. Sex is a need the way human contact is a need. If you lock someone in a room with food and water, without human contact, they will not die from it, it is true. Does that make it any less a need? Some would argue love or comfort is a human need. Sex can fall under both these categories. Some would say pleasure is a human need. Sex would fall under this category too. There are ways to starve that don't have anything to do with food. Your gender, honey, is as simple as looking in your pants. If what is going on in your brain is uncertain, than your brain in confused. I'm not opposed to being effeminate, or men who like to arrange flowers. I'm not opposed to women who like to work as construction workers or have deep voices. Gender is NOT what you like to do for a living or whether or not you like to wear your emotions on your sleeve. The stereotypes of gender are silly, for the most part. However, when an adult male looks into his pants, then looks up and declares he's a woman trapped in a man's body he is telling me he is in need of consuling. The stupidity in this statement amazes me. Especially since I thought the rodent knew better. Hadn't we taught him anything during his stay? My mom takes part in operations frequently in which boy babies are born without testicles or with both a vagina and a penis. Then mom, dad, and doctor get to make a choice. Most often, hermaphridite babies are made into females because it's easier to do such an operation. Recreating the penis is more difficult then recreating the vagina. That doesn't mean that down the road fifteen years, herm baby turned woman starts to thinking maybe she really was a boy at heart. Same thing if herm baby boy realizes that mom and dad and doc might have made a bit of a mistake when they opted for the blue cot instead of the pink. Gender is a social construct. Sex is something doc can change. Hormones have an awful lot to do with it and you can change those too. Maybe you should talk toa doctor and get your stories straight (ahem) Gerbil, because this post...tells me you don't know jack. My comments are in the context of someone claiming G_d makes some people gay -- that it is a natural expression of his design. The human body testifies otherwise. You aren't designed to stick carrots in your ear either. You might be able to do it for a time with relatively little ill effect but it is still obvious to everyone that isn't the way a carrot is to be used -- nor your ears for that matter. I'm tired of homosexual advocates setting everyone else back on their heels over this issue. Our bodies make quite clear how things are to be used and you'd have to be pretty stubborn and mixed up in the head to not see that. It's a good thing the male body was not designed with its G-spot only accessible through anal penetrations, wasn't it...oh wait... You know, I know plenty of heterosexual couples who enjoy anal sex. This shit about carrots would not impress them. Once again MG, find a doctor to talk to about issues you obviously know little about and get a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts