Alright ...So What Are The Options ...?

Phinehas2 · Apr 28, 2008

Dear *Starlight*
I dont undersatnd how you can claim opsoites are not a big difference. What would be a bigger difference than an opposite?

But that's not a big difference, the nature of the relationship is still exactly the same.

No the nature of the relationship sam/opposite sex is sexual, so the nature of the relationship is opposite.

Why?

He created man and woman to be united, read Genesis 2, Matthew 19, Ephesians 5 for example. .

I don't see the logical connection here. God created homosexuals as well, by the way.

No. God didnt create homosexuals or heterosexuals, He created male an female. Where di you think the Bible said God created homosexuals?

To anyone?

Evidently not to me or many others.

David Brider · Apr 28, 2008

Phinehas2 said:
No the nature of the relationship same/opposite sex is sexual...

Doesn't that rather depend on what stage the relationship has reached? My relationship with my fiancee consists of lots of telephone conversations (because we live quite a distance away from each other), and meeting up at weekends when we go shopping, watch TV, see each other's families, plan for our wedding and the future in general, go on trips, chat, eat, hold hands, kiss and cuddle. We've deliberately held off doing anything sexual until we get married.

...so the nature of the relationship is opposite.

I can well envisage a same-sex couple in a relationship similar to that of me and my fiancee, so no, to say that same-sex relationships and different-sex relationships are opposite isn't accurate, as far as I can tell. Even if their relationship does reach the sexual stage, the differences would be minimal.

No. God didnt create homosexuals or heterosexuals...

Rubbish. He created everyone.

Evidently not to me or many others.

So you agree that homosexual relationships don't cause you any harm. Jolly good.

David.

Phinehas2 · Apr 28, 2008

Dear David Brider,

Doesn't that rather depend on what stage the relationship has reached?

No because if the relationship is sexual we know its sexual.

I can well envisage a same-sex couple in a relationship similar to that of me and my fiancee,

I cant.

Rubbish. He created everyone.

Rubbish everyone is male and female or hermaphrodite, not homosexual and heterosexual. The birth certificate says male or female boy or girl. I don't know of any baby that can have sex let alone heterosexual or homosexual desires

So you agree that homosexual relationships don't cause you any harm. Jolly good.

They do cause harm because they are sexual immorality, I dont think it matters what you or I think but what God has ordained and created.

David Brider · Apr 28, 2008

Phinehas2 said:
No because if the relationship is sexual we know it's sexual.

But what if it isn't sexual? Y'know, like the relationship I have with my fiancee?

David Brider said:
I can well envisage a same-sex couple in a relationship similar to that of me and my fiancee...

Phinehas2 said:
I can't.

Why not?

David.

David Brider · Apr 28, 2008

Phinehas2 said:
They do cause harm because they are sexual immorality...

Who exactly do they cause harm to? Certainly not to you.

David.

jamielindas · Apr 28, 2008

See.. that's the thing that some people don't understand. Being GAY isn't all about sex. I actually want to have a relationship with another man, not just sex with one. I want to find someone to fall in love with, I want to get married, I want to raise a family. I'm not just looking to screw, though great sex would hopefully be an awesome part of an awesome relationship.

There are plenty of older gay couples that don't really have sex anymore. Just like there are a lot of older straight couples that don't have sex anymore. There are gay couples that never had a lot of sex. Just like there are straight couples who do that.
Some of you people seem to have this idea that we're all out for sex because that's what you've been told. It's just not true. Yes, there are really promiscuous gay men that have tons of sex. Just like there are some really promiscuous straight men and women.

Phin, just because you can't imagine it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Open your mind and your heart.

radlad72 · Apr 28, 2008

Yes God created everyone but sin has, as usual, warped God's plan for humanity. God created male and female to be together. Not male and male, or female and female.

Sorry, but that is the way it is, whether you agree with it or not. It is there in black and white.

Rad.

Brieuse · Apr 28, 2008

radlad72 said:
Yes God created everyone but sin has, as usual, warped God's plan for humanity. God created male and female to be together. Not male and male, or female and female.

