Flawed Logic of Gay Christians

[onemessiah]

Even those that believe in "evolution" have to agree that human homosexual sexual contact is not natural.

Wrong. Why do we "have" to believe that? I know I don't.

 

[Aisenai]

Greetings, KatAutumn.

Hagar was angry with Sarah for letting Abraham have sex with her.

At best, an unsupported assumption.

Then why do Christian ignore Levitical Law in favor of the New Covenant? Did Jesus not say He came to fulfill the Law, not abolish it?

Christian groups very rarely ignore Levitical law, of which the 10 Commandments are a part: they simply ignore those parts of the law that happen to be inconvenient.

Levitical law was part of a covenant, that is, a contract. Jesus did not come to abolish, that is, to annul that contract.
To put it in a nut-shell. That the contract was deficient is stated in the Old Testament. That it would be terminated was also written in the Old Testament: it could not be terminated until it had been fulfilled. These facts are spelt out exhaustively in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

 

[Miracle Storm]

Again, the parts where not designed for homosexuality. Even those that believe in "evolution" have to agree that human homosexual sexual contact is not natural.

That would only be the case if you thought that sexual relations were ONLY for reproduction purposes..if not it's perfectly natural to be attracted to whomever you are attracted to..to deny that you were attracted...be gay..go into a "straight" marriage or some such nonsense would not be natural.

 

[DMagoh]

All the above things as a rule are seen as wrong by secular society due to rational reasoning for them being wrong. Homosexuality is not at all like your given examples.

Except that we are not going to be judged by 'secular society' on Judgement Day. Secular societies' opinion as to what is right and what is wrong will not matter in the least. That is the main flawed logic of proponents of homosexual behavior.

 

[DMagoh]

And yet, you can't prove why its wrong either.

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Romans 1:27

Pretty clearly, men that have sex with other men...

• abandoned natural relations with women;
• are inflamed in lust for other men;
• have committed indecent acts with other men; and
• receive the due penalty for their perversion.

It's not my fault you make excuses for the numerous verses in the Bible saying it is wrong.

 

[Caylin]

Except that we are not going to be judged by 'secular society' on Judgement Day. Secular societies' opinion as to what is right and what is wrong will not matter in the least. That is the main flawed logic of proponents of homosexual behavior.

So? If you aren't going to engage in homosexual behavior why do you give a damn if I do it?

 

[DMagoh]

And how do you justify equating the legally protected act of consensual intercourse between two adults with pedophilia or any of the other above examples?

I never equated them, although they are all sins. My point, that you failed to address, was is you try to justify homosexual behavior by using the logic that 'Jesus never mentioned it', then for that logic to be valid, anything that Jesus didnt mention would have to be fair game.

 

[DMagoh]

So? If you aren't going to engage in homosexual behavior why do you give a damn [emp. added] if I do it?

Because the Bible tells us to. Whenever we see a brother straying, we are to help him back on the path...

My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins.
James 5:19-20


By the way, I also choose not to curse (e.g., why do you give a damn [emp. added]?) because of what it says in the Bible...

Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be.
James 3:10

 

[Caylin]

Because the Bible tells us to. Whenever we see a brother straying, we are to help him back on the path...

My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins.
James 5:19-20

By the way, I also choose not to curse because of what it says in the Bible...

Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be.
James 3:10

I'm not your brother. I'm not *anyones* brother. Mind to your own issues before you preach at others.

Do you really think quoting the bible at an atheist is going to make me no swear?

 

[KCKID]

Except that we are not going to be judged by 'secular society' on Judgement Day.

Same for you. Why do you feel that you are special? Repentence? Why do you assume that homosexuals are not repentent?

Secular societies' opinion as to what is right and what is wrong will not matter in the least. That is the main flawed logic of proponents of homosexual behavior.

Flawed logic? Well, from what I've gathered over the years it appears that much of the beliefs of mainstream Christianity actually DEFY logic ...i.e. Adam and Eve, talking snakes, talking donkeys, a world-wide flood, people turned into salt, being destroyed for merely gathering sticks on the Sabbath, being swallowed by a whale, etc. etc. So, PLEASE don't talk about the flawed logic of proponents of homosexual behavior. Understanding and applying logic to homosexual behavior is EASY as compared to understanding and applying logic to a great deal of the Bible. I mean ...REALLY!

Any logical person would have to say that one has to actually SUSPEND logic in order to believe much of the Bible. I'd love to know what Mr. Spock might think of it all.

 

[DMagoh]

[/color][/size][/font]

Flawed logic? Well, from what I've gathered over the years it appears that much of the beliefs of mainstream Christianity actually DEFY logic ...i.e. Adam and Eve, talking snakes, talking donkeys, a world-wide flood, people turned into salt, being destroyed for merely gathering sticks on the Sabbath, being swallowed by a whale, etc. etc. So, PLEASE don't talk about the flawed logic of proponents of homosexual behavior. Understanding and applying logic to homosexual behavior is EASY as compared to understanding and applying logic to a great deal of the Bible. I mean ...REALLY!

