Is homosexuality a sin?

[EnemyPartyII]

We are more concerned with our youth populations that can be easily seduced. Just exactly the same way as they are by the promoscuity that is so supported in todays society. Now people ned an STD-Cancer vaccination because of the acceptance of multiple sex partners today. Also, I see far more homosexuality among our youth culture now than the gay numbers would support being natural.

With the best will in the world... baloney. Homosexuals aren't interested in "seducing" non-homosexuals, and, I contend, that if someone is homosexual, its because they are homosexual, and NOT because they were somehow "tricked" into it or think its "cool". I hear these claims alot and its unadulterated garbage. Seriously... no matter how "cool" you thought it was to be homosexual, can you honestly imagine someone going against their sexuality just for the cred? I can't. And I certainly don't for a moment think that being homosexual is anywhere near as "cool" as you seem to think it is.

From Stonewall to the Pulpit. It certainly appears that your private life must be your defining statement. But I could be wrong.

Believe it or not, I'm not actuallly a stereotypical, man hating flanel wearing dyke. I go out with my friends, both male and female, I study, I have hobbies, I go to work, and I love my partner. The only thing different between my life and, I'm guessing, yours, is the gender of my partner.

Believe me, if people like you stopped condemning me and people like me for what is AN INHERENTLY FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT OF MY NATURE, you'd never hear from me or people like me again. My sexuality is no more a defining charecteristic of my life than yours is for you. I spend time here and places like this fighting this fight to try to convince people like you that there is nothing wrong with me, and to ask you to accord me, and people like me, fair and equitable treatment. But its people like YOU who started this fight. So please don't get huffy when people like ME defend ourselves.

Do you support teaching children in pre-school through junior high that a prince can fall in love with another prince as a fairy tale? That is where the war between gays and their opposition begins.

Um... CAN a prince fall in love with another prince? Are children LIKELY to encounter homosexual people? Are they LIKELY to encounter other kids in their own class with homosexual parents or siblings? If the answer is yes, then why not tell them the occasional fairy tale where two princes fall in love. You aren't honestly going to tell me that you think an otherwise heterosexual child is going to hear such a story and instantly turn homosexual, are you? And I'll say, just as a caveat that I assume is obvious, but for the record, I encourage kids being told about heterosexual family relationships and single parent family relationships as normal and valid too. You don't have to like single parent or homosexual parent families, and that is your prerogative, but I think, unlike homosexuality, that tolerance IS something that can be taught, and that anything that encourages kids to be accepting of those different to themselves is not a bad thing.

Once gay marriage is the law of the land, as Massachusetts and California proves, then gay rights groups get access to my children. My very little children. And there is nothing I can do about that. You get to force gay life on me and mine but I have no recourse to prevent that.

What.the.heck.are.you.talking.about? WHAT "gay rights groups" have "access" to your children? Specific examples please?

1) You are different.

2) Only opposite gender partners can have children.

3) There is no support in the Bible for gay rights.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Again, so what?

1) Homosexuals are different to heterosexuals, but then, left handers are different to right handers. Why is difference grounds for discrimination and opression?

2) Sure, a purely homosexual relationship cannot reproduce without medical assistance, but so what? Neither can a celibate relationship. Neither can an infertile heterosexual relationship. But you have no problem with celibacy or infertile heterosexuals marrying, right? So obviously procreation isn't a valid grounds for legislation against homosexual marriage.

3) Thats a matter of opinion, but whether the bBible is specifically pro or anti- homosexuality doesn't really matter here, since you just claimed your support of Prop 8 is purely secular. If your support is based on the Bible, its not secular, is it?

Sweden and Canada. And Parez Hilton USA.

You have been misinformed. Go ahead. Prove me wrong, quote me any law from Canada or Sweden that says you can't preach against homosexuality in your own church? Show me where Perez Hilton, or anyone else has made such a demand? And no, the miss America pageant doesn't count as preaching to your own church.

We have the STD and abortion rates to back up our concerns. And the ubiquity of gay behavior in our public schools 1-22-10. Culture affects behaviors.

What "ubiquity of gay behaviour in public schools"? Again, be specific?

I think it is wonderful that you are a Christian. My position is about respect for those of us that will ONLY tolerate homosexuals and their behaviors.

So you think its reasonable to demand respect for your position, while refusing to give it to others? How does that fit in with Christ's commandment to love others as yourself? Hmmm?

 

[BigBadWlf]

So then legislation override the Court.

To do that you would have to at the very minimum get rid of the 14th amendment to the constitution. You know the one…its that pesky amendment that says everyone has equal rights and equal protections under the law…even people you don’t happen to like

Nature and Nature's God. Being in opposition to homosexuality is sensible.

Is racism sensible?

