On the sinfulness of the LGBT path.

Cis.jd said:

Regardless of my views on it, the marriage part is where it goes wrong. If Homosexuals want to have some form of marriage then they should just create their own form of wedlock with a different name. Because the word "marriage" is with in Christian tradition,

Click to expand...

Both the action and the word marriage predates Christianity by thousands of years.

so we have a right to have problems with it due to it invading the traditions and sacraments we believe in. The fact that they don't and the media has popularized it so much makes it certain that this is some anti-christian propaganda.

Click to expand...

no actually you don't have that right. Marriage is a universal concept and no one group has any single claim on it.

Cis.jd said:

Yes, I know "marriage" isn't exclusive to christians. Please read my post carefully. I am saying the name "marriage" is christian. It is tied to christianity,

Click to expand...

the word marriage predates Christianity. It's originals are in Proto-IndoEuropean

therefore on the name itself it should be respected..

Click to expand...

respect of a name would include not using it as a means of excluding a minority.

so the best way for homosexuals to have this legalized unity with out any problems is to give the wedlock their own name.

Click to expand...

what problems?

fat wee robin said:

What would you say if mass murderers ,pédophiles ,were born that way, and should be allowed to follow their want ?

Click to expand...

there is no reason other than hate to associate homosexuals with murderers and/or pedophiles.

fat wee robin said:

What treatment of 'gays' ? Nowadays and for some time they have been a protected group the West ,in spite of their often outrageous behaviours ,or do you prefer to bury your head in the sand there ?

Click to expand...

working, mowing lawn, paying taxes, having families are outrageous behaviors?

It is true that too many christians are ill educated beyond the bible, and their arguments can be subjective , but there are arguments which show that the purpose of homosexuality is largely the destruction of all sane and decent society . Not all ,but very many .

Click to expand...

there are arguments that that the earth is flat and that illnesses is the result of being cures. Like the anti-gay 'arguments' you speak of they just aren't very good arguments, they are not founded in reality and anyone who honestly looks at the arguments reject them as laughable.

Yes they should be able to work , live together ,if this pleases them ,but they should not be able to force influence on the young, or force people to put it on the same level as heterosexuality, which is what they want .

Click to expand...

and if they behave well they should be allowed to ride at the back of the bus.

fat wee robin said:

What would you say if mass murderers ,pédophiles ,were born that way, and should be allowed to follow their want ?

Click to expand...

yay hatefuly comparing gays to pedophiles amd murders good job :> Show that love.

Consent ever heard of the word?

fat wee robin said:

But it defeats " we are born that way" argument , as though all sin is not born that way ,but must be defeated to avoid destruction of the individuals ,and the
insistance of constant public exhibition .

Click to expand...

Show the harm, show that it's comparable to being a murderer or pedophile. Two loving grown adults having consenting sex is neither harmful to society or even remotley comparable. Show why they shouldn't be able to have just as many rights or be treated the same or as public.

Galdrun said:

There are many Christians who see the LGBT lifestyle as a natural aspect of life, and many who see it as a sin. Do you view it as sinful? Are there any reasons outside of the bible why you would view it as inherently a bad or good (or neutral) thing? Thanks!

Click to expand...

I guess I'll chip in a couple of cents here on this topic. I haven't said much about all of this in the time I've been here on CF. And the first thing I'd say is that while I try my best to remain sensitive to the many concerns that are socially, ethically, scientifically and legally inherent to the issues which emerge from the complex of what we now call the LGBT(+) identity, I as a Christian have to do my best to remain faithful to what I think the Bible is telling me.

The second thing I'd say is that while I can point in summary fashion a finger at LGBT(+) individuals as well as any other evangelically leaning Christian can and thereby spout out a judgement call on the moral proclivities I think I see are manifesting there (Romans ch. 1), I can't thereby fail to equally point a finger at either myself .... or to probably most of the rest of the [more or less?] straight side of the majority population (Romans ch. 2 & 3). Very few of us will, I'm sure, escape the sexual confusions that beset most of us in our lives or, at least, at some point in our lives.

Sure, I can say that various sexual activities are, when held up to the hermeneutical light of Scripture, often much less than God's intended Ideal for humanity. In fact, some of them can be downright dysfunctional, but I can also say that in the same hermeneutical light of those same Scriptures, Christians don't get to take as a live option the act of refusing to love those with whom Christ has shared His sufferings in the World or for whom He has died to open a path of reconciliation.

In this present case, particularly as we find it in the U.S., whether evangelical Christians deem themselves to be either amiable or adverse to the social or political positions which individuals in LGBT communities often fill, the order of the day which has come from Jesus has always been that we extend helping hands of humanity and hearts of compassion towards those who feel especially challenged in any area of life, including that of the sexual area of life. To fail to do so and to still call ourselves "Christian" is essentially to fail to do what Jesus has told us is a part of fulfilling "the Father's Will." And as far as I can tell, part of the Father's Will isn't by all counts one that supports the modern push being made by some of my fellow Evangelical Christians to "Keep America Straight!" No, I'd say in conclusion that the only thing that Evangelicals need to keep straight is their awareness of God's actual priorities...

Galdrun said:

There are many Christians who see the LGBT lifestyle as a natural aspect of life, and many who see it as a sin. Do you view it as sinful? Are there any reasons outside of the bible why you would view it as inherently a bad or good (or neutral) thing? Thanks!

Click to expand...

I don't think being LGBTQI is sinful in itself. Some people have different attractions to heterosexuals. I think this area is complex and cannot be seen in black and white. Do we say that heterosexual attraction is the norm, is sexual attraction to do with nurture or nature (maybe a bit of both, but I don't think there are any gay genes)? Are there certain chemicals/hormones that are out of balance in some people and if so is this a problem.