Any logical person would have to say that one has to actually SUSPEND logic in order to believe much of the Bible. I'd love to know what Mr. Spock might think of it all.

It must be tremendously defeating to worship a god that is only as powerful as a human. Why would I worship someone that is only capable of doing things a human could do? If God couldnt do any of those things you mentioned, He's not much of a God is he? I guess your god is limited by your finite mind. Tsk. Tsk.

 

[KCKID]

It must be tremendously defeating to worship a god that is only as powerful as a human. Why would I worship someone that is only capable of doing things a human could do? If God couldnt do any of those things you mentioned, He's not much of a God is he? I guess your god is limited by your finite mind. Tsk. Tsk.

I know what you're saying and I appreciate your post. Honestly, I don't want to do battle with you on this issue. I know that there are Christians on this subforum who sincerely believe that they are representatives of God. So too were Jim Jones, David Koresh, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Oral Roberts, etc. etc. Not that I'm equating anyone here with these professed 'messengers of God'. Nor am I intending to belittle them since they are/were mere mortals just like me. All I'm getting at is that sincere people can be sincerely wrong.

They can also be sincerely right too, of course.

I truly believe in a Creator God but I can't believe that much of the Bible (specifically the Old Testament) is to be taken literally. I just can't since logic gets in the way every time. I also can't reconcile a loving God with much of what the OT has to say about Him. I really don't like the God of the OT mainly because I can't relate to Him. I certainly can't relate to him in a Father/son manner. I can't relate to anyone who is able and even willing to destroy me simply because I'm imperfect and therefore disobedient. I'm just a mere mortal but I feel that even I am more compassionate and logically-minded than the God of the Bible.

Yes, I'm sure that any Being that can create the world and all that there is can do pretty well everything that He sets His mind to. I'm just not so sure, however, that this Being is the God spoken of in the Bible. I just don't know and I freely admit to that.

 

[OllieFranz]

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Romans 1:27


Pretty clearly, men that have sex with other men...

• abandoned natural relations with women;
• are inflamed in lust for other men;
• have committed indecent acts with other men; and
• receive the due penalty for their perversion.

It's not my fault you make excuses for the numerous verses in the Bible saying it is wrong.

You are not reading that verse correctly. Part of the reason may be the translation you are using.

The unnatural sexual practices as described by Plato are not the cause but the result. The phrase translated "recieve the due penalty for their perversion" (An extemely biased translation since the Greek simply has "payment" not "penalty" and "wandering" or "error" not "perversion") is in a Greek tense that does not translate well into English, but which indicates that the payment is currently being meted out. Along with the introductory phrase "For this cause" in verse 26 it is clear that an addiction to sex so strong that the participants abandon their "natural" relationships is one of the consequences of the sinful choices described in verses 18-23.

 

[OllieFranz]

I never equated them, although they are all sins. My point, that you failed to address, was is you try to justify homosexual behavior by using the logic that 'Jesus never mentioned it', then for that logic to be valid, anything that Jesus didnt mention would have to be fair game.

The statement that "Jesus never mentioned it" is not used on its own as "proof" that it is OK, but rather to point out your exact point to those who claim that Paul is just reconfirming Jesus' position. Neither side of the argument can prove Jesus' position from thing He did not say.

 

[katautumn]

LOL!!! Your logic needs some help.

Actually, her logic is spot-on. Whenever a person is born a certain way, their bodies adapt to it. For example, I doubt God intended for us to use our feet to eat with or hold a pen to write a letter, and most people do not use their feet for such purposes; however, for a person born with no arms their feet are an invaluable means of tending to themselves in the same way most people use their hands. Or perhaps this could be another analogy-some people are born missing certain internal organs that digest and excrete the foods and liquids we consume. Sometimes this requires medical intervention and a catheter must be used to help the body pass waste. Certainly most people are born with the "parts" that "work properly", but some people are not, therefore they must learn to adapt and use other body parts (or sometimes medical devices) that were not intended for such purposes.


The human body can typically adapt to accommodate a number of circumstances that the majority of people do not usually have to deal with.
Ergo, when a person is not born with the attraction to members of the opposite sex the way the majority of people are, they find ways to adapt.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

• Jesus never mentioned homosexuality.

Flawed Logic: Jesus also never mentioned incest, polygamy, pedophilia, necrophilia.... are those okay too?

This is not an argument for, it's a counter-argument against. Specifically, it is a counter-argument against the "Homosexuality is unChristian" etc, arguments.

• Why would a loving God hate love?

Flawed Logic: If I love my sister and she turns me on sexually, is it okay to have sex with her?

If you are both consenting adults, then I see no problem with incest (stomach-churning though the idea is).

• Animals do it.

Flawed Logic: Animals also eat their young and some female animals kill their male counterparts after mating. Should we do this too? My dog “positions himself” on my leg periodically… is he thinking sex with humans is okay, and if so, does that mean humans and animals can have sex since animals do it?

Again, this is a counter-argument against, not an argument for. Specifically, it is a counter-argument against the "Homosexuality is unnatural" argument: over 1,500 species have been observed engaging in homosexuality (bonobos, sheep, penguins, dolphins, etc). Once again, it is not an argument in and of itself, but a refutation of a claim made by "anti-gays".

It’s genetic; it would unnatural for me to be heterosexual.Flawed Logic: Men turned on by animals and children feel the same way – it would be unnatural for them to have sex with humans or adults.

Perhaps, but the scientific consensus is that homosexuality has both genetic and environmental roots. The same is probably true for all sexual fetishes, from heterosexuality to bestiality to paedophilia. The ethical concern, then, is in whether the relevant actions and attractions are to be deemed more. There is no ethical qualm associated with homosexuality that is not equally apparent with heterosexuality: underage sex, rape, polygamy, etc, can be applied to either camps. Compare these with bestiality and paedophilia, which have obvious unique ethical difficulties: the former is blurred when it comes to ascertaining informed consent and the harm done; the latter is clear insofar as the child does not (nor cannot) give informed consent, and a great deal of mental and physical trauma is often done.

In short, there is no ethical qualm inherently associated with homosexuality that is not equally associated with heterosexuality.

• You should not deny happiness to someone.

Flawed Logic: What if children and animals make me happy?

Surprisingly, I agree with you on this one. That said, I've never heard anyone on the pro-gay front level this argument. It's more usual to hear "If two consenting adults make each other happy, who are you to say otherwise?".

• Monogamous same-sex relationships are okay; it’s just being promiscuous that’s a sin.

Flawed Logic: So if I JUST have sex with my sister, and only my sister, is that okay?

Sure, why not. Adam and Eve did it, Noah and his kin did it, why not you? If you're worried about genetic abnormalities in any offspring, then:
a) do you therefore support eugenics? After all, there are a great many people who, if they reproduce, are likely to have kids with genetic abnormalities.
b) genetic defects only show up if inbreeding occurs for generations. A single instance of a brother and sister having kids is unlikely to cause any abnormalities.

So, yeah, what's so wrong about sleeping with your sister? I personally find it disgusting, but whatever floats your boat.

In no way am I condoning any behaviors mentioned in this thread, just merely pointing out the flawed logic. If your reason for thinking homosexual behavior is okay does not follow through to all other activities, then it is flawed logic.

Since it does, I guess we're all hunky-dory.

 

[katautumn]

You know what really kills me? Is that it's a rarity that a discussion comes up about LGBT issues without someone having to throw in "BUT THEIR NAUGHTY BITS DON'T FIT TOGETHER!!!!" I mean, we could be talking about how gay men throw the most bombastic cocktail parties and someone would respond with, "but they're not made to have sex naturally!" I mean, why are people so fixated on the genitals and what we do with them? It's really an unhealthy preoccupation. Like people who always have to talk about feces.

 

[HaloHope]

You know what really kills me? Is that it's a rarity that a discussion comes up about LGBT issues without someone having to throw in "BUT THEIR NAUGHTY BITS DON'T FIT TOGETHER!!!!" I mean, we could be talking about how gay men throw the most bombastic cocktail parties and someone would respond with, "but they're not made to have sex naturally!" I mean, why are people so fixated on the genitals and what we do with them? It's really an unhealthy preoccupation. Like people who always have to talk about feces.

This goes beyond me every time I see it too. No matter how many gay couples are adamant they fit together well, people will still decry them. Quite frankly unless the person in question has had had a fair share of same-sex, sex they thought was boring they should take the opinion of people who know what its like and know that same-sex organs can fit together just fine.

 

[Hentenza]

Wrong. Why do we "have" to believe that? I know I don't.

Because human homosexual sexual contact is not an "evolved" anatomical condition. The proven natural contact IS heterosexual.

 

[Hentenza]

Flawed logic? Well, from what I've gathered over the years it appears that much of the beliefs of mainstream Christianity actually DEFY logic ...i.e. Adam and Eve, talking snakes, talking donkeys, a world-wide flood, people turned into salt, being destroyed for merely gathering sticks on the Sabbath, being swallowed by a whale, etc. etc. So, PLEASE don't talk about the flawed logic of proponents of homosexual behavior. Understanding and applying logic to homosexual behavior is EASY as compared to understanding and applying logic to a great deal of the Bible. I mean ...REALLY!

Any logical person would have to say that one has to actually SUSPEND logic in order to believe much of the Bible. I'd love to know what Mr. Spock might think of it all.

Have you actually researched it?

It is actually more illogical to be an atheist. :o