The hubris is on the gay rights crusaders time and time again. It seems the qualification for liberalism's (especially progressive) mindset to hold your opposition in contempt as lesser-thans. It is also the height of arrogance to claim as the enlightened do as a matter of being, that they know better than the common populace.

Just like those horrible civil rights activists. The nerve of them saying that just because the constitution says everyone is equal that the laws of the country should actually reflect that.

I call your arrogance and raise you pompousness and haughtiness.

That isn’t all you are presenting

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I transcripted this section from Cliffe Knechtle's 'Give me an answer' series
although i don't think all of it is relevant to you guys, (as i copied word for word), i do think it will be of benefit

When I read things like this, I sometimes wonder if I'm the only one who is stunned by the sheer, unadulterated gall of someone who isn't celibate waxing lyrical about how much of a gift it is for homosexuals to be celibate.

One thing I have to respect about the Catholic Church's position. I don't agree with their teaching, but at least its celibate people telling us we should be celibate too.

 

[AlAyeti]

To do that you would have to at the very minimum get rid of the 14th amendment to the constitution. You know the one…its that pesky amendment that says everyone has equal rights and equal protections under the law…even people you don’t happen to like

I can barely hear you way up there on your high horse. Me being a commoner and all. Men can marry women and women can marry men in all 50-states. Same genders? That's ridiculous.

Is racism sensible?

Yes. There are many times when opposing whole races is quite sensible. Expecting them to keep their own place as well. I'm thinking the Huns right now.

Just like those horrible civil rights activists. The nerve of them saying that just because the constitution says everyone is equal that the laws of the country should actually reflect that.

Marriage is a man and woman. It reflects that.

That isn’t all you are presenting

I'm presenting that opposition to gay rights is OK.

 

[anyman]

Nowhere does the Bible call sin something which is a part of who a person is or something which involves no volition or rebellion.

The Bible calls the act of "man-lying" a sin. Also acts such as rape, adultery, etc. which are sins when they occur between the sexes, are just as much sin when they occur within one sex. Likewise "lust in your heart" (an act of the will, which is more than simple attraction; more even than mere temptation) is a sin of thought.

Nor does it name any "homosexual" activity other than "man-lying," or acts that are sinful for reasons not involving homosexuality, as sin. However, in examining my own life, Romans 14:14 and 14:23 apply.

But in judging someone else's sins, Romans 14:10-13, James 4:11-12 and Matthew 7:1-5 apply.

The OP asks simply is it a sin & if we are using the bible as the answer to that question, you may want to consider 1st Corinthians 6:9 king James uses the term afeminate, while The NIV version uses the term homosexual. If we are considering the book of Romans, you might want to add Romans 1:24-27 This does call the act of men being inflamed with lust for other men & commiting indecent acts with each other sinfull. I don't think that you can reconcile that, although I'm certain you'll make an attempt.

I understand that you are speaking of genetic disposition & not necessarily the sexual act. I am in no way advocating that homosexuals should be hated, demonized, or have less rights than a hetrosexual. I am only pointing these verses out as an answer to the OP. I honestly don't care if you are homo or hetro. It has absolutly no affect on my life. I can't see how, what consenting adults of either persuasion with a reasonable expectation of privacy do, could possibly affect me or society at large.

I don't think the question you are attempting to answer is: Is homosexuality a sin in a biblical sense. I think you are posing the question : is it a sin that someone was born with a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality. If that is the case then I'm not sure that trying to make homosexuality fit within the scriptures as acceptable would be productive towards your intended end result. Instead I think you would be better suited in questioning the scripture itself as a statement of truth.

 

[AlAyeti]

With the best will in the world... baloney. Homosexuals aren't interested in "seducing" non-homosexuals, and, I contend, that if someone is homosexual, its because they are homosexual, and NOT because they were somehow "tricked" into it or think its "cool".

How convenient. If a person is seduced, then they really wanted it. I wish that was the paradigm when I was in college.

I hear these claims alot and its unadulterated garbage. Seriously... no matter how "cool" you thought it was to be homosexual, can you honestly imagine someone going against their sexuality just for the cred? I can't.

I know people that engaged in homosexuality because it was cool. They were seduced so they say.

And I certainly don't for a moment think that being homosexual is anywhere near as "cool" as you seem to think it is.

Pop culture says you are wrong.

Believe it or not, I'm not actuallly a stereotypical, man hating flanel wearing dyke.

But they are ubiquitous. Only a few effeminate gay guys hit on me. The others were as typical guy as John Elway.

I go out with my friends, both male and female, I study, I have hobbies, I go to work, and I love my partner. The only thing different between my life and, I'm guessing, yours, is the gender of my partner.

I am a husband because I am a man. My wife is a wife because she is a woman.

Believe me, if people like you stopped condemning me and people like me for what is AN INHERENTLY FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT OF MY NATURE, you'd never hear from me or people like me again.

Why can't I watch triple X inappropriate content at work? It seems very much an inherently fundamental aspect of my nature. There are boundaries of decency and morality as well as proper behaviors to be expected. What I am presenting, is that there is nothing wrong with opposing gay rights and homosexuality and doing everything in your power to persuade children away from it.

My sexuality is no more a defining charecteristic of my life than yours is for you.

Are you a "lesbian" or just a person? Gays define themselves by their behaviors.

I spend time here and places like this fighting this fight to try to convince people like you that there is nothing wrong with me, and to ask you to accord me, and people like me, fair and equitable treatment.

You want your female partner to be called your wife or husband by Christians that cannot ever do so. How is that sensible? How is that loving?

But its people like YOU who started this fight.

A man's wife is a woman. A woman's husband is a man. YOU gays started the fight. Otherwise civl partnerships would have ended this war.

So please don't get huffy when people like ME defend ourselves.Um... CAN a prince fall in love with another prince? Are children LIKELY to encounter homosexual people? Are they LIKELY to encounter other kids in their own class with homosexual parents or siblings? If the answer is yes, then why not tell them the occasional fairy tale where two princes fall in love.

It is recruitment into both a political and social worldview that many, many, many, many people do not agree with. But for some reason gays believe they can force homosexuality on all.

You aren't honestly going to tell me that you think an otherwise heterosexual child is going to hear such a story and instantly turn homosexual, are you?

I and my side are asserting that it does happen and that is one of the goal of gay rights. It is quite an open agenda really.

And I'll say, just as a caveat that I assume is obvious, but for the record, I encourage kids being told about heterosexual family relationships and single parent family relationships as normal and valid too.

The healthy mom, dad, children family is the best model. In schools that should be the norm.

You don't have to like single parent or homosexual parent families, and that is your prerogative, but I think, unlike homosexuality, that tolerance IS something that can be taught, and that anything that encourages kids to be accepting of those different to themselves is not a bad thing.

Not when it is brought to them as something they should try.

What.the.heck.are.you.talking.about? WHAT "gay rights groups" have "access" to your children? Specific examples please? Again, so what?

I watched in horror as an Oakland/Alameda school district allowed gay rights in the schools. The parents crushed by the decision, know they have a fight to save their children from a permissive society that will swallow up their children.

1) Homosexuals are different to heterosexuals, but then, left handers are different to right handers. Why is difference grounds for discrimination and opression?

Left-handers do not try to use their hands to watch TV with. They use their body parts as intended by design.

2) Sure, a purely homosexual relationship cannot reproduce without medical assistance, but so what?

If nature is going to be called upon, then someone that is homosexual shouldn't have the drive for offspring at all. They are same-gender attracted. How is that not a sensible position?

Neither can a celibate relationship.

Celibate is no sex at all.

Neither can an infertile heterosexual relationship. But you have no problem with celibacy or infertile heterosexuals marrying, right? So obviously procreation isn't a valid grounds for legislation against homosexual marriage.

On the contrary. The infertile couple are mechanically unable to have children, BUTm they are appropriately structured for a family. Two same gender people are not.

3) Thats a matter of opinion, but whether the Bible is specifically pro or anti- homosexuality doesn't really matter here, since you just claimed your support of Prop 8 is purely secular.

Redefining marriage because people that desire homosexuality want to call their partnerships "marriage" is a good fight on the secular level. Altering society forever is a big deal just to accomodate people that desire homosexuality.

If your support is based on the Bible, its not secular, is it?

Both are slam dunks.

You have been misinformed. Go ahead. Prove me wrong, quote me any law from Canada or Sweden that says you can't preach against homosexuality in your own church?

In Sweden a Pastor was arrested and convicted of preaching that homosexuality was an abomination. His CONVICTION was later overturned. Hopefully gays will learn from this, but it appears that Canadian gays haven't. I know of a story of a pastor in Canada having to pay damages for gays he insulted with his Christian preaching.

Show me where Perez Hilton, or anyone else has made such a demand?

Hilton made it clear what he would do with Christians if he could.

And no, the miss America pageant doesn't count as preaching to your own church.

The supported outrage against Prejean showed how close to illegal its getting for Christians that open their mouths. And actually so are you. You are making it clear that Christians can ONLY open their mouths about the inappropriateness of homosexuality in their own Churches.

What "ubiquity of gay behaviour in public schools"? Again, be specific?

You haven't heard of GLSEN? A parent in my Church is bringing us the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network, manual, "Tackling Gay Issues In School.

So you think its reasonable to demand respect for your position, while refusing to give it to others?

You have laws protecting you. Christians are now in danger of being further sued and charged with crimes as haters.

How does that fit in with Christ's commandment to love others as yourself? Hmmm?

I am to work on leaving a life of sin. I am to hope and pray this for others. Per Jesus. Now, do you want me to stay secular or enter Christian life into this?

I'd rather, here, stick with Christian life. You, as a Christian, should applaud that.

 

[David Brider]

I just wanted to chime in here and say that I think the whole "ex-gay" issue is a red herring.

Christians who argue against homosexuality (to use broad terminology) generally do so while distinguishing between "orientation" and "behavior."

Actually - in my experience, at least - most Christians who argue against homosexuality don't make that distinction. Which is rather convenient for them, because it means that they can take a Scripture reference which they perceive (rightly or wrongly) to be about same-gender sexual intercourse and use it to say homosexuality (the sexual orientation) is wrong.

Homosexual orientation is seen as an inclination/predisposition towards one particular form of sin, and same-gender sex is seen as that sin.

However, that's to misunderstand what homosexuality - or any other sexual orientation - is. It's not "an inclination/predisposition towards one particular form of sin". It's a tendency to be physically and romantically attracted to people of a particular gender.

David.

 

[David Brider]

But the gay rights groups mean it exclusively as behavior.

I don't know where you deduce that from. Pretty much every gay person and gay rights group I know of is well aware of the difference between sexual orientation and sexual intercourse. And it's sexual orientation that makes one gay, straight, or bi, not sexual intercourse.

David.

 

[RobertMerton]

When I read things like this, I sometimes wonder if I'm the only one who is stunned by the sheer, unadulterated gall of someone who isn't celibate waxing lyrical about how much of a gift it is for homosexuals to be celibate.

One thing I have to respect about the Catholic Church's position. I don't agree with their teaching, but at least its celibate people telling us we should be celibate too.

sorry i don't really understand this post.

i'm not familiar with 'celibacy', or with Catholicism and their catechisms

 

[EnemyPartyII]

How convenient. If a person is seduced, then they really wanted it. I wish that was the paradigm when I was in college.

I know people that engaged in homosexuality because it was cool. They were seduced so they say.

I'm sorry. I don't believe you.

Pop culture says you are wrong.

Care to back up your claim with specific examples?

But they are ubiquitous. Only a few effeminate gay guys hit on me. The others were as typical guy as John Elway.

What do you mean they're ubiquitous? First you say that you have a problem with me because my sexuality defines me, then you say that most homosexuals are just typical guys. Make your mind up. Are we typical people, or are we defined by our sexuality?

I am a husband because I am a man. My wife is a wife because she is a woman.

Thats a shame. I would have hoped you were husband and wife because you loved each other and wanted to make a commitment to each other, not just because of convenient gender.

Why can't I watch triple X inappropriate content at work? It seems very much an inherently fundamental aspect of my nature. There are boundaries of decency and morality as well as proper behaviors to be expected. What I am presenting, is that there is nothing wrong with opposing gay rights and homosexuality and doing everything in your power to persuade children away from it.

Presumably because they aren't paying you to watch inappropriate content at work?

Are you a "lesbian" or just a person? Gays define themselves by their behaviors.

I'm a woman, my sexuality defines me no more than yours defines you.

You want your female partner to be called your wife or husband by Christians that cannot ever do so. How is that sensible? How is that loving?

Show me where I ever said any such thing? Every post I have ever made here is easily searchable, show me ONE time I have ever made such a demand. If you can't do it, I'll thank you to apologise and not put words in my mouth.

A man's wife is a woman. A woman's husband is a man. YOU gays started the fight. Otherwise civl partnerships would have ended this war.

Just like saying that African Americans should have been happy with "seperate but equal".

It is recruitment into both a political and social worldview that many, many, many, many people do not agree with. But for some reason gays believe they can force homosexuality on all.

Baloney. Homosexuals aren't interested in "forcing homosexuality" on anyone. We just want to be accepted. Thats it. Teaching kids that homosexuals exist is hardly "forcing homosexuality" on anyone. Telling a classroom full of Christian kids that Muslims exist, that they are different but thats OK is hardly going to make them all race out and convert to Islam, just as telling a classroom full of heterosexual kids that homosexuals exist, and are different but OK, is hardly going to make them go racing out to become homosexual.

I and my side are asserting that it does happen and that is one of the goal of gay rights. It is quite an open agenda really.

And yet you and the people on "your side" are appARENTLY utterly unable to show a single example of any homosexual attempting to "recruit" non-homosexuals, or that this is in anyway an "agenda."

The healthy mom, dad, children family is the best model. In schools that should be the norm.

