Forcing the Chruch to accept homosexuality..

PreachersWife2004 · Sep 5, 2010

Jase said:
Equality is not special treatment and you know it. No gays are demanding to be better, merely the same. Separate but equal never is.

In one aspect, gays are considered socially less, and that's marriage. But marriage isn't the only thing on the table for gays, is it?

Well, we know the general cause of alcoholism and obesity - neither of which are due to hormonal imbalances in prenatal development. Homosexuality is more like hair color, eye color, or skin color. Obesity is usually caused by poor diet and lack of exercise. Alcoholism may have some biological influence, but I've never met a child who at 3 years old knew they were an alcoholic. That, however, is a common occurrence for gays.

I've never met a 3 year old who even knew what orientation was. Please. If you're pointing to little boys wearing heels and girls playing with GI Joe dolls, stop.

Obesity and alcoholism can both be genetically inherited. The argument of "I don't choose to be this way" can used for either situation. Yet, somehow society doesn't give them the pass the way it does for homosexuals saying "I cannot change who I am".

That hardly seems equal, now does it?

Sexual orientation cannot be changed in the overwhelming majority of individuals. This is a fact, supported by the entire scientific community. Just because fraud organizations like NARTH tell you it can be changed, does not make it so.

Alcoholism can't be cured, generally, either, yet we put a ton of pressure on alcoholics.

Sinners cannot change their sinful nature, but they can certainly fight against it, no? In the church, an alcoholic getting help or an obese person fighting their issues are repentant sinners. If there was an alcoholic who used the same lines as a homosexual, he'd be considered under church discipline.

Actually, the churches are not talking about them, since they would be condemning their whole congregation. I seriously doubt Pastors cover sermons targeted at all his obese Christian audience in the pews.

It's far easier to target groups that you can't relate to, then to look at yourself in the mirror. That's why homosexuality is violently attacked, while obesity, greed, hypocrisy, divorce, adultery etc. are ignored.

I challenge you to sit in on a WELS sermon. I think you will find exactly that - pastors preaching about sins. Yes, they preach about homosexuality, but they also preach about obesity, gluttony, sexual immorality, greed, etc. You hear about homosexuality here because it's the topic du jour. If I started a thread on greed, it would last maybe one or two pages, but it's not at the forefront of everyone's mind the way homosexuality is.

On another board that I post at, someone posted "I'm a gay such and such..." and then went onto talk about himself. Someone else answered "well, I'm a heterosexual lawyer, so what?" I don't go around trumpeting that I'm a heterosexual. (And before you point to my username or my wedding rings, remember that those are no longer limited to hetero couples. I could easily be a lesbian who was married to a pastor and I could have four kids in the process.) Yet, many homosexuals feel that they have to trumpet their orientation. So yes, in a sense, the greasy wheel gets the oil.

Jase · Sep 5, 2010

Jeffwhosoever said:
So are you suggesting sexual orientation is genetic? Have scientists confirmed and identified the specific genetic cause?

I'm suggesting sexual orientation has a large biological foundation. Not necessarily a specific "gay gene", but we know that hormones can influence brain development prenatally. PET scans of gay men show their brain is wired more like that of straight women, and lesbians' brains are wired like straight men. Twin studies also point to a biological root of orientation.

However you want to slice it, I know for a fact that for the majority of gays, it's not a choice.

Archivist · Sep 5, 2010

onemorequestion said:
Exact same thing.

No, "Is homosexuality a sin" and "forcing the church to accept homosexuality" are two very different questions.

"Where's your evidence?"
Shown time and time again . . .
"Where's your proof?"
Thrown back time and time again.

No, what we are getting here is opinion, not proof. If you have actual proof, please offer it.

Anglican, Catholic and Lutheran are known history wide as "mainstream." All are dealing with unwanted gay activism demanding that gay marriage be celebrated "in the Church." That's as mainstream an example as there can be.

First of all, typing words Bigger and in Bold doesn't make them correct. I can read quite fine in normal font.

Yes I've seen this posted before. Simply posting these words without supporting evidence does no good. I can't speak about what may or may not be going on in the Anglican or Catholic churches, but waht happened in the ELCA--allowing homosexual pastors who are in committed relationships, was done by majority vote. It wasn't a case of anyone forcing anything on anyone else.

And it was juyst a very short few decades ago, that Stonewall was supposedly just about being able to be in a gay bar without being bothered by police looking for youth prostitutes on the premises.

And I suppose that you think that what Rosa Parks did was just about buses.

Where's your evidence that it has not been offered? Where's your proof that it hasn't been offered many, many, many, many, many times already? Let's hear it gang, ONE. MORE, TIME: Anglican, Catholic and Lutheran gay and liberal activism!

Look back through thsi thread. Where is the evidence? Phinehas2, to his credit, did post an article about a gay marriage bill in the UK, but upon examination the article didn't say that the church was being forced to perform homosexual marriage.

Simply writing "Anglican, Catholic and Lutheran gay and liberal activism!" over and over and putting it in BIG BOLD LETTERS[/QUOTE] doesn't make it proof.

If you have actual evidence, please offer it.

OllieFranz · Sep 5, 2010

PreachersWife2004 said:
In all fairness, alcoholics and fat people aren't constantly in the media demanding special treatment. Most have the sense to be embarrassed when their behavior gets them in trouble and most of them are seeking help.

You don't see most alcoholics or obese people going "I was BORN this way!" even though their disease can actually be genetic. Yes, some of them do try to excuse their behavior, but imagine the reaction if they said "you can't change me because this is how I was born" - that's essentially what the driving argument behind homosexuality is. Yet, we have 12 step programs and detox and weight loss clinics and camps for alcoholics and obesity.

Saying those sins are ignored is a rather poor strawman. Just because they're not the sins in the media doesn't mean that churches aren't talking about them.

Actually there are "Big is beautiful" type groups that complain about being harrassed because of their weight, to the point of having their rights violated and who are campaigning to have the laws spell out that they, too, deserve equal treatment. So the situation is exactly the same as gays.

link 1
link 2

Jase · Sep 5, 2010

PreachersWife2004 said:
In one aspect, gays are considered socially less, and that's marriage. But marriage isn't the only thing on the table for gays, is it?

There are many ways they are not equal. Employment is one. In many states and federal law, there is no law against discrimination on the basis of orientation. Civil laws do not protect gays as much as straights. Obviously, you can't be openly gay in the military, and you get kicked out if they find out, etc.

We've certainly seen numerous recent cases of discrimination due to being gay in the news, like high schools banning gays from prom, or not allowing a lesbian to wear a tux.

I've never met a 3 year old who even knew what orientation was. Please. If you're pointing to little boys wearing heels and girls playing with GI Joe dolls, stop.

They don't have to know what orientation is to know they "feel" different than their friends.

Obesity and alcoholism can both be genetically inherited. The argument of "I don't choose to be this way" can used for either situation. Yet, somehow society doesn't give them the pass the way it does for homosexuals saying "I cannot change who I am".

That hardly seems equal, now does it?

Obesity is usually self-inflicted. 1/3 of Americans are not obese because they were born that way. It's because they sit on the couch and stuff their face with oreos. Obesity and Alcoholism also have proven health risks - including heart disease, diabetes, stroke, chirrosis, and of course drunk driving.

Homosexuality hurts no one. Unsafe sex can be harmful, but that applies to heterosexuals too, so it isn't a valid argument against gays.

Alcoholism can't be cured, generally, either, yet we put a ton of pressure on alcoholics.

An alcoholic runs the very real risk of killing someone while driving behind the wheel. What's a gay guy going to do, give you better fashion advice?

Sinners cannot change their sinful nature, but they can certainly fight against it, no? In the church, an alcoholic getting help or an obese person fighting their issues are repentant sinners. If there was an alcoholic who used the same lines as a homosexual, he'd be considered under church discipline.

There is no compelling reason on why homosexuality is a sin. Even if the sex portion of it is (and I don't believe it always is), being gay cannot and will never be a sin. Makes no logical sense.

I challenge you to sit in on a WELS sermon. I think you will find exactly that - pastors preaching about sins. Yes, they preach about homosexuality, but they also preach about obesity, gluttony, sexual immorality, greed, etc. You hear about homosexuality here because it's the topic du jour. If I started a thread on greed, it would last maybe one or two pages, but it's not at the forefront of everyone's mind the way homosexuality is.

Homosexuality is only at the forefront of your mind, because gays are an easy target. Just like blacks used to be an easy target. Mark my word, in 50 years, homosexuality will be a non-issue, and the next generations will think our generation was absurd for arguing about it so much.

On another board that I post at, someone posted "I'm a gay such and such..." and then went onto talk about himself. Someone else answered "well, I'm a heterosexual lawyer, so what?" I don't go around trumpeting that I'm a heterosexual. (And before you point to my username or my wedding rings, remember that those are no longer limited to hetero couples. I could easily be a lesbian who was married to a pastor and I could have four kids in the process.) Yet, many homosexuals feel that they have to trumpet their orientation. So yes, in a sense, the greasy wheel gets the oil.

I don't personally know any gays that go around parading their sexuality, and one of my best friends is very openly gay.

Maybe it has more to do with an attempt to make people recognize that gays exist, and are not second class citizens. No one needs to bring about the issue of heterosexuality, because it's common and heteros are not treated like aliens from another planet.

Jeffwhosoever · Sep 5, 2010

Jase said:
I'm suggesting sexual orientation has a large biological foundation. Not necessarily a specific "gay gene", but we know that hormones can influence brain development prenatally. PET scans of gay men show their brain is wired more like that of straight women, and lesbians' brains are wired like straight men. Twin studies also point to a biological root of orientation.

However you want to slice it, I know for a fact that for the majority of gays, it's not a choice.

I assume you mean that being homosexual is physiological (neurological differences as documented via PET scan) and not psychological (conditioned or learned by the environment), such that sexual orientation is beyond an individual's free choice. Do you have a link to the two (twin) studies that you reference?

Archivist · Sep 5, 2010

Jase said:
Homosexuality is only at the forefront of your mind, because gays are an easy target. Just like blacks used to be an easy target. Mark my word, in 50 years, homosexuality will be a non-issue, and the next generations will think our generation was absurd for arguing about it so much.

Agreed, and statistics support this.

I graduated 31 years ago from an all-white high school. I don't think that there would have been actual violance if a black/white couple had shown up at our prom (there might have been violence if that had happened in the 50's or 60's) but there certainly would have been many raised eyebrows. The school now has a sizable number of black and hispanic students. I understand that this past spring there were a number of mixed-race couples at the prom, and none in attendence gave it a passing thought.

OllieFranz · Sep 5, 2010

PreachersWife2004 said:
I've never met a 3 year old who even knew what orientation was. Please. If you're pointing to little boys wearing heels and girls playing with GI Joe dolls, stop.

Agreed that most 3 year olds do not know the mechanics of sex or the pull of sexual attraction. And they would not know what you are asking if you inquired about their orientation. But there are children whose thinking and behavior is sufficiently different from that they are labelled strange. It goes beyond choosing "inappropriate" gender roles, and in fact, gender roles is often one of the few "normal" traits. Because gender roles are learned behavior, both for these children and for "normal" children.

Studies have shown that these children's brains are wired differently. There are different types of odd wiring (autism, ADHD, etc), and at least one that, when discovered in adult men is almost always discovered in gay adult men. That does not prove that all three year olds whose brains are wired this way are gay, but it does suggest a very strong connection.

vl32 · Sep 5, 2010

OllieFranz said:
August 1996 Press Release

WASHINGTON -- Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory.

Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 nonhomophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale.

(Both groups were shown both gay and straight erotica. Their response to the erotica was tested by self-reporting and by a device that measured tumescence. On the self reporting, both groups responded similarly. Mostly reporting that they became aroused by the straight porn but not by the gay porn. In three of the cases, the tumescence test matched the self-reporting closely. Both straight porn cases, and the non-homophobe/gay porn case. In the homophobe/gay porn case, though, despite the self-report that they were not aroused, the tumescence test showed that they were. Since they knew that they were being measured, we can only conclude that they were in denial)
Do these findings mean, then, that homophobia in men is a reaction to repressed homosexual urges, as psychoanalysis theorizes? While their findings are consistent with that theory, the authors note that there is another, competing theoretical explanation: anxiety.

In other words, either the were lying (perhaps even to themselves) about their interest and arousal, or their reaction was one of anxiety, and they truly were homophobes, they became physically aroused not because they were sexually stimulated, but because they were terrified (that is, the arousal was a side effect of the fight-or-flight adrenaline rush.

Now, the sample size is small, and as far as I know, the research has not yet been repeated and verified, but it is both revealing and suggestive.

That's because the nerve/sensory part of the brain is reacting to stimuli.