Sorry, but that is the way it is, whether you agree with it or not. It is there in black and white.

Rad.

I don't agree, God's plan for us is bigger than our understanding.

radlad72 · Apr 28, 2008

I don't agree, God's plan for us is bigger than our understanding.

Disagree with me as much as you want, but you cannot refute what is written in Genesis by simply disagreeing with me.

Brieuse · Apr 28, 2008

radlad72 said:
Disagree with me as much as you want, but you cannot refute what is written in Genesis by simply disagreeing with me.

No need to refute Genesis. It's a nice story. However I don't see the story of Genesis as a moral law, regarding the initial need to populate.

radlad72 · Apr 28, 2008

Having the correct partner was only partly to do with the need to populate.

Satan has taken sex and love and turned it on its ear to mean that just about any type of sex is done these days.

What next? Do we accept people who love animals? We can't populate with them and there is not any need for the initial "reason" for man and woman of the same species to be together.

God said that it was not right for man to be alone and therefore He created the perfect partner for man. A woman! NOT another man.

Rad.

Polycarp1 · Apr 28, 2008

jamielindas said:
See.. that's the thing that some people don't understand. Being GAY isn't all about sex. I actually want to have a relationship with another man, not just sex with one. I want to find someone to fall in love with, I want to get married, I want to raise a family. I'm not just looking to screw, though great sex would hopefully be an awesome part of an awesome relationship.

There are plenty of older gay couples that don't really have sex anymore. Just like there are a lot of older straight couples that don't have sex anymore. There are gay couples that never had a lot of sex. Just like there are straight couples who do that.
Some of you people seem to have this idea that we're all out for sex because that's what you've been told. It's just not true. Yes, there are really promiscuous gay men that have tons of sex. Just like there are some really promiscuous straight men and women.

Phin, just because you can't imagine it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Open your mind and your heart.

I think this is the point that many of the "gay=sin" faction completely miss. There is a member here (presently not too active in DoH; name withheld because it's not my place to give out personal facts about him) who is part of a long-term gay "marriage" -- "marriage" in quotes not because I have any desire to disparage it; I respect them highly for it, but rather because it's not recognized as such by law, only in their hearts and in God's eyes. For some years now health has precluded their having an active sex life, but they remain as committed to each other, as deeply in love, as ever. Another example might be the Rev. Canon Jeffrey John of the Church of England and his partner, in the news a couple of years back. They remain together in a celibate marital union.

If the people trying to reduce gay couples' marriages to nothing but sex feel about their own partners the way they imagine the gays to feel, I have nothing but pity for those poor misused "spouses" who really deserve to be in a true loving supportive marriage instead of being their partner's sexual gratification tools.

Too, some people cannot seem to grasp the idea of a loving sexual relationship, and equate it to perverse use of animals or small children for sexual gratification. I hesitate to form any opinion on what their lives must be like.

I get very irritated about those whose mantra seems to be "The Bible is God's Own Rule Book for convicting humanity of its crimes, and *I* am the ultimate authority on what the Bible really says." We Anglicans told the Pope to go pound salt nearly five centuries ago for pulling that; it ill behooves us to begin doing it to others now.

KCKID · Apr 28, 2008

Polycarp1 said:
I think this is the point that many of the "gay=sin" faction completely miss. There is a member here (presently not too active in DoH; name withheld because it's not my place to give out personal facts about him) who is part of a long-term gay "marriage" -- "marriage" in quotes not because I have any desire to disparage it; I respect them highly for it, but rather because it's not recognized as such by law, only in their hearts and in God's eyes. For some years now health has precluded their having an active sex life, but they remain as committed to each other, as deeply in love, as ever. Another example might be the Rev. Canon Jeffrey John of the Church of England and his partner, in the news a couple of years back. They remain together in a celibate marital union.

If the people trying to reduce gay couples' marriages to nothing but sex feel about their own partners the way they imagine the gays to feel, I have nothing but pity for those poor misused "spouses" who really deserve to be in a true loving supportive marriage instead of being their partner's sexual gratification tools.

Too, some people cannot seem to grasp the idea of a loving sexual relationship, and equate it to perverse use of animals or small children for sexual gratification. I hesitate to form any opinion on what their lives must be like.

I get very irritated about those whose mantra seems to be "The Bible is God's Own Rule Book for convicting humanity of its crimes, and *I* am the ultimate authority on what the Bible really says." We Anglicans told the Pope to go pound salt nearly five centuries ago for pulling that; it ill behooves us to begin doing it to others now.

Oh boy ...I sure do appreciate that post.

Well done.

Now if only I could find me a church that actually believes and preaches CHRISTianity. I don't need any 'extra padding' and fancy doctrines ...just a church devoid of any prejudices. Does one exist?

KCKID · Apr 29, 2008

radlad72 said:
Having the correct partner was only partly to do with the need to populate.

Satan has taken sex and love and turned it on its ear to mean that just about any type of sex is done these days.

Perhaps. Have you seen the book for heterosexuals "101 Different P........ To Spice Up Your Sex Life"? The mind boggles.

Seriously, despite how you feel about the issue it's perhaps unfair to imply that 'homosexual sex' (whatever that might be) is something 'ultra kinky'. Heterosexuals are usually the 'ultra kinky' ones.

radlad72 said:
What next? Do we accept people who love animals?

As in sex, you mean? I mean, most of us love animals.

radlad72 said:
We can't populate with them and there is not any need for the initial "reason" for man and woman of the same species to be together.

God said that it was not right for man to be alone and therefore He created the perfect partner for man. A woman! NOT another man.

But if the individual male/female find the perfect partner to be another male/female, respectively, then who is to say that such a choice is not 'right' for them?

Rad, may I refer you to Polycarp's post above? I believe that it speaks a great deal of wisdom about this particular issue.

Thanks.

Phinehas2 · Apr 29, 2008

Dear David Brider,

But what if it isn't sexual?

If the relationship is sexual we know it's sexual.

Why not?

because it isnt the same and I can’t envisage it.

Who exactly do they cause harm to? Certainly not to you.

1 Cor 6 says to the person themselves.

Phinehas2 · Apr 29, 2008

Dear Polycarp1,

There is a member here (presently not too active in DoH; name withheld because it's not my place to give out personal facts about him) who is part of a long-term gay "marriage" -- "marriage" in quotes not because I have any desire to disparage it; I respect them highly for it, but rather because it's not recognized as such by law, only in their hearts and in God's eyes.

It isn’t recognised in God’s eyes as marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman in as in God’s creation purpose. (Gen 2, Matt 19) There are about 40 mentions of marriage in the NT and all are man and woman.

Another example might be the Rev. Canon Jeffrey John of the Church of England and his partner, in the news a couple of years back. They remain together in a celibate marital union.

They may live together as friends but their claim to 'being gay' means they are sexually attracted which is a sin if acted upon as would happen in marriage.Jeffrey John also promotes same-sex unions as acceptable, according to 1 Cor 5 is something to be dissassociated from.

If the people trying to reduce gay couples' marriages to nothing but sex feel about their own partners the way they imagine the gays to feel, I have nothing but pity for those poor misused "spouses" who really deserve to be in a true loving supportive marriage instead of being their partner's sexual gratification tools.

I don’t accept there are gay couples marriages as I have demonstrated. If you can support the idea from the word of God in the Bible then do so but I see there is no such thing. So I am reducing gay couples union to not marriage. Furthermore, gay is sexual attraction, I cant reduce a gay couples union to something it isn’t by definition. Gay=same-sex attraction so the gay couples union is sexual for the very reason it is a ‘same-sex attraction’ couples union. Your pity is irrelevant to me.

Too, some people cannot seem to grasp the idea of a loving sexual relationship, and equate it to perverse use of animals or small children for sexual gratification. I hesitate to form any opinion on what their lives must be like.

Sounds like their lives could be Christian. I don’t se anyone equating a man/woman loving sexual relationship, marriage, with perverse use, I see them equating loving same-sex sexual relationships with perverse use of animals and small children which is Biblical ie Lev 18 & 20, Romans 1, 1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim 1. I love my male Christian friends but I don’t have sex with them so I have a loving relationship with them but not a loving sexual relationship. How can one not reduce the issue to sex?

I get very irritated about those whose mantra seems to be "The Bible is God's Own Rule Book for convicting humanity of its crimes,

Well many people do but of course God gives everyone a choice.

and *I* am the ultimate authority on what the Bible really says."

I get irritated with people who claim this because they simply refuse to accept what the Bible says.

We Anglicans told the Pope to go pound salt nearly five centuries ago for pulling that; it ill behooves us to begin doing it to others now.

Well I belong to the Anglican church and I see Lambeth 1.10 which we Anglicans believe is opposite to what you are claiming.

David Brider · Apr 29, 2008

Phinehas2 said:
Dear David Brider,

Phinehas2 said:
If the relationship is sexual we know it's sexual.

Sure, you said that before, but that's not answering the question - what if the relationship isn't sexual?

because it isnt the same and I cant envisage it.

So you believe gay men and women are incapable of entering into a romantic relationship unless it's sexual, is that what you're saying?

Time to get out into the real world and meet some real gay men and women - they might give you a slightly more realistic idea of what it's like to be gay than the somewhat skewed take that exists in your imagination.

1 Cor 6 says to the person themselves.

In what way?

David.

Phinehas2 · Apr 29, 2008

Dear David Brider,

Sure, you said that before, but that's not answering the question - what if the relationship isn't sexual?

Then it isn’t the relationship we are discussing.

So you believe gay men and women are incapable of entering into a romantic relationship unless it's sexual, is that what you're saying?

Of course not, gay means having a sexual attraction.

Time to get out into the real world and meet some real gay men and women –

My gay and lesbian friends might be disappointed that you don’t think they are real or their views are realistic.

In what way?

In the way it says.

HaloHope · Apr 29, 2008

I dont really know where to begin here.

Gay people can experience romance without having sex. Romance is nothing to do with sex, its about unconditional love. Now there may be a sexual attraction there, but a sexual attraction is NOT the equivalent to having sex. This situation applies to straight people in exactly the same way.

Gay relationships arent all about sex, its about love to. Sometimes its not about sex at all and only about love and of course just in hetrosexual relationships sometimes its just about sex. All same-sex couples are different as are all hetrosexual couples.

I love my partner is in real, give my life for her at any moment love. She means the world to me and I treasure her company and enjoy spending my life with her. I hope to be an adoptive parent with her one day. NOW.. I also of course am sexually attracted to my partner, if I wasnt sexually attracted to my partner shed just be my freind, not my partner. I am also sexually active, it's part of the way we express our love and attraction for one another. Not the only way for sure, but one way. The most important thing in my relationship is the love.

This is no different to hetrosexual relationships.

Phinehas2 · Apr 29, 2008

Dear Halohope,

Christians can experience romance without having sex, but for Christians sex is within a marriage, which is man/woman. (ie Matt 19, Eph 5) Romance has nothing to do with unconditional love, Romans has. According to the dictionary romance is more a love affair than love itself. Romance is just another word introduced where different people seem to have different definitions than the dictionary.

Gay relationships arent all about sex,

they have to be as ‘gay ‘ means having a sexual attraction. So same-sex attraction relationships must be about sex.

Sometimes its not about sex at all and only about love

then it isnt a gay relationship, indeed I, as what you would call straight, have such relationships, they are called fellowship or friendships.

All same-sex couples are different as are all hetrosexual couples.

on the contrary same-sex couples describes the sex of the couple, which means they are both of the same sex, heterosexual means having attraction for the opposite sex, that could mean a man and a woman couple who are both heterosexual.

Alright ...So What Are The Options ...?

Phinehas2

Guest

Well-Known Member

Phinehas2

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

When given the option, choose love and compassion

Junior Member

Veteran

Junior Member

Veteran

Junior Member

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Phinehas2

Guest

Phinehas2

Guest

Well-Known Member

Phinehas2

Guest

Senior Member

Phinehas2

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency