Homosexuality Cure?

Status
Not open for further replies.

tqpix

Deist
Apr 18, 2004
6,759
122
Vancouver
✟16,046.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
AnomalousSilence said:
If you mean their sexual nature, yes. Lusting, for example, is a sin involving sexuality that heterosexuals are called to overcome. Adultery, sex without marriage, etc.

Homosexuals are called to go against their very base sexual nature because it is what God wants. Being homosexual isn't wrong--acting upon it is. And instead of praying, "Lord, make me straight", it is best to pray, "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner." If the Good Lord never changes said person, they are called to celibacy.


In Christ,
Love,
Justin
While this is off topic….


Racists happily use scripture justify their views about the rightful social placement of blacks. They say that non-whites are called upon to go against their very base and uncivilized nature and remain subservient to their social betters … because that it is what God wants. Being black isn't wrong--acting as if one is equal to whites is.

Given all that can you explain to me just how your position differs from that of a racist?
The thing is... what AnomalousSilence said is actually true and can be found in the Bible. As for racists on the other hand, can you please provide some scriptures for us that actually shows those racists' beliefs to be true?
 
Upvote 0

TracerBullet

Well-Known Member
Nov 5, 2006
535
41
51
✟8,471.00
Faith
Catholic
The thing is... what AnomalousSilence said is actually true and can be found in the Bible. As for racists on the other hand, can you please provide some scriptures for us that actually shows those racists' beliefs to be true?
Your denial of the beliefs of racists doesn’t change their beliefs or their use of the bible. After all why should your belief is what God’s word says be accepted over what a racists belief is what God’s word says?
 
Upvote 0

ChristianCenturion

Veteran / Tuebor
Feb 9, 2005
14,188
576
In front of a computer
✟32,988.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Your denial of the beliefs of racists doesn’t change their beliefs or their use of the bible. After all why should your belief is what God’s word says be accepted over what a racists belief is what God’s word says?

But this was the question:
"Can you please provide some scriptures for us that actually shows those racists' beliefs to be true?"

Everyone can read the lack of substance in your reply as a no, you can't then. :)

But to dispell the attempt to compare recognizing sexual immorality with racisism:
This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it.

A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that a fabricated similarity can be made to some other easily criticized person/group. For example:
"Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you."​
And just so the actual topic at hand doesn't get buried:

Excerpt~
... you'll hear from nationally known experts who have firsthand experience with the seldom-told side of the homosexual issue. You'll be equipped to minister in truth and compassion to a loved one who deals with same-sex attractions, respond to misinformation in our culture and defend biblical beliefs with grace and understanding. But mostly, you'll be encouraged by the power of God's love and His desire to transform the lives of those impacted by homosexuality and lead people into freedom in Jesus Christ.
http://www.lovewonout.com/
 
Upvote 0

GregoryTurner

Ezekiel 33
Supporter
Aug 6, 2006
7,450
1,263
48
USA
✟57,748.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Your denial of the beliefs of racists doesn’t change their beliefs or their use of the bible. After all why should your belief is what God’s word says be accepted over what a racists belief is what God’s word says?
Scripture please...
 
Upvote 0

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
38
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
"Can you please provide some scriptures for us that actually shows those racists' beliefs to be true?"
How about all the exodux bits about slaughtering unbelievers to the last child, and how black people are fit for nothing but as drawers of water... and of course all the parts that mention slaves without condemning the practice of slavery
 
Upvote 0

GregoryTurner

Ezekiel 33
Supporter
Aug 6, 2006
7,450
1,263
48
USA
✟57,748.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
How about all the exodux bits about slaughtering unbelievers to the last child, and how black people are fit for nothing but as drawers of water... and of course all the parts that mention slaves without condemning the practice of slavery
Hello EP, long time no see...:wave:
 
Upvote 0

ChristianCenturion

Veteran / Tuebor
Feb 9, 2005
14,188
576
In front of a computer
✟32,988.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Scripture please...

You mean these?:

Acts 10:34-36
34Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. 36You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.

Romans 1:16
I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
1 Corinthians 12:13
For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 3:11
Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
~~~

Oh wait! Those would be clear scriptures that dispel the Red Herring. ;)
 
Upvote 0

GregoryTurner

Ezekiel 33
Supporter
Aug 6, 2006
7,450
1,263
48
USA
✟57,748.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You mean these?:

Acts 10:34-36
34Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. 36You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.

Romans 1:16
I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
1 Corinthians 12:13
For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 3:11
Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
~~~

Oh wait! Those would be clear scriptures that dispel the Red Herring. ;)
ok... I am not sure what fish have to do with anything but these are the scriptures that say no to slavery, right?
 
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

Gusoceros

Head Rhino
Mar 1, 2004
465
25
✟8,569.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Only if they are willing to lie


The question remains…why would they choose to lie?

So you can lie pretend that somehow they REALLY aren’t being discriminated against?

Pretty horrible reason to lie
So the answer is Yes, they can get married.

So, are they denied the right of marriage?
 
Upvote 0

ChristianCenturion

Veteran / Tuebor
Feb 9, 2005
14,188
576
In front of a computer
✟32,988.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
ok... I am not sure what fish have to do with anything
I apologize.
But even while not appearing familiar with the term, you seem to grasp the point of it not having to do with the subject.

My use wasn't referring to your post though. It was referring to the racism brought into the discussion about homosexuals being delivered from that sin.

Red Herring - a fallacy:
The phrase may have originated from the practice of saving a hunted fox by dragging a red herring across its trail to cause the pursuing hounds to lose the true scent and follow the false trail of herring odour instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
but these are the scriptures that say no to slavery, right?

They are scriptures that transcend racial favoritism.
Even though some posters may drag racism into the discussion when dealing on homosexuality, it is easily refuted.
 
Upvote 0

Gusoceros

Head Rhino
Mar 1, 2004
465
25
✟8,569.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Why can't marriage just be about the union of two people?
Ah, see- that is the point isnt it- this charge of hate, is really "Why cant we change marriage into something different, and change it for everyone, on the criteria I want it to be."

Would marriage still be marriage then? If you turn it into something else, what will it be when you are done?

I would suspect that such questions should be the topic of a different thread.

G
 
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

Gusoceros

Head Rhino
Mar 1, 2004
465
25
✟8,569.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
But it does make your arguments indistinguishable from the arguments used by racists to justify their petty prejudices.
When I am going to go on a racist rant, I'll let you know, so you can tell the difference- OK? So let's move on.

G
 
Upvote 0

Gusoceros

Head Rhino
Mar 1, 2004
465
25
✟8,569.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Just as the people who arrested Mildred and Richard Loving for the heinous crime of being married …those attacking the happy couple were just promoting the fact that marriage is the union of a man and a woman of the same race.

Hate is hate no matter who it is directed against.

It was hate when the same arguments you use today were used to justify racism
It was hate when the same arguments you use today were used to justify segregation
It was hate when the same arguments you use today were used to justify discrimination against interracial couples
It was hate when the same arguments you use today were used to justify herding tens of thousands of American citizens into American concentration camps
It was hate when the same arguments you use today were used to justify removing of native American children from their families and placing them in orphanages
It was hate when the same arguments you use today were used to justify the nazi final solution.


Just because you have targeted the minority of homosexuals does not somehow elevate your position into something justifiable or good or moral or just…it is the same as any of the above…just those at the receiving end have changed.

I am sorry you don’t like the comparison but that does not make the comparison inaccurate. Your rhetoric is indistinguishable from that of a racist. If you are truly upset by the comparison I suggest you look at what you are saying
2 people of different color do not change what marriage is- perhaps you dont understand the difference between the 2 types of relationships?

The 2 unions are fundamentally and functionally different- Let us examine the differences between marriage and same sex union:

The inherant right we are discussing regarding same sex unions, is the right of cohabitation. That right is an inherant right from Liberty- I support this right. Lets say it again: I support the right of same sex couples to live together, as long as they both shall live.

The right of marriage, is a natural right, and is the cornerstone of society- by natural design. It is 1) the purest model of government through the nuclear family, 2) it is the model of education for society, 3) it is the model of procreation for our race, 4) it is the model for love and happiness through natural complementing attributes, and is 5) the model for lifelong social fulfillment.

Let us examine each step and contrast it with same sex marriage so we can see the difference.

1) It is the purest model of government through the structure of the nuclear family. This structure highlights the natural design of Mom and Dad, and the children- each designed specifically for different but necessary purposes inside the nuclear family, for efficient governance. It is also noteworthy, that fidelity is also a characteristic in this model of governance- in that the nuclear family model is built around the same Mom and Dad remaining in the position of authority while raising the family. The natural model is about long term, committed unions of man and woman- to carry out this model of natural governance on the nuclear family. This model is not duplicated naturally by same sex couples- indeed it is impossible for them to create their own nuclear family, by design. The natural design for the family unit, is first a mother and a father- through which the nuclear family model begins. There is a huge difference in the design of the 2 kinds of couples- this points us in the direction of the natural right of marriage- that it is by design, beginning with a man and a woman. Is this bigoted, or a statement of design? You be the judge.

2) It is the model for education in our society. The natural design is that the parents would raise their children- i.e. educate them in life. Parents have a responsibility to educate their children. The natural model follows that children come from and are governed by a man and a woman – husband and wife-. It is easy to see that the natural right of marriage stems from this natural design, of governance, and education, of our race. Same sex couples can not have children naturally, and this is by design. Thus, we see the natural model stands against same sex couples in the area of marriage rights, and their natural ability to educate their children. Rather, the same sex couple has the right of cohabitation- with nature standing against the same sex union in the marriage capacity- in fact, it is a physical impossibility. Is this bigoted, or a statement of design? You be the judge.

3) It is the model for the procreation of our race. The natural right and design of marriage from the Law of Nature, shows us that our race is procreated through this union. Our race and society itself exists because of this union and the natural design of procreation. While it is true, that any 2 members of the opposite sex can procreate- there are 2 things about this that need to be noted 1) they are still the opposite sex, and 2) as was noted in the Model of Government breakout of the Law of Nature- the family model follows the committed long term relationship of husband and wife in marriage- not a one night stand or a fling of convenience. So we see from the natural design, that our race is procreated through long term commitments of a man to a woman, and that same sex couples can not do this, by design. Is this bigoted, or a statement of design? You be the judge.

4) It is the model for love and happiness through natural complementing attributes. While it is true, that we as humans can love each other in many ways- brother to brother, parents to children, lover to lover- we can note the natural design for love and happiness through scrutiny of the natural model. Men and women complement each other in their differences- mentally, physically, and spiritually. The kind of union that is set aside as marriage in the above examples lends itself to a life of love and happiness through the fulfillment of the natural model- man and a woman, raising a nuclear family. It is also true that couples can be in love and feel fulfilled without raising a family- yet the natural model still offers this specific experience of love, happiness, and fulfillment by design to a man and woman in marriage. It is true that there are exceptions to happy families, and some families break apart- the design and fulfillment of raising a healthy family by a man and a woman bound through commitment and fidelity, is only available to a man and a woman, naturally. The Law of Nature, stands against same sex couples from being able to partake of this fulfillment in the natural, and only by design.

5) It is the model for lifelong social fulfillment. It is the natural design of complementing attributes between men and women that brings specific areas of fulfillment to light. Only a man and woman, through the above points in the natural model can create a family legacy and their own family community. It is through the nuclear procreation of our race that parents eventually become grandparents and great grandparents- making possible natural lifelong social fulfillment in addition to a lifetime of friends and other standard social acquaintances. Additionally, a lifetime spent with a complementary mate makes for another social fulfillment that is available only by natural design- as men and women complement each other physically, mentally, and spiritually. While same sex couples can live their lifetime together- they can not create a lifelong social fulfillment- a legacy of family, that the natural model creates by design. Is this bigoted, or a statement of design? You be the judge.


What we can see from the breakout above is that there is a vast difference between the types of unions that we are arguing here. It is often the case, that people argue that same sex couples are not getting equal rights- which is untrue. The breakout above, clearly demonstrates that the 2 kinds of unions- marriage, or same sex union- are completely, and entirely different. It shows that marriage, is a natural right, and by design carries great benefit to society as a whole- in fact it is the foundation of society. Where when we look at same sex unions- we find that they are not even remotely close to the same thing.

So, if they are not the same thing, what are we to do about it? Well, the definition of marriage and the natural right to marriage do not change. Homosexuals, are still free to enter into marriage (characterized by the enumerated 5 characteristics as noted above), but if this is not what they want out of life, not entering into such a union is a choice. We can also see that entering into the DIFFERENT kind of union- same sex union- carries with it an entirely different set of social characteristics, and benefits to society- namely that it is not marriage, nor does it carry the same benefits.

We have discussed that married people do not have the right to get special benefits under the law, this is a true statement. In the same vein, if benefits are already offered for people to be married- then those that are pushing to get the same benefits for the same model- should be required to demonstrate that they are equal, and thus due the same benefits. Since we have already destroyed the assertion that same sex unions are the same thing as marriage unions in terms of how they benefit society, we can safely move to the position that the argument of equal representation under the law, is fulfilled by the fact that we are not talking about the same thing to begin with.

Since we are not talking about the same kind of union here- we now need to establish what is this second union? Is there a right involved here? Well, yes there is, and that is the right of cohabitation- derived from Liberty- in that as free people, we are allowed to live our lives freely, so long as we are not infringing on another’s right. Does this include the right to be given the same benefits that are not earned through marriage? No, it does not- we have demonstrated the striking differences between the 2 unions, and it is a fact- that same sex unions do not remotely come close to the same arrangement as marriage does, to society.

This leaves us in a quandary then- what to do with those that are screaming for the benefits applied to the marriage license, to now be applied to civil unions- a completely different kind of union than marriage? In my estimation- one would need to prove that this right first exists- this new right, that is not characterized as the natural right of marriage- but rather on 2 people who want to live together. The marriage benefits become a detriment to society when they are applied to same sex couples- because there is no return on investment to society- the benefits are now – unfounded.

So- in my estimation- it is either do away with the marriage benefits, or fight same sex marriage/civil unions as the lie they are. I believe it is a matter of principle to fight the lie either way, and a matter of precedent to fight for the benefits. The benefactor of marriage benefits is society- this battle is truly, a lose lose situation- by fighting it, those ignorant of marriage and natural rights will rise up against you, or you give up the benefits to marriage- and society loses. Or worse- same sex marriage/civil unions win the day, and redefine what marriage is, create a new right that doesn’t exist, and get paid for something they can never provide.

G
 
Upvote 0

Proeliator

broken is a good state
Jul 21, 2005
1,109
28
New York City
✟8,942.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
How about all the exodux bits about slaughtering unbelievers to the last child, and how black people are fit for nothing but as drawers of water... and of course all the parts that mention slaves without condemning the practice of slavery

Rather funny how our idea of slaves, and the way slaves were back in those days was completely different. Look at Joseph. No slaves in the American day and age which everyone refers to for slavery, were ever treated that well.
 
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

Gusoceros

Head Rhino
Mar 1, 2004
465
25
✟8,569.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And racists used the same agreements…and most of the same biblical quotes to justify discrimination…how is what you are saying any different from them?

Hate in God’s name is a mockery of the message of Jesus…yet you don’t seem to have a problem with that.
The quoting of scripture, does not always equal racism, even if you want it to be, even if racists used the same scriptures (it is my understanding that it doesnt invalidate scripture, if people misuse it).

It would seem to me, that since you are making the charge- you need to prove it. Just because you claim an argument is the same thing- doesnt make it the same thing.

G
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.