A. Thats your opinion, but I note you provided no evidence to back up your claim.
B. But even if we accept that, so what? Not everyone is going to come from a "model family", does that mean we should pretend that children from single parent homes don't exist? That we should tell a child with two loving, caring same sex parents that they are somehow inferior to the kid with the drunk abusive father and the absent mother? War widows must LOVE you.

Not when it is brought to them as something they should try.

Again... support this ridiculous claim with evidence, or retract. It never happened outside of persecution complex sufferers.

I watched in horror as an Oakland/Alameda school district allowed gay rights in the schools. The parents crushed by the decision, know they have a fight to save their children from a permissive society that will swallow up their children.

Not being from Oakland, I'm not familiar with the case. What, SPECIFICALLY happened that makes you thin heterosexual children are going to be "swallowed up" by homosexuals, or that "homosexual groups have free access to them"?

Left-handers do not try to use their hands to watch TV with. They use their body parts as intended by design.

You REALLY don't want to try the "science says teh gay sex is wrong" with me, I will smack you down so fast...

If nature is going to be called upon, then someone that is homosexual shouldn't have the drive for offspring at all. They are same-gender attracted. How is that not a sensible position?

Maybe that makes sense to you. Maybe human sexuality is more complicated than you like to think. I'm homosexual, and I don't particularly want kids, but there are some that do. Deal with it.

Celibate is no sex at all.



On the contrary. The infertile couple are mechanically unable to have children, BUTm they are appropriately structured for a family. Two same gender people are not.

Again, you deliberately miss the point. If you are claiming that marriage rights are all about reproduction, thats fine, but to be consistent, celibate or infertile, or plain ol contraceptive using people shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Redefining marriage because people that desire homosexuality want to call their partnerships "marriage" is a good fight on the secular level. Altering society forever is a big deal just to accomodate people that desire homosexuality.

Seiously... in what significant way would society be changed if homosexuals are acknowledged as being able to marry?

Both are slam dunks.

Again... you claimed you support prop 8 for secular reasons. If true, you should be able to provide a NON Biblical reason for your support. Thats what secular MEANS. Your failure to do so further proves my point that there is NO coherent secular reason to support such a proposition.

In Sweden a Pastor was arrested and convicted of preaching that homosexuality was an abomination. His CONVICTION was later overturned.

Well there you go, if his conviction was overturned, then obviously your claim that preaching against homosexuality in sweden is illegal is false.

Hopefully gays will learn from this, but it appears that Canadian gays haven't. I know of a story of a pastor in Canada having to pay damages for gays he insulted with his Christian preaching.

Preaching in his own church to his own congregation? Details?

Hilton made it clear what he would do with Christians if he could.

Really? So... I take it that means that this is another claim you can't back up? Yes or no, Hilton claimed that Christians shouldn't be allowed to preach against homosexuality in their own church to their own congregation?

The supported outrage against Prejean showed how close to illegal its getting for Christians that open their mouths.

Baloney. People are welcome to either support or condemn her, but either way, condemning a inappropriate content actress for her views on homosexual marriage is hardly the same as saying you preaching against homosexuality in your own church is hate speech. THAT was your claim, and its eminently false.

And actually so are you. You are making it clear that Christians can ONLY open their mouths about the inappropriateness of homosexuality in their own Churches.

Thats right. Becuse of tht whole seperation of church and state thing. Religion is a voluntry opt in. If you want to belong to a church that condemns homosexuality, feel free. Go nuts, thunder and rail against the evils of teh homo-sex all you want in your own church. But what in the name of all that is holy, makes you think that what YOUR church believes, is remotely binding on anyone who is NOT A MEMBER of your church?

Simple thought experiment... if MY church condemned some activity that you engage in, that is legal and routine for you, do you think it would be reasonable for my church to try to make it illegal for you, even though you aren't a member of my church?

You haven't heard of GLSEN? A parent in my Church is bringing us the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network, manual, "Tackling Gay Issues In School.

Great. And what part of that makes "gay behaviour ubiquitous in schools"?

You have laws protecting you. Christians are now in danger of being further sued and charged with crimes as haters.

And yet you have not been able to provide a single example of anyone being charged with a hate crime for expressing their opinion about homosexuality.

Oh, and I'd point out, again, that anti-homosexual is NOT synonomous with Christian. There are a great many Christians who support homosexuals and homosexual rights, so please, stop trying to act as though the terms are interchangeable.

I am to work on leaving a life of sin. I am to hope and pray this for others. Per Jesus. Now, do you want me to stay secular or enter Christian life into this?

I'd rather, here, stick with Christian life. You, as a Christian, should applaud that.

Show me, chapter and verse, where Christ calls on his followers to condemn and ostracise others?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

sorry i don't really understand this post.

i'm not familiar with 'celibacy', or with Catholicism and their catechisms

Catholic priests are celibate. Celibate means "doesn't have sex".

