3 former leaders of ex-gay ministry apologize

[MachZer0]

Have you ever eaten a piece of pork?

If so, then YOU are part pig, no doubt about it.

If you were to get lost in the woods while hiking, die of exposure, and your body gets eaten by a wild boar, then the boar will become part you.

It's all good.

Get over yourself.

It appears that what some people are saying here is that it is perfectly OK to compare homosexuals to lower life forms like pigs and dogs. Having established that, we have a better understanding of their position

 

[MrPirate]

The only people anyone can help, is those who desire it ... and in all theatres of behavior ( 1 corinthians 6.9 ; proverbs 6.18-24) . and when we try to help people who do not desire it ... we offend ( mea culpa ) them , a friend offended, being harder to win than a walled city.

How is baring false witness and spreading hatred “helping” anyone?

It is unfortunate that many times we throw out the baby with the "bath water" so to speak . reject the person for a flaw in their nature, perceived or other wise, while ignoring those within us.

Honesty is a “flaw”?
Being brave enough to speak the truth and apologize for past wrongs are “flaws”?

to say to those who desire help that there is no escape from a life style , bondage, association is just as cruel or more cruel than those who lie to them ...

But lies are all ex-gay ministries have to offer.

If you were truly concerned then you would be addressing the issues f hate and intolerance and discrimination that drive a small handful of gay people into the arms of those who would like to them. Instead you defend and glorify the liars…why is that?

Paul makes statements in his epistles about behavioral modification, and John makes statements in revelation chapters 2 & 3 about those who overcome , what God (not man) has against them, and their is a reward for the victory ... would they speak of a victory if one were not possible ?

The victory of course is the removal of hate and prejudice and false witness some Christians chose to inflict on our homosexual brothers and sisters

 

[The Bellman]

It appears that what some people are saying here is that it is perfectly OK to compare homosexuals to lower life forms like pigs and dogs. Having established that, we have a better understanding of their position

It is okay to compare ALL humans to 'lower' life forms. Stop trying to degrade homosexuals.

 

[MachZer0]

It is okay to compare ALL humans to 'lower' life forms. Stop trying to degrade homosexuals.

Feel free to make that comparison for yourself, but it doesn't fit me.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Feel free to make that comparison for yourself, but it doesn't fit me.

Did the pigs and dogs get offended?

 

[MachZer0]

Did the pigs and dogs get offended?

Being lower life forms having no understanding of offensive comparisons, no.

 

[MachZer0]

6. "We were discussing whether it was natural, not whether it was moral."

So why bring up the alleged occurence of homosexuality in nature if it has noting to do with morals?

 

[fanatiquefou]

If you're happy being compared to a pig, it's OK with me.

Why would YOU have a problem with being compared with a pig? No one is saying, "Oh, humans are exactly like pigs." People are saying, "Look, here are some similarities between people and pigs," and then using those similarities in ways that are beneficial to humanity. I mean, for heaven's sake, there are similarities between humans and mosquitos - we're both alive, right? Noting similarities isn't the same thing as saying, "You're a pig!"

 

[fanatiquefou]

Feel free to make that comparison for yourself, but it doesn't fit me.

Hey MachZer0:

Just like a chimpanzee, you have opposable thumbs.

There. Now I've compared you to chimps. Does that bother you?

 

[fanatiquefou]

So why bring up the alleged occurence of homosexuality in nature if it has noting to do with morals?

Because people are trying to tell you that homosexuality in nature is A-moral, not IM-moral.

 

[MachZer0]

Because people are trying to tell you that homosexuality in nature is A-moral, not IM-moral.

So what are you saying, that it is OK to compare homosexuals to animals because they are amoral? Is nonconsensual sex and incest also amoral?

 

[The Bellman]

Feel free to make that comparison for yourself, but it doesn't fit me.

Sorry, but it does, whether you like it or not. All humans are comparable to other animals, including pigs, in many ways.

So why bring up the alleged occurence of homosexuality in nature if it has noting to do with morals?

Because in every thread on the subject you or someone else brings up the stupid "it's not natural" argument. This is easily disposed of by noting that homosexuality occurs in non-human animals, to which you or someone else always responds "so because it's okay for animals, it's fine for us?" It is always you who twists the fact that some non-human animals act in a homosexual way to some sort of moral statement. It's not and was never intended to be.

 

[MachZer0]

Sorry, but it does, whether you like it or not. All humans are comparable to other animals, including pigs, in many ways.

Depends on how you compare them? Do pigs have ears. Yes. Do I have ears? Yes. Do pigs wallow in the mud? Yes. Do I wallow in the mud? No. Because pigs wallow in the mud does not mean that it is a good idea for me to wallow in the mud. But if others wish to wallow in the mud and compare themselves to pigs in that respect, they may do so.

Because in every thread on the subject you or someone else brings up the stupid "it's not natural" argument. This is easily disposed of by noting that homosexuality occurs in non-human animals, to which you or someone else always responds "so because it's okay for animals, it's fine for us?" It is always you who twists the fact that some non-human animals act in a homosexual way to some sort of moral statement. It's not and was never intended to be.

