Homosexuals and Bisexuals

[LittleNipper]

And if that's what you believe then you should inform them, but you shouldn't force them to live by your standards because in the end it all comes down to free will which God has granted to all of us.

GOD has granted free will, but HE also punishes the arrogant.

 

[LittleNipper]

Do you think the Constitution of the United States of America is right to protect peoples' ability to choose different religions?

Why should the Constitution protect a person's ability to practice, preach, and attempt to convert people to religions which lead people to hell by unapologetically denying that Jesus Christ is our Lord and savior?

The Constitution is safegarded as long as anyone can openly say exactly what they feel and not be silenced. The problem today is that some would use the "separation of Church and State" to prevent the open expression of "sacred" ideas.... Some would say that to speak against homosexuality is racist in nature.

 

[Philothei]

and your much-revered history will remember you as the ignorant bigots you profess not to be.

So we should settle to what the pop pscychology here demands us to be? Hmmm

"if the world hated Me so they will hate you...." is more likely . And it is not that we are "bigoted" for if we were we would not ..well care and leave it alone. It is that we have a responsibility to "preach the Gospel" and evangelize its truth. No harm in that at all. It is not judgment but care. Now if the world sees that as "judgment" how it this our fault? Was Christ at fault for proclaiming he believed in turning the other cheek as it was not "what the world" was used to ??

 

[beechy]

The Constitution is safegarded as long as anyone can openly say exactly what they feel and not be silenced. The problem today is that some would use the "separation of Church and State" to prevent the open expression of "sacred" ideas.... Some would say that to speak against homosexuality is racist in nature.

Why do you think the Constitution should protect freedom of religion?

 

[Garyzenuf]

GOD has granted free will, but HE also punishes the arrogant.

Boy...gonna be some surprised Christians come eternity.

The Constitution is safegarded as long as anyone can openly say exactly what they feel and not be silenced. The problem today is that some would use the "separation of Church and State" to prevent the open expression of "sacred" ideas.... Some would say that to speak against homosexuality is racist in nature.

Actually I believe it's bigoted, not racist.

So we should settle to what the pop pscychology here demands us to be? Hmmm

...Or you could try and catch-up with society's morals, guess that's asking alot though.

*

 

[OllieFranz]

The Constitution is safegarded as long as anyone can openly say exactly what they feel and not be silenced. The problem today is that some would use the "separation of Church and State" to prevent the open expression of "sacred" ideas.... Some would say that to speak against homosexuality is racist in nature.

I do not know of anyone who says that speaking against the rights and the human dignity of gays is racist. That does not even make sense. Orientation is not race. However, many have shown that the rhetoric and reasoning used in denying the humanity of gays echoes the same sort of rhetoric and the same reasoning that was used 50 years ago to deny the humanity of blacks.

But so what? Pointing out this fact does nothing to prevent the open expression of the "sacred" idea that gays are sub-human. After all, openly racist groups, such as the KKK, still exist and still have all of their First Amendment rights. They have even been known to openly use their right to peaceably assemble to march through Black and Jewish neighborhoods. And your anti-gay churches even have the added protection of Freedom of Religion.

If you are so worried about the loss of your human rights, you should know that the way to safeguard them is to stand up for the rights of anyone whose rights are being threatened. Especially those you wish did not have them, like gays.

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew; And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up." [Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)]

​

 

[Skaloop]

"if the world hated Me so they will hate you...." is more likely . And it is not that we are "bigoted" for if we were we would not ..well care and leave it alone. It is that we have a responsibility to "preach the Gospel" and evangelize its truth. No harm in that at all. It is not judgment but care. Now if the world sees that as "judgment" how it this our fault? Was Christ at fault for proclaiming he believed in turning the other cheek as it was not "what the world" was used to ??

But there can be harm in it. If you tell a Christian homosexual that their natural, uncontrollable feelings towards the same sex are sinful and wrong, that can definitely lead to some negative effects on their mental health. Telling them they risk eternity in hell can certainly cause some very conflicted emotions, which can also be unhealthy and dangerous.

Homosexuals have killed themselves because of ostracization in the name of "preaching the Gospel". No harm? No way.

 

[sidhe]

The Constitution does not mention marriage directly. It has been held to be part of the substantive due process doctrine derived from the 14th Amendment liberty protection.

Edit: Polycarp's post asserting the Ninth Amendment is correct as well. The two (14th and 9th) are intertwined in that the 9th has been applied to the interpretation of the 14th in support of the substantive due process concept ... i.e., the idea that the Bill of Rights does not try to enumerate every single fundamental right, so we should read the "liberty" right guaranteed in the 14th as an umbrella term which includes certain specific fundamental liberties.

Ninth Amendment. And I'll bet in some state constitutions as well -- certainly in all the ones that amended their constitution to define marriage.

Why's it an unenumerated right? Because imagine a state that banned marriage entirely, dissolving all existing marriages and prohibitng any new ones. You'd have some tee;d-off people, right? Chief Justice Warren picked up on that and included it in the text of Loving v. Virginia -- which enshrines it as a constitutionally guaranteed right.

That was pretty much my point. Just because it's not spelled out explicitly doesn't make it not a right.

 

[beechy]

In a free society, people decide these things, including the question of whether or not a behavior is honestly termed criminal. The question is whether or not people believe in free government.

As I said before, in a democratic society there is a pervasive tension between the voting power of the majority and the rights of the minority, and the two must constantly be balanced.

Nowadays, people attempt to claim every law having anything to do with sex is somehow disallowed. Sex is one of the most heavily regulated activities in history. Perhaps since our government sees fit to demonize its population over the issue, it is time to let our government know that we no longer feel it is a legitimate government.

Both gay and straight people are free to have sex in and outside of marriage. Do you think the US should enact and enforce laws making it illegal to have sex outside of marriage? You seem to say in an earlier post that the US should not enact such laws, but rather that society should pressure people not to have extramarital sex -- something that you contend "worked" before the advent of no-fault divorce in the 1970's.

I cited some authority, however, for the proposition that a significant percentage of women at the end of the 19th / early 20th centuries had had premarital sex; and also that the realization (perception?) in 1889 that the US had the world's highest divorce rate led to a tightening of divorce regulations (even though divorces increased 15 fold during that time).

Here's another book which cuts against the idea that the 1970's marked the beginning of premarital sex. On page 43 of Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America, the authors contend that although "premarital pregnancy was socially scorned, in some parts of New England as many as one-third of all brides were pregnant in the late eighteenth century ..." (emphasis added), in a so-called "revolt of the young", by couples who were trying to exercise some control over their choice of marriage partner (since one's partner was previously chosen by the family of the betrothed).

Here's another passage from the above mentioned book (page 51):

"By the end of the eighteenth century, the family-centered, reproductive sexual system remained powerful throughout most of American society, but new sexual meanings were clearly emerging. As in England, ideas about sexuality, changing family structure, and the commercialization of the economy all laid the groundwork for a transformation in sexual values. In contrast to an earlier emphasis on the reproductive meaning of sexual relations, an affectionate, sometimes passionate, language now appeared in discussions of courtship, and individual choice became more important in all sexual relations. Meanwhile the first signs of family limitation evinced a weakening of the association between sexuality and reproduction. The decline of traditional church and state controls over morality lifted earlier restraints on nonmarital sex, as rising ilegitmacy rates suggest. But illegitimacy also reflected the increasing vulnerability of women, who could no longer assume that pregnancy would lead to marriage." (Emphasis added).

We have laws protecting kiddy inappropriate content if it is animated, and cannot speak truth from our own pulpits without risking attacks on "non-profit" status for being too "partisan". So the very speech that was supposed to be protected, political speech, is now regulated in many ways, but inappropriate content gets a by even in the most disgusting subject matter.

Churches can weigh in political issues and support or opppose legislative referenda all day long without threat to their tax exempt status. They just can't endorse a political candidate -- and this is true for all 501(c)(3)'s, not just churches.

This is where the push for gay marriage comes from. These same people who hate the idea of decent people holding folks accountable and not allowing indecency to flood our nation find excuses at every opportunity to attempt to demonize any rule that touches on sexual behavior.

The problem is, you and I disagree about the bounds of decency, and your definition directly impacts what happens in my own bedroom.

Now they are elevating a simple sexual perversion to the level of the fundamental building block of civilization, and the pretense is this will be a good thing? No... Not any better than animated kiddy inappropriate content.

How is gay marriage like animated kiddie inappropriate content?

Folks you better start getting angry. You better start getting real. This is no game. They intend to destroy simple decency forever and don't believe for a second if they get the chance they will not follow China into heavy regulation of the church under the name of "tolerance".

As far as I'm concerned churches can continue to marry or refuse to marry whoever they want. I really mean that. Really.

 

[rosenherman]

Boy...gonna be some surprised Christians come eternity.

No, we won't be surprised. We're forgiven and we'll be welcomed with open arms.

...Or you could try and catch-up with society's morals, guess that's asking alot though.

*

That's asking for more than I'm willing to give. Why would I want to lower my self to society's morals? Lack of morals might be a better way to put it.

 

[Polycarp1]

No, we won't be surprised. We're forgiven and we'll be welcomed with open arms.

Hey, Rose, you know the parable of the steward who was forgiven a great debt, and then demanded payment in full of a smaller debt owed him? As you judge, you will be judged.