This nerve/sensory part of the brain can react to all kinds of stimuli that is not actually there.

This was proven when multiple studies were conducted with children who were asked to imagine sucking on a lemon or lime. All the children who had normal nerve/sensory responses could feel their lips pucker up when imaging sucking on a very sour lemon. Same with adults.

This is what is known as mind over matter. The mind can be trained to react to stimuli and to NOT react to stimuli.

I'm quite sure if a person watched porn over and over again, they would start to become desensitized to it.

Mind over matter might be an interesting place to do some research, as I find the above utterly ridiculous.

Next, regarding this word homophobia. I'd venture to guess a better definition of the phobia part is not a fear of, but an intolerance of... somewhat similar to the word photophobia. Photophobics are not afraid of light; they are intolerant of bright light due to inflammation of the iris of the eye.

There is nothing to "fear" from homosexuals. So, the word would be defined better as "intolerant" of.

nChrist · Sep 5, 2010

drich0150 said:
You guys are missing the point completely. It is not whether or not we struggle or fall into sin, it is what we do when we do fall into sin that is important. Homosexuality is being declassified as a sin therefore it will not be repented of.. None of the other "Sins" sinful nature are in question. It is only the sin of homosexuality that is been given this pop culture honor. We all sin, and in turn we are all expected to repent of that sin, but why or how can one do this if what he does has been declassified as sin by the popular culture he is living in?

Amen! And the bottom line is that God will not declassify homosexual acts as sin. This is a settled issue for God, and God is the Sole Authority. When so-called churches, society, or individuals go against God, there is always a price to pay.

There is also a considerable difference between:

1 - The sin a Christian repents of and prays for forgiveness.

2 - The intentional wallowing in sin with no repentance - in fact - stiff-necked pride and determination in the intentional sin.

For those in condition #2, the so-called church doesn't do them any favor by giving them a stamp of approval. That stamp of approval is NOT in service and reverence to God. This is NOT a self-righteous or hypocritical view. All men have need to pray for forgiveness frequently.

1 John 1:8-9 KJV If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

2 Timothy 2:19-22 KJV Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. 20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. 21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work. 22 Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

Good News! -- Are You Lost?
The Holy Bible Is The Word Of God! -- The Word Of God
God The Father, God The Son, God The Holy Spirit - The Creator Of All Things!
"God's Grace" And "Our Works"
American Thanksgiving Proclamations: 1623 to 1863 -- 1961 to 2001
Jesus Christ - Very God - Lord - Saviour - Messiah - King
Messianic Prophecy Fulfilled By Jesus Christ: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

Zaac · Sep 5, 2010

J Bentliff said:
I agree completely, it also lists obesity at one point, 1/3 Americans are obese according to recent research, when there are starving people Pakistan, these, to me, just seem like much bigger issues than whether or not two men can love each other, which in the end of the day we cant prove or disprove, surely greed is clearly wrong, then why is it ignored?

Most greedy people don't have a problem admitting that greed is a sin. A lot of homosexuals and their sympathizers have a problem admitting that homosexual sex is a sin.

God hasn't said anything against homosexuals loving each other. He speaks against homosexual sex.

Sin is a problem PERIOD. Homosexual sex just happens to be a sin that folks aren't willing to acknowledge as a sin. It wouldn't make the problem in Pakistan go away if Christians suddenly started saying that homosexual sex is not a sin. It is, yet we can say that and still go to Pakistan to help.

Hairy Tic · Sep 5, 2010

onemorequestion said:
Hairy Tic said:

##

Not according to reality. Just Jude would show your position is based on little more then appeasement of proponents that would alter Christianity into a form of Roman paganism that the original Christians saw coming and taught us to reject.

Click to expand...

## Homosexuality is often found in ancient paganism - but so is belief in One God. The fact that X is found in ancent paganism, does not tell us whether it is good, bad, indifferent; only that it is found in what Christians call paganism. That something is found in a context, does not say what value judgement Christians should make upon it. Greek was pagan - that didn't stop the Gospels being written in it. Abraham was a pagan - but he is also a major Biblical "goodie". Before Christ, all the world was pagan, Jews only excepted.

The new and shocking positions are the ones that seek to be not of this world and worldview. How is it seeking to know Christ when the positions espoused in liberalism take away the very rock of salvation?

Circumcision and gay sex are hardly comparable concessions.

Click to expand...

## There is a difference, yes - circumcision was commanded by God in Gen.17, whereas no passage commands gay sex. And St. Paul trashed the command - he altered what God had revealed every bit as thoroughly as gays are said to be trying to do. Yet wicked old Paul is a central source for Protestant understanding of the NT. His "praise is in all the Churches". So some alterations of Christianity are accepted - & defended - by Christians; not rejected as anti-Christian. Yet where did Jesus say that circumcision was as little important as St. Paul says ? Paul is a greater alterer of what God said than mere gay activists, ISTM.

No it isn't. When the Son of man is lifted up, He will draw all men to Himself. - John 12:32

Circumcision was demanded of Israelites and their converts.

He did not engage in debauchery or immorality, not did he celebrate either. Just the opposite.

Click to expand...

## The accuracy of that value-judgement is the, or a, point at issue in this controversy, so it cannot be taken as right beyond dispute, for that would be illogical. Many Christians are as opposed to debauchery & immorality as you are - but differ from you as to whether homosexuality & gay sexual activities are
(a) condemned in the Bible
(b) immoral & unChristian
(c) whether, even if the Bible says anything to Christians about H & GS, its words are applicable today; & if so, how.

The parables could never be used to celebrate gay sex in the Church.

Jesus used the Old Testament to validate Who and What He is.

Click to expand...

## But it did not confine Him. But it seems to confine a lot of Christians - especially Evangelical Protestants of a conservative bent of mind. Far more needs saying about the issue, but there it is for now.

He detailed that "God" created marriage as man and woman.

Click to expand...

## Is the writer prescribing - or describing ? This has already been asked, but not answered IIRC. I don't know. If Abraham was monogamous, Genesis did a rotten job of saying so, because it gives him a wife, a servant-maid (who was his wife's), & another woman in Gen. 25, by all of whom he has children. OT wives are not much more than baby-production machines to keep the line going - this is not a Christian notion of marriage, & it is inferior to that of some non-Biblical peoples. Judging by the OT, family life was pretty ghastly - David's arrangements are a particularly yucky example; not that his successor is much better,with his 1,000 females. The Biblical record about them is not pleasant - & what it must have been like for the women, God knows. Yet Abraham & David are held for the imitation of Christians.

The two-persons-of-different-sexes model of marriage is not the only one. More to the point - what was Jesus doing when He quoted Gen.2 ? Not answering a question about Christian marriage. Not everything Jesus said is teaching - to think so is a category mistake. He (& James) forbid oaths - does the Church you are in forbid oaths ? How do we decide whether (like Jesus) we should be circumcised - & whether (regardless of Jesus) we go to churches instead of attending a synagogue ? I'm not trying to throw dust in anyone's eyes: this is a serious issue, & simply to quote the Bible does not solve it, because the issue is what use we are to make of the books we call "the Bible".

Gen.2 tells of only a small fraction of what the Bible says on marriage: a stronger argument could be made from Ephesians 5. I don't agree w/ you - & I'm reminding of a passage you could use. Is that helpful or what ? I've been rebuked for trying to deceive - is that deceitful ? Deceivers don't usually give their victims ammo, unasked

------------

Hairy Tic · Sep 5, 2010

onemorequestion said:

People condemn themselves. Look to the demand that sins are civil rights for condemantion of the sin is OK position. That includes redefing sin as holiness.

The tax collectors and pagans, whom Jesus reviled?

## No, the people who set the Sabbath above human suffering, w/ whom Jesus did not agree. I'm trying to remember where Jesus reviles either tax-collectors or pagans; there are woes a-plenty for the Pharisees & scribes - but "tax collectors and pagans" ? I do OTOH remember that He speaks of harlots & tax-collectors entering the Kingdom of Heaven - maybe you had that in mind ?

Jesus called outsiders dogs. Didn't He?

## Not exactly, but I'll grant the point. We have to ask: why ? That He used the word to refer to them, does not mean He was expressing His own opinion of them. I read Him as speaking in that way so as to challenge the woman to even greater confidence in His ability to help her: not as expressing what He considered "outsiders" to be. It is, I think, a "ploy" to coax her to be even bolder in asking Him. It is astonishing enough that she asked Him at all; & He builds the fence a bit higher, not to repel her, but to help her need even more confidence - on the same principle as in Luke 18: the disciples are to pray - to nag & pester God, in fