Is homosexual “love” immoral?

ManOfTheAmish

Christian Philosopher And Naturalist.
Apr 23, 2007
345
4
Kansas
✟15,530.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Proof?



Hmm...i'd say dying from it is a valid argument against it!
Being on God's side is relevant to me; frankly, those who
choose to sin have free will.


Peace & Joy,
chris

They won't have anything to counter your evidence or information but instead will cling to their political correctness ideology that acts as a shield by their mainstream figureheads.

Political correctness anymore is their safety net.
 
Upvote 0

Beanieboy

Senior Veteran
Jan 20, 2006
6,296
1,213
60
✟50,122.00
Faith
Christian
Hindu, or even Atheists can get married without any intervention of the Christian God.

And in Canada, Spain, and the Netherlands, gay people can get married.

And no, it isn't raining fire from the sky.

I've met married gay couples here in Toronto, and others who say, "We have no interest in being married. That's a heterosexual concept, and we refuse to try to be "like them" in order to be concidered "normal."

And both seem perfectly happy.
 
Upvote 0
C

chnchris

Guest
The Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, issued a press release that in 1999 NARTH President, Charles Socarides, had
“ run into trouble with the American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA), of which he is a member. According to a letter from Dr. Ralph Roughton of the APsaA, Socarides misrepresented the position of the APsaA in a published paper and a court affidavit. Socarides attempted to make it appear that the APsaA agrees with his positions on homosexuality. He did this by quoting an APsaA document written in 1968, which supported his views and which he called the "official position" of the APsaA, while ignoring a 1990 revised statement that drastically contradicted his views. The Executive Committee of the APsaA instructed the organization's attorney to write a letter to Socarides asking him to cease this misrepresentation and threatening legal action if he continued. Additionally, the APsaA newsletter decided to stop printing advertisements for NARTH meetings because the organization does not adhere to APsaA's policy of non-discrimination and because their activities are demeaning to our members who are gay and lesbian, according to Roughton.
^ http://www.csufresno.edu/StudentOrgs/usp/resources/flyers/missionimpossible.htm

Which begs the question:
Why would a Christian, who appears to truly be concerned about the topic of homosexuality, cite someone who has born false witness by misrepresentation, acknowlege that (because they have researched the subject, one must assume, if they are truly concerned), and then chose to bear further false witness hear on the forum?

Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness is kinda discussed in the bible.

:confused:
 
Upvote 0

Beanieboy

Senior Veteran
Jan 20, 2006
6,296
1,213
60
✟50,122.00
Faith
Christian
I'm a teacher, so let me explain this to you:

If you argue: Marriage is a contract between one man and one woman ordained by God

You have a weak arguement:
Marriages don't require belief in God.
Marriages don't require the use of the bible, or any reference to God.

Further, even if one is to entertain that "The bible says", one would then have to answer further questions:
If God's "plan" was 1 man and 1 woman, then incest was also part of "God's Plan."
In Genesis, one of Adam's son's has 2 wives. It isn't considered a sin. It simply states it.
Solomon not only had multiple wives, but also concubines.
His son, David, the Apple of God's eye, had 5 or 6.

In fact, the bible has a verse that says, "if a man has two wives, and loves one, but not the other..."

Word of God.

Let me draw an analogy:
If you are arguing with your parents about staying out late, you don't say:
Everyone else is doing it (because you will get the obligatory bridge jumping comparison to disqualify it)
You're not being fair (Life's not fair)
Come on! (No!)

And the conversation is a battle of ego and stamina.

Instead, you have to think like the parents:
1. I would like my curfew extended because as I grow older, I need to be given more responsiblity.
2. I have been home on time with my current curfew, so you know that you can trust me. I simply asking for another hour on the weekends.
3. I know that you care about me, so I will carry my cell and check in with you throughout the night, because I know how much you worry.
4. I know that this is hard for you, but I'm growing up, and soon won't be around you. I need to start making my own decisions. But remember - you raised me. I have your values inside me, so I just need to start putting them in motion, and testing myself a bit, a part from you. And I would really thank you if you could support me on this, because I know I will have a million questions.

These reasons answer those of the parents, not the child: they are worried, they are scared of losing their child, but they also realise that their child is becoming an adult, and with each year is a growing amount of autonomy that they need to be prepared for.

What your argument does is preach to the choir, but makes 0 convincing points to the pro-gay marriage side.

The ProGay Marriage side, however, argues with an appeal to sympathy. If your husband was hurt in an accident, is it fair for the hospital to keep you out of the ICU? Think about the hurt and worry. Now think about being told, "Only blood relatives, sorry." If you were in a coma, would you rather have your parents be able to overide your spouse on decisions of life or death? You are only alive because of machines, something you have told your spouse you would never want. You parent, not wanting to let you go, insists that the machines force you to live, although you are brain dead, while your spouse cries, knowing that legally, she can do nothing. You are a single mother with 3 boys. The insurance companies only recognize "real families" that have two parents, and so your company won't cover your kids.

These are the true moral issues that should be discussed, because those injustices are what the anti-gay marriage bills are creating - unnecessary grief for gay couples when one is in the ICU, making life and death decisions, and covering their children.

One must truly search their soul and ask themselves: Is banning gay marriage justifiable, when it creates more harm than good?

In the US, one can be a Hindu. You don't have to agree with them, but they have that freedom to practice religion as they choose. In the same way, people have the right to live their lives as they choose, whether it disagrees with us or not. That is the beauty of freedom.

And that's how debate is done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CCGirl
Upvote 0

ManOfTheAmish

Christian Philosopher And Naturalist.
Apr 23, 2007
345
4
Kansas
✟15,530.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I'm a teacher, so let me explain this to you:

If you argue: Marriage is a contract between one man and one woman ordained by God

You have a weak arguement:
Marriages don't require belief in God.
Marriages don't require the use of the bible, or any reference to God.

Further, even if one is to entertain that "The bible says", one would then have to answer further questions:
If God's "plan" was 1 man and 1 woman, then incest was also part of "God's Plan."
In Genesis, one of Adam's son's has 2 wives. It isn't considered a sin. It simply states it.
Solomon not only had multiple wives, but also concubines.
His son, David, the Apple of God's eye, had 5 or 6.

In fact, the bible has a verse that says, "if a man has two wives, and loves one, but not the other..."

Word of God.

Let me draw an analogy:
If you are arguing with your parents about staying out late, you don't say:
Everyone else is doing it (because you will get the obligatory bridge jumping comparison to disqualify it)
You're not being fair (Life's not fair)
Come on! (No!)

And the conversation is a battle of ego and stamina.

Instead, you have to think like the parents:
1. I would like my curfew extended because as I grow older, I need to be given more responsiblity.
2. I have been home on time with my current curfew, so you know that you can trust me. I simply asking for another hour on the weekends.
3. I know that you care about me, so I will carry my cell and check in with you throughout the night, because I know how much you worry.
4. I know that this is hard for you, but I'm growing up, and soon won't be around you. I need to start making my own decisions. But remember - you raised me. I have your values inside me, so I just need to start putting them in motion, and testing myself a bit, a part from you. And I would really thank you if you could support me on this, because I know I will have a million questions.

These reasons answer those of the parents, not the child: they are worried, they are scared of losing their child, but they also realise that their child is becoming an adult, and with each year is a growing amount of autonomy that they need to be prepared for.

What your argument does is preach to the choir, but makes 0 convincing points to the pro-gay marriage side.

The ProGay Marriage side, however, argues with an appeal to sympathy. If your husband was hurt in an accident, is it fair for the hospital to keep you out of the ICU? Think about the hurt and worry. Now think about being told, "Only blood relatives, sorry." If you were in a coma, would you rather have your parents be able to overide your spouse on decisions of life or death? You are only alive because of machines, something you have told your spouse you would never want. You parent, not wanting to let you go, insists that the machines force you to live, although you are brain dead, while your spouse cries, knowing that legally, she can do nothing. You are a single mother with 3 boys. The insurance companies only recognize "real families" that have two parents, and so your company won't cover your kids.

These are the true moral issues that should be discussed, because those injustices are what the anti-gay marriage bills are creating - unnecessary grief for gay couples when one is in the ICU, making life and death decisions, and covering their children.

One must truly search their soul and ask themselves: Is banning gay marriage justifiable, when it creates more harm than good?

In the US, one can be a Hindu. You don't have to agree with them, but they have that freedom to practice religion as they choose. In the same way, people have the right to live their lives as they choose, whether it disagrees with us or not. That is the beauty of freedom.

And that's how debate is done.


You have a weak arguement:
Marriages don't require belief in God.
Marriages don't require the use of the bible, or any reference to God.


Marriage is a sacred component to Christianity in Christian human sociality don't forget that.

It just so happens that God in the bible ordains it natural between a man and woman only.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Beanieboy

Senior Veteran
Jan 20, 2006
6,296
1,213
60
✟50,122.00
Faith
Christian
I was watching a documentary on homophobia. The instructor said, "Tell me gay stereotypes. Good or Bad."
On the bad was: weak, girly, lispy, limp wristed
The good far outweighed the bad: snappy dressers, good dancers, easy to talk to, especially about emotional stuff and relationships, sensitive, understanding, smell nice, have great hair cuts, well groomed.

He then said, "so, men, how many straight guys here would want girls to think you are gay?" The guys laughed and said noooooo.

And then he said, "so girls, now you can understand why straight guys you meet aren't stylish, dont' dance well, don't wear cologne, are bad communicators - they are afraid of being perceived as gay."

And a light bulb went on with both sides.

There's truth to that.
 
Upvote 0

TimmyPage

Regular Member
Jan 8, 2007
368
22
34
Ontario
✟8,139.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Liberals
Yes, they can be changed to be straight.

And guess what, a straight person could be changed to be gay. And a clinically happy person could be changed to be clinically depressive, and a 12 year old child could be trained to kill mercilessly.

Nothing is out of the reach of brainwashing and severe guilt trips, it doesn't make it right.
 
Upvote 0

Beanieboy

Senior Veteran
Jan 20, 2006
6,296
1,213
60
✟50,122.00
Faith
Christian
I love my boyfriend. We care for each other, we get on each others nerves sometimes, like when he starts dancing to Doncha Wish Your Girlfriend Was Hot Like Me at the gym in between sets, but we truly care about each other and love each other. We are consenting adults simply trying to live a life. We make each other laugh, we encourage each other when we feel defeated or self efacing. We rely on each other, and trust each other. I miss him when he is away, and happy when he comes back.

And I have a hard time believing that God, who can see the hearts of all of us, would ever condemn that.
 
Upvote 0

Beanieboy

Senior Veteran
Jan 20, 2006
6,296
1,213
60
✟50,122.00
Faith
Christian
Marriage is a sacred component to Christianity in Christian human sociality don't forget that.

It just so happens that God in the bible ordains it natural between a man and woman only.

One could argue that (Solomon and David were polygamists, and in favor with God.)

However, in the US, the bible does not overide civil rights.

For example, the bible says, I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me.

And yet we do, despite what it says in the bible. You can legally worship that cool elephant head god with the 4 arms. You can worship money. You can be atheist - all which are in violation of the bible, because the bible is not used as the law.

I think you have a point that maybe gay marriages shouldn't be allowed in churches. I think churches has the right to decide who they will and won't marry (and that includes heterosexual couples.)

But in Civil Court, this should not be an issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EnemyPartyII
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ManOfTheAmish

Christian Philosopher And Naturalist.
Apr 23, 2007
345
4
Kansas
✟15,530.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
One could argue that (Solomon and David were polygamists, and in favor with God.)

However, in the US, the bible does not overide civil rights.

For example, the bible says, I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me.

And yet we do, despite what it says in the bible. You can legally worship that cool elephant head god with the 4 arms. You can worship money. You can be atheist - all which are in violation of the bible, because the bible is not used as the law.

I think you have a point that maybe gay marriages shouldn't be allowed in churches. I think churches has the right to decide who they will and won't marry (and that includes heterosexual couples.)

But in Civil Court, this should not be an issue.

Maybe homosexuals should create their own church as to not corrupt ours.
 
Upvote 0

SimplyMe

Senior Veteran
Jul 19, 2003
9,612
9,330
the Great Basin
✟325,878.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

That was given to you by MewtwoX in a previous post so I won't bother repeating it.

Hmm...i'd say dying from it is a valid argument against it!

Except you are ignoring the fact that anyone, gay or straight, can contract and die of an STD. The fact is, a monogamous gay couple have exactly the same chance of dieing from an STD as a monogamous straight couple. So, clearly that is not an argument against homosexuality.

Being on God's side is relevant to me; frankly, those who
choose to sin have free will.


Peace & Joy,
chris

Are you trying to say that you do not sin?

As a Christian, being on God's side is relevant to me. And what strikes me as odd is how much that comes out of the so-called Christian family organizations that are either half-truths or completely misleading.

I've mentioned Paul Cameron on a different thread, a person who successfully runs one of those "pro-family" groups yes is a known liar and fraud -- yet his false claims based on "studies" in which he manipulated the outcome to make it come out the way he wanted (making up data as needed) is still cited by Christians 25 years later.

I find it interesting that NARTH claims to be a scientific research organization, yet in their entire history have not created a scientific, peer-reviewed study. Instead, they routinely cite studies that are not scientific and have not had any form or review or any type of controls and yet still cite them as if they were valid studies. Most interesting, the one scientific, peer-reviewed study they do love reporting is one that was actually commissioned by the APA (that is claimed to have a "gay agenda").

It seems odd, assuming this issue is so black and white, that so many Christian groups feel the need to manipulate the truth.
 
Upvote 0

SimplyMe

Senior Veteran
Jul 19, 2003
9,612
9,330
the Great Basin
✟325,878.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The APA is a pro-gay organization.

I'd love to see some solid evidence of this. Typically it is claimed by many "Christian" websites that there is this comittee on homosexuality that controls the views of the entire body of the APA. This is at least, in part, claimed because this comittee is required to have a homosexual representative, and so the entire comittee is controlled by homosexuals.

What these websites fail to account for, however, is how this one homosexual person controls a committed of about 20 psychologists. Or how this one comittee of a couple of dozen controls the view of a scientific group with 148,000 members. Now, typically these sites claim that it's because the comittee decides the positions for the entire group, it's not the entire membership that votes on it. The problem is, this is an issue that has come before the entire membership on multiple occasions, and every time since 1972 they have voted that homosexuality does not belong in the DSM.

Worse, even if you could prove that the APA (American Psychological Association) is controlled by gays somehow, why does every other major scientific and medical association echo what the APA is claiming? This includes (but is not limited to) the other APA (American Psychiatric Association), the AMA, the AAP, the WHO, etc.


Sure, their sexual practices are rather varied and pagan.

Are you a eunuch?

Actually, I believe the point was that if you want to be absolutely certain that you will never die of an STD then you need to be a eunuch.
 
Upvote 0

SimplyMe

Senior Veteran
Jul 19, 2003
9,612
9,330
the Great Basin
✟325,878.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
They won't have anything to counter your evidence or information but instead will cling to their political correctness ideology that acts as a shield by their mainstream figureheads.

Political correctness anymore is their safety net.

Actually, I've not seen any true evidence or information from your side yet, just fundamentalist correctness.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SimplyMe

Senior Veteran
Jul 19, 2003
9,612
9,330
the Great Basin
✟325,878.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
More deceit from the evil one.:sigh:

Please prove that yours is not deceit from the evil one and that this is. And be careful that you do not use logical fallacies that might invalidate your proof; such as appeals to authority, appeals to tradition, etc.
 
Upvote 0