God's forgiveness is real and ready whenever we accept it -- that is ture. But you yourself have pointed out that people who break His commandments are not following Him. That's not limited to sex -- it goes for things like the 7th and 25th chapters of Matthew as well.

 

[Philothei]

But there can be harm in it. If you tell a Christian homosexual that their natural, uncontrollable feelings towards the same sex are sinful and wrong, that can definitely lead to some negative effects on their mental health. Telling them they risk eternity in hell can certainly cause some very conflicted emotions, which can also be unhealthy and dangerous.

Homosexuals have killed themselves because of ostracization in the name of "preaching the Gospel". No harm? No way.

"christian homosexual" okie... Let's say they are still Chritian bu tthat is not what the topic is...
Oh...you mean like staight people who DO NOT commit fornication? should they? No so why homosexuals should not "control" their "feelings"??? We all do like I have the uncotrollable feeling towards my i.e, neighbour is it okay to commite fornication then? I think not.
So also if we tell a killer he should not kill I am endangering his mental health? how so? Every commandment then should not be "preached" or those who sin they will feel orstracized...

So all the prophets of the Old Testament calling people to repentance was so so wrong? Where does Christ says that teaching the commandments was wrong?

 

[Skaloop]

"christian homosexual" okie... Let's say they are still Chritian bu tthat is not what the topic is...
Oh...you mean like staight people who DO NOT commit fornication? should they? No so why homosexuals should not "control" their "feelings"??? We all do like I have the uncotrollable feeling towards my i.e, neighbour is it okay to commite fornication then? I think not.
So also if we tell a killer he should not kill I am endangering his mental health? how so? Every commandment then should not be "preached" or those who sin they will feel orstracized...

So all the prophets of the Old Testament calling people to repentance was so so wrong? Where does Christ says that teaching the commandments was wrong?

There are no gay Christians? You are comparing homosexuals to murderers?

Gay people should only control their feelings if they feel they should, not if you feel they should. Homosexuality is generally harmless; murder is obviously not.

And yes, committing "fornification" is fine as long as nobody is obviously harmed against their will.

People are kicked out of their homes for being gay. People have lost their jobs for being gay. People have been beaten for being gay. Largely because of, in North America, Christian views on homosexuality being wrong.

The bare fact is that preaching homosexuality as wrong is not harmless as you asserted. The fact that you think it is justified by scripture does not change that fact.

 

[Philothei]

People are kicked out of their homes for being gay. People have lost their jobs for being gay. People have been beaten for being gay. Largely because of, in North America, Christian views on homosexuality being wrong.

And it is Christ's fault? or those Christians who do all these discriminating acts are to be blamed for their beliefs that homosexuality is wrong? How is it so? Those Christians who do those acts are not any more Christians as they ones who are practicing homosexual acts IMHO for we cannot judge them... ONLY teach what the commandments say.... I have seen non Christians "discriminating" against homosexuals because they "lose" business or credability to their Christian clinet tell or their other tenants. It is up to those business minded people to change their mentality and stick to their morals and stand up for those rights...not the true christians


Christians against homosexual living are not "loud" and "offensive" to those who do practice. They are the ones who are loving and forgiving and non-judging yet they do not follow that example of living. Just because I accept that alchoholics for their struggle with alchohol that does not mean that I accept their alchohol dependancy and should teach it to my children as an "alternative life style"... That is the difference I am talking about. And trying to put a label on me does not prove anything. Just claiming me to be the one who does all these horrid things to my brother and sister does not take away from the truth... or what I truly believe about them...

 

[gnomon]

I'm curious, what is it exactly people object to about homosexuals? Humour me.

I don't know.

I think much of it is just taught from a defunct philosophy.

Every time I've discussed the theological opposition to homosexuality and bring up intersex individuals at best I get blank stares back or silence. Worse, they actually try to fumble with a theological accounting for such people until they realize that traditional religions that declare homosexuality a sin (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) have no accounting for intersex individuals.

Here's a question for those who find homosexuality to be a sin. If an individual, raised female and by every visual standard considered female by others and never had an operation to switch from male to female finds out that they are chromosomally male (androgen insensitivity syndrome) after having lived in a marriage and engaged in sexual activities.........did they sin? Are they male or female?

What does Jesus say about intersex?

edit: And if the religious traditions are so clear about human sexuality and God created us why do intersex individuals exist in the first place?

 

[Philothei]

Are they male or female?
ARe you talking about "hermaprhods" ? In such case they can chose which one they identify with the most and stick to that. This is a rare case though and I would be all for finding the why and what about homosexuality. Some say it is a chromosomal anomaly... I would say it is okay then let us find a way to cure such a problem so that children are not born that way... Or those born with such a 'disorder" maybe science can help them to be either one or another. Because to be both is a burden IMHO... It is an identity crisis after all.