The problem I see is that because this issue is associated with sex and identity it can become very emotive and therefore people on both sides inject stuff that should not be there. Some people want to demonize homosexuality as being depraved and a sin. Yet being gay in itself is not a sin any more than being heterosexual. For many, it is an attraction like heterosexual attraction. For Christians, it is acting on the lust or desire outside a monogamous union that is classed as the sin. Though Christ did say anyone who even lusts after another man's wife is committing sin.

Then there are others who want to push an agenda about homosexuality and gender. Some politicize things and this makes it hard to get to the truth about homosexuality. If being gay is some sort of imbalance in hormones/chemicals or a trigger that changes the usual path of development then this indicates that there is a problem just like any other change in development like thyroid imbalances etc. But what happens is that some do not want to even acknowledge this and politicize things, unlike most other areas.

So it becomes polarized with one side demonizing homosexuality and the other politicizing it. Acknowledging that homosexuality is possibly a problem with development is not making out that gays are bad or have any less right to be who they are and it should not be used to discriminate. I think acknowledging the truth takes the extremism out of the debate and allows people to see things in their true perspective and accept gays for who they are.

As a Christian, we should follow Christ's example. He accepted all people no matter what their background was. Love the sinner and hate the sin. Singling out gays as sinners for the same sins as what heterosexuals would commit according to Gods law is a form of discrimination. Everyone should be treated the same.

stevevw said:

I don't think being LGBTQI is sinful in itself. Some people have different attractions to heterosexuals. I think this area is complex and cannot be seen in black and white. Do we say that heterosexual attraction is the norm, is sexual attraction to do with nurture or nature (maybe a bit of both, but I don't think there are any gay genes)? Are there certain chemicals/hormones that are out of balance in some people and if so is this a problem.

The problem I see is that because this issue is associated with sex and identity it can become very emotive and therefore people on both sides inject stuff that should not be there. Some people want to demonize homosexuality as being depraved and a sin. Yet being gay in itself is not a sin any more than being heterosexual. For many, it is an attraction like heterosexual attraction. For Christians, it is acting on the lust or desire outside a monogamous union that is classed as the sin. Though Christ did say anyone who even lusts after another man's wife is committing sin.

Then there are others who want to push an agenda about homosexuality and gender. Some politicize things and this makes it hard to get to the truth about homosexuality. If being gay is some sort of imbalance in hormones/chemicals or a trigger that changes the usual path of development then this indicates that there is a problem just like any other change in development like thyroid imbalances etc. But what happens is that some do not want to even acknowledge this and politicize things, unlike most other areas.

Click to expand...

is it politicizing to note the there is no evidence of any hormones/chemicals in gays and lesbians?

So it becomes polarized with one side demonizing homosexuality and the other politicizing it. Acknowledging that homosexuality is possibly a problem with development is not making out that gays are bad or have any less right to be who they are and it should not be used to discriminate.

Click to expand...

but it is making use of the "disease model" and that is very much used as a justification to demonize and discriminate.

SilverBear said:

is it politicizing to note the there is no evidence of any hormones/chemicals in gays and lesbians?

Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean. But if you are referring to whether there is a chemical/hormonal basis for differences is sexual orientation there is plenty of evidence coming out all the time.
Sex-specific epigenetic disruption and behavioral changes following low-dose in utero bisphenol A exposure. - PubMed - NCBI
UC Berkeley Psychologist Finds Evidence That Male Hormones In The Womb Affect Sexual Orientation
Prenatal endocrine influences on sexual orientation and on sexually differentiated childhood behavior

but it is making use of the "disease model" and that is very much used as a justification to demonize and discriminate.

Click to expand...

The above is not making use of the disease model. It is just stating scientific research just like it would for any area of research. The disease model will only be used to demonise people if it is the only perspective used to understand homosexuality. The chemical/hormonal influence is one possible influence. There are a number of factors to consider such as culture, psychosocial and environmental for example so it is important to take a holistic view.

Galdrun said:

There are many Christians who see the LGBT lifestyle as a natural aspect of life, and many who see it as a sin. Do you view it as sinful? Are there any reasons outside of the bible why you would view it as inherently a bad or good (or neutral) thing? Thanks!

Click to expand...

We are by no means, the only animal species that enjoys same sex coupling. We are, however the only species, to my knowledge, that overthinks every thing.
There have been ‘gay’ people about as long as there have been people. That bothers me a whole lot less (like not at all) than the idea that 7bn people are descendants of 2 people..!

stevevw said:

I am not sure what you mean. But if you are referring to whether there is a chemical/hormonal basis for differences is sexual orientation there is plenty of evidence coming out all the time.
Sex-specific epigenetic disruption and behavioral changes following low-dose in utero bisphenol A exposure. - PubMed - NCBI
UC Berkeley Psychologist Finds Evidence That Male Hormones In The Womb Affect Sexual Orientation
Prenatal endocrine influences on sexual orientation and on sexually differentiated childhood behavior

Click to expand...

"no evidence of any hormones/chemicals in gays and lesbians" in response to "if being gay is some sort of imbalance in hormones/chemicals" What you are citing is variations the prenatal maternal environment. These papers relate uterine environmental conditions to the activation of specific genes so we are still talking about gay genes.

[ The above is not making use of the disease model.

Click to expand...

he possibly a problem with development is a disease model. Here relating orientation to a birth defect

It is just stating scientific research just like it would for any area of research. The disease model will only be used to demonise people if it is the only perspective used to understand homosexuality. The chemical/hormonal influence is one possible influence. There are a number of factors to consider such as culture, psychosocial and environmental for example so it is important to take a holistic view.

Click to expand...

and again no evidence of any culture, psychosocial and environmental factors.