It it is not intended by homosexuals to be a moral argument, then why do they bring it up?

 

[MachZer0]

You are playing word games, and you do not appear to be making an honest effort to listen to what people are saying.

It appears that it is not me playing word games. People here are saying they are fine comparing homosexuals to lower animals and some seem to be taking offense to it.

 

[The Bellman]

It appears that it is not me playing word games. People here are saying they are fine comparing homosexuals to lower animals and some seem to be taking offense to it.

It is you and only you who are playing word games. People here are saying they are find comparing humans to other animals (there is no such thing as 'lower' animals) in many respects; it is you who are trying to make out that they are saying or implying something bad about homosexuals. It's dishonest of you and shows your true colours.

Depends on how you compare them? Do pigs have ears. Yes. Do I have ears? Yes. Do pigs wallow in the mud? Yes. Do I wallow in the mud? No. Because pigs wallow in the mud does not mean that it is a good idea for me to wallow in the mud. But if others wish to wallow in the mud and compare themselves to pigs in that respect, they may do so.

So we agree. All humans can be compared to pigs and other non-human animals.

It it is not intended by homosexuals to be a moral argument, then why do they bring it up?

Can you not read, or are you being deliberately dishonest? They don't bring it up, you bring it up, complaining that homosexuality isn't natural. They don't intend it to be a moral argument; they intend it to debunk your nonsensical claims that it's not natural. It's you who then try to turn it into a moral argument, just as you are doing now.

 

[The Bellman]

You tell me. What difference does it make anyway? If you're going to use the argument that what happens in the lower animals is acceptable for humans, you have a serious problem.

Nobody is doing so. They are citing the fact that it happens in non-human animals to refute your false claim that it is unnatural.

 

[""]

Closing for Review​

 

[""]

I'm reopening this topic, after some heavy clean up.

Please try to remember the following rules, when posting in this topic:


2.8 No Off-Topic

You will not 'de-rail' or 'hijack' threads by making posts unrelated to the original post or other posts in the thread. You will not create threads unrelated to the topic of a forum or subforum.

2.3 No Harassment of Other Members

You will not harass or abuse other members in threads, private messages, via rep comments or blessing comments, in custom titles, signatures, avatars or profiles. This includes stalking other members, both online and in real life. This includes making bad faith "spite reports" of another member's posts.


I'll be checking back in on this one, so let's keep it clean and on topic, ok folks?

Thank you.

Happy posting!

 

[Rev Wayne]

I do not see how you can compare those who would kill someone with gay rights activists. You suggest that these are the two extremes. But they are not comparable. People who work for equal rights are to be admired. People who murder are to be given punishment appropriate to their crimes, though we feel compassion for them also.

Most of the gay people I know, and I know many, DO support the work of gay rights activists, if they are not gay rights activists themselves. I am a gay rights activist, in the sense that I speak out for equality and fair treatment for those of us who are gay. I would like to see most Christians become gay rights activists in that sense also. I would hope to see no one become murderers.

I do not think that most people associate the majority of Christians with killers. I personally disagree with those who say that being gay is a sin, because I think it's not. However, I would never associate such a person with the killers of Matt Shepherd, and I think most people would not.

Thanks for the manner of your response. Let me apologize and clarify, since the intent with the comments was not to draw any analogy between the two extremes, simply to point out that the general tenor of discussions on this issue has reached the point where the extremes of either side are automatically assumed by someone speaking from an opposing viewpoint.

My own denomination, while taking the position that "homosexual practice is incompatible with Christian teaching," does on the other hand affirm the intent to be in ministry with homosexuals in advocating for them in standing against discrimination in its various forms, particularly civil.

As to "I do not think that most people associate the majority of Christians with killers," that was not my intended meaning either. It was more like, "speaking from a stance that in any way agrees with anyone who says homosexual practice is a sin, very often gets misconstrued as though the mere stating of an opinion were the equivalent of "hating gays." If I were to engage in the typical kinds of responses that get tossed out back and forth, I would have snapped back with something like "your assumption that I meant this in the way you state it just serves to illustrate the point I was making." But I'm not saying that, just once again pointing out the way most people who engage in discussing this issue automatically assume the other person is speaking from the extreme, when more often, they simply are not.

As to "I personally disagree with those who say that being gay is a sin," I would point out that this is a very different statement than the one that is made by my denomination. We do not say, "being gay is a sin," but rather, that homosexual practice is a sin. Some might think that a distinction without a difference, but it's pretty significantly different, in that it does not point to any sinfulness inherent in the person.

 

[Loundry]

Well, I wasn't planning on using your tax dollars, but just in case I forget and slip up, I'll write that down. "Use NONE of Loundry's tax money!"

There. Your tax dollars are now safe.

"Progressives" always want to take my money to solve "society's" problems. Are you the rare exception who would only do it with your own money or money that was voluntarily donated to you?