As far as your question why God allows for "intersexuals" I would say that since the fall man is imperfect. Man losing his chance to attain perfection lives in a fallen world. Part of this fallen state is disease and genetic disorders etc. How is this attributed to God? God allows for these manifestations of evil he does not create them as He is incabable of creating anything evil.... If He did then He is not a God of Love but evil... He cannot create both good and bad... now can He?

 

[Braunwyn]

As far as your question why God allows for "intersexuals" I would say that since the fall man is imperfect. Man losing his chance to attain perfection lives in a fallen world. Part of this fallen state is disease and genetic disorders etc. How is this attributed to God? God allows for these manifestations of evil he does not create them as He is incabable of creating anything evil.... If He did then He is not a God of Love but evil... He cannot create both good and bad... now can He?

If god created everything, if all comes from god, then evil has to be included.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

As far as your question why God allows for "intersexuals" I would say that since the fall man is imperfect. Man losing his chance to attain perfection lives in a fallen world. Part of this fallen state is disease and genetic disorders etc. How is this attributed to God? God allows for these manifestations of evil he does not create them as He is incabable of creating anything evil.... If He did then He is not a God of Love but evil... He cannot create both good and bad... now can He?

But...God created Satan. Correct? Therefore He is capable of creating evil.

(Playing Devil's Advocate, here. And off topic to boot...)

 

[gnomon]

Are they male or female?
ARe you talking about "hermaprhods" ? In such case they can chose which one they identify with the most and stick to that. This is a rare case though and I would be all for finding the why and what about homosexuality. Some say it is a chromosomal anomaly... I would say it is okay then let us find a way to cure such a problem so that children are not born that way... Or those born with such a 'disorder" maybe science can help them to be either one or another. Because to be both is a burden IMHO... It is an identity crisis after all.

As far as your question why God allows for "intersexuals" I would say that since the fall man is imperfect. Man losing his chance to attain perfection lives in a fallen world. Part of this fallen state is disease and genetic disorders etc. How is this attributed to God? God allows for these manifestations of evil he does not create them as He is incabable of creating anything evil.... If He did then He is not a God of Love but evil... He cannot create both good and bad... now can He?

There are no human hermaphrodites. Hermaphrodites have functional organs that are unique to both sexes. Intersex is completely different. Complete AIS is a situation in which a chromosomal male is born, testes are formed inside the abdomen yet the inability to respond to DHT means that a scrotum does not develop and the individual develops physically as a female lacking ovaries and a uterus.

A known case of a woman with CAIS who lost a civil case regarding inheritance because the law did not recognize same sex marriage. She married as a woman to a man. After her husband's death a genetic test determined she had 46,XY karyotope but CAIS. Thus, genetically male therefore the court ruled the marriage void since the state did not recognize same sex marriage.

My question is did she commit a sin in the eyes of God?

As to identity crisis I recommend reading up on individuals who are intersex. The entire notion of human sexual dimorphism is called into question. The one thing we do know biologically is that there humans do not always develop as male or female. Intersex and homosexuality not only among humans but other animal species seriously questions all traditional concepts of human sexuality.

Intersex questions the notion that God continues to create humans male and female. If intersex individuals are condemned to the same sin that homosexuals are, where intersex condition is undoubtedly a physical condition from birth and removes all choice from the individual, the theological point of view of sin and human sexual development needs to be seriously reevaluated.

So my question again. Is the individual in the above example guilty of sin for being who they were and engaging in a marriage and sexual activity?

 

[Polycarp1]

Are they male or female?
ARe you talking about "hermaprhods" ? In such case they can chose which one they identify with the most and stick to that. This is a rare case though and I would be all for finding the why and what about homosexuality. Some say it is a chromosomal anomaly... I would say it is okay then let us find a way to cure such a problem so that children are not born that way... Or those born with such a 'disorder" maybe science can help them to be either one or another. Because to be both is a burden IMHO... It is an identity crisis after all.

As far as your question why God allows for "intersexuals" I would say that since the fall man is imperfect. Man losing his chance to attain perfection lives in a fallen world. Part of this fallen state is disease and genetic disorders etc. How is this attributed to God? God allows for these manifestations of evil he does not create them as He is incabable of creating anything evil.... If He did then He is not a God of Love but evil... He cannot create both good and bad... now can He?

Or maybe God IS a God of love, but some of the people who claim to be following Him are instead using His Book selectively to satisfy their own prejudices? Because man IS fallen, and I find it far easier to believe that people can rationalize their sinful behavior, and even pass the buck to blame God for it (just as Adam did), than that the natural order was corrupted in the Fall.