When a protestant priest or pastor, who is married and in a sexual relationship, tells me that "celibacy is a blessing and that as a homosexual I should embrace it", that smacks of hypocracy to me.

Catholic priests are celibate. So I don't agree with their stance on homosexuality, but at least when they tell me I should try to be celibate, I can appreciate that they know what they are talking about and aren't being hypocritical.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

*Absently pondering* Just wondering how many people here would condemn Perez Hilton's comments about the stripper, yet think that Fred Phelp's comments are perfectly reasonable, and an example of free speech?

 

[AlAyeti]

I don't know where you deduce that from. Pretty much every gay person and gay rights group I know of is well aware of the difference between sexual orientation and sexual intercourse. And it's sexual orientation that makes one gay, straight, or bi, not sexual intercourse.

David.

We are two Christians David. All of the gains and success garnered by gay rights organizations has come from "the world" and worldy people. Except of course, the liberal theology that finds its way in denominations via Alinsky methods. When you can't tell the difference between a worldy person and someone in a Church, that person is corrupted by the powers and principalities of the world. It's an age old battle.

Sin inclination is what is to be overcome in the Christian life. Not embraced.

 

[AlAyeti]

Thanks . I like your Post. I think this depend upon a person.

Hi teens check out these best sex toys [FONT=&quot]rabbit habit butterfly vibrator[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] mens sex toys [/FONT]

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[AlAyeti]

*Absently pondering* Just wondering how many people here would condemn Perez Hilton's comments about the stripper, yet think that Fred Phelp's comments are perfectly reasonable, and an example of free speech?

For Christians or the worldy? Per Jesus, Phelps is as wrong as GLSEN and the Episcopalians are.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

For Christians or the worldy? Per Jesus, Phelps is as wrong as GLSEN and the Episcopalians are.

Are you physically incapable of answering a question directly and appropriately?

Get back to me when you've found a single, solitary example of homosexuals pushing an agenda of recruitment on anyone, or when you've found any support for that wierd idea that Christians anywhere are in danger of being arrested for hate speech for preaching against homosexuality in their own churches.

 

[Jase]

For Christians or the worldy? Per Jesus, Phelps is as wrong as GLSEN and the Episcopalians are.

What makes you all rallying against gays any better than Phelps? Just because he's more vocal about it? You share the same views.

 

[AlAyeti]

I'm sorry. I don't believe you.

That's the party line. It is to be expected. I guess the massive demonstartions of the anti-gay movement is based only on hearsay? Why do parents crumble in terror when their kids opt in and "come out?" Adults know what is in store for them.

What do you mean they're ubiquitous?

"Dykes" are not common in gay life?

First you say that you have a problem with me because my sexuality defines me, then you say that most homosexuals are just typical guys.

Appearance wise.

Make your mind up. Are we typical people, or are we defined by our sexuality?

You are self-derfined by your sexuality. That is what the first three letters in the gay rights thing is all about.

Thats a shame. I would have hoped you were husband and wife because you loved each other and wanted to make a commitment to each other, not just because of convenient gender.

Sticks and stones? From a gay person? A wife is a woman. A husband is a man. Trying to demand to redefine that is a declaration of war on society.

Presumably because they aren't paying you to watch inappropriate content at work?

I'm just a discriminated against sexual minority. Some day our struggle will be over and we can live out our lives in plain view of those that spitefully condemn us. I mean there are even ex-inappropriate contentography orgs trying to change our sexual orientation.

I'm a woman, my sexuality defines me no more than yours defines you.

If you oppose the title of "lesbian" than we are on accodating grounds.

Show me where I ever said any such thing? Every post I have ever made here is easily searchable, show me ONE time I have ever made such a demand. If you can't do it, I'll thank you to apologise and not put words in my mouth.

I may be wrong. But the comon gay routine is like an Elton John soundtrack. You here it so often. Just like the talking points you come back with.

Just like saying that African Americans should have been happy with "seperate but equal".

Blacks reject the gay slavery comparison. So do I.

Baloney. Homosexuals aren't interested in "forcing homosexuality" on anyone. We just want to be accepted. Thats it.

If you are an adult that has been an adult for any length of time, you know how common and typical seduction is.

Teaching kids that homosexuals exist is hardly "forcing homosexuality" on anyone.

The way it is portrayed certain is indoctrination and recruitment. THAT is why Christians and religion have been kicked out of schools.

Telling a classroom full of Christian kids that Muslims exist, that they are different but thats OK is hardly going to make them all race out and convert to Islam, just as telling a classroom full of heterosexual kids that homosexuals exist, and are different but OK, is hardly going to make them go racing out to become homosexual.

Telling kids how islam is incomaptible with Christianity is also education and appropriate. Political corretness is a tool for altering young minds to accept many things. It is a tool well used by Alinsky disciples.

And yet you and the people on "your side" are appARENTLY utterly unable to show a single example of any homosexual attempting to "recruit" non-homosexuals, or that this is in anyway an "agenda."

From your perspective. It is like a fish, wondering what all the fuss is about from the land animals don't want to join them 10-fathoms down.

The youth in our Church have brought us their concerns that the GSA in their schools openly invites them in to a gay experience. It is simple, how do you know if your not gay if you don't try it?

A. Thats your opinion, but I note you provided no evidence to back up your claim.

The MTV culture is just about a carbon copy of Sodom and Gomorrah are referred to in the Bible.

B. But even if we accept that, so what? Not everyone is going to come from a "model family", does that mean we should pretend that children from single parent homes don't exist?

Should we continue to celebrate single mother households when the research on fatherless homes has proved how destructive that is on children?

That we should tell a child with two loving, caring same sex parents that they are somehow inferior to the kid with the drunk abusive father and the absent mother?

Comparing two bad things is just proving the two things as bad. It's like comparing the adulterers in a Church with why people should accept gays.

War widows must LOVE you.

They are mourning for the loss of their husband and family. We should support that loss by holding it as sacred.

Again... support this ridiculous claim with evidence, or retract. It never happened outside of persecution complex sufferers.

Pastor in canada had to pay damages to two gay guys. Pastor in Sweden arrested and convicted for preaching against gay sex and a photographer in New Mexico was sued and lost by a couple of lesbians.This photographer refused to photograpgh a gay wedding. The lesbians did not tolerate that.

Not being from Oakland, I'm not familiar with the case. What, SPECIFICALLY happened that makes you thin heterosexual children are going to be "swallowed up" by homosexuals, or that "homosexual groups have free access to them"?

It was widely highlighted on Fox News. The gays rejoiced as the parents that opposed gay rights were crushed by the defeat of teaching gay life to little children. They have no voice to what sexual morality is taught to their children. Oakland Alameda school district.

You REALLY don't want to try the "science says teh gay sex is wrong" with me, I will smack you down so fast...

I notice the way the is spelled "teh" by gays in debates. Why is that? And without a doubt, I more than anything want to debate the naturalness of homosexuality. If you can take in solid foods through your navel, than I will let you smack me down.

Maybe that makes sense to you. Maybe human sexuality is more complicated than you like to think. I'm homosexual, and I don't particularly want kids, but there are some that do. Deal with it.

I am and we are. Gays call it, though, hate speech and bigoty. But our opposition is a never ceasing stance and gays rights proponents will just have to deal with that. It's sad that Christians are working with so many godless to insert gay rights in our Churches.

Again, you deliberately miss the point. If you are claiming that marriage rights are all about reproduction, thats fine, but to be consistent, celibate or infertile, or plain ol contraceptive using people shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Infertile couples aside, I'd agree with you. Marriage should be applied to a man and a woman and the family.

Seiously... in what significant way would society be changed if homosexuals are acknowledged as being able to marry?

Gay rights people will flood our schools with gay propaganda about gay penguins and gay princes. Mothers day and fathers day will become a hate crime if anyone dares to keep it sensible.

Again... you claimed you support prop 8 for secular reasons. If true, you should be able to provide a NON Biblical reason for your support.

The redefining of family is a major social concern. Chaos does not a ociety make.

Thats what secular MEANS. Your failure to do so further proves my point that there is NO coherent secular reason to support such a proposition.

Nature shows us that family is male/female and offspring. Secular also means darwinian evolution.

Well there you go, if his conviction was overturned, then obviously your claim that preaching against homosexuality in sweden is illegal is false.

he was arrested and convicted. Gays rights advocates keep on keeping on. They have shown a one-step process to overhauling society. Quebec proves that too.

Preaching in his own church to his own congregation? Details?

I made an accusation. Prove my libel. I'm not afriad of the research.

Really? So... I take it that means that this is another claim you can't back up? Yes or no, Hilton claimed that Christians shouldn't be allowed to preach against homosexuality in their own church to their own congregation?

Hilton showed us all that gays want to marginalize Christians (as even you do time and again) into a small voiceless community. Once we leave our Churches everything we do and desire for society is secular. Why is it so acceptable to drive a group of people into the shadows? What happened to tolerance and diversity? That means accpeting opposition.

Baloney. People are welcome to either support or condemn her, but either way, condemning a inappropriate content actress for her views on homosexual marriage is hardly the same as saying you preaching against homosexuality in your own church is hate speech. THAT was your claim, and its eminently false.Thats right. Becuse of tht whole seperation of church and state thing. Religion is a voluntry opt in. If you want to belong to a church that condemns homosexuality, feel free. Go nuts, thunder and rail against the evils of teh homo-sex all you want in your own church. But what in the name of all that is holy, makes you think that what YOUR church believes, is remotely binding on anyone who is NOT A MEMBER of your church?

Live exclusively in a gay community in gay buildings and have your views all you want to. Keep them private. As sexuality should be. Yet somehow I don't think that will go over to big to gays. They seem to desire that their private beliefs be embraced by society as a whole. Christians deserve the same rights.

Simple thought experiment... if MY church condemned some activity that you engage in, that is legal and routine for you, do you think it would be reasonable for my church to try to make it illegal for you, even though you aren't a member of my church?

If what your Church does negatively impacts me and my family, then our struggle is set forth. The bad thing here, is that yiu are a Christian. You should be supporting the anti-gays in the Church. They are the ones that are consistent with Church orthodoxy, history and scripture.

Last time I looked, the Constitution gives loud support for religion to be freely expressed in the forum of society. I am sure that is why gay rigts advocates moved into Christian denominations. In our Church, we are working on the problem of gay rights in our denom. It is a very serious issue. One (of course) that is bringing the typical response of schism.

Great. And what part of that makes "gay behaviour ubiquitous in schools"?

Our MTV culture.

And yet you have not been able to provide a single example of anyone being charged with a hate crime for expressing their opinion about homosexuality.

The pastors in Canada and Sweden are real people.

Oh, and I'd point out, again, that anti-homosexual is NOT synonomous with Christian.

True. many, many, many, many, kinds of people reject homosexuality.

There are a great many Christians who support homosexuals and homosexual rights, so please, stop trying to act as though the terms are interchangeable.

Where schism is found, you almost invariably find heresy. It is detailed that false teachers and false teachings would and does enter the Church. I rather rejoice that we are seeing it so open in our world today. It gives a chance to teach orthodoxy with power.

Show me, chapter and verse, where Christ calls on his followers to condemn and ostracise others?

Matthew 18:

15"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

1 Corinthians 5

Expel the Immoral Brother!

1It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. 2And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? 3Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. 4When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.


6Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? 7Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.

9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

 

[Macrina]

Actually Paul borrowed that passage from Plato... *snipped for space*

Thanks, Ollie, for your detailed and interesting post. I'm sorry it took me awhile to respond. I have a couple of comments.

First regarding the immediate literary context of the verses quoted. Looking at Romans 1:18-32 overall, it still seems to me that same-gender sex is categorized along with other sinful activities. Verses 26 and 27 are in the midst of a broader passage describing the sinfulness of humanity and our need for salvation. Given the context, I would hesitate to extrapolate a great deal from similarities to Greek philosophy; Paul himself, whatever his influences, framed the issue in the context of humanity's descent into sin.

My second comment is a reminder to those of my position that same-gender sex is far from the only sin mentioned in this passage. Immediately following on the passage I cited, Paul says "Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things." (The following verses continue this thought.) I want to make it clear that I do not see same-gender sex as something qualitatively different from all other sins. I do not believe it is judging to discern and teach what scripture says on any particular issue, but it would be judgmental to condemn others while I hold myself to a looser standard. I think Romans 1 tells us something of God's standards for holiness, but it also makes the point that none of us is righteous on our own. While this is not a license to overlook sin, it is likewise not a license to forget that it is but one sin of many.

 

[Macrina]

Actually - in my experience, at least - most Christians who argue against homosexuality don't make that distinction. Which is rather convenient for them, because it means that they can take a Scripture reference which they perceive (rightly or wrongly) to be about same-gender sexual intercourse and use it to say homosexuality (the sexual orientation) is wrong.

Ah, perhaps we have different experiences. I admit that my experience is more with mainline or moderate evangelical traditions than with fundamentalists -- perhaps that has something to do with it. At any rate, when I speak of the issue, I try to differentiate between the orientation and the sexual behavior.

However, that's to misunderstand what homosexuality - or any other sexual orientation - is. It's not "an inclination/predisposition towards one particular form of sin". It's a tendency to be physically and romantically attracted to people of a particular gender.

I think this is the subject of the debate, isn't it? Whether acting on that attraction (in the fullest sense of forming a sexually intimate bond with another person) is sin? It could be phrased in different ways, but there is something which may be called an orientation/inclination/tendency which determines matters of attraction, and there is an action (sex) which might follow upon that attraction. One may view the orientation as a simple neutral truth, or one may view it as a "risk factor" for a particular sin; the difference is in how one views the potential behavioral outcomes of the orientation. In my view, the "tendency to be physically and romantically attracted to people of a particular gender" is something which would give rise to temptation, and perhaps sin, although it is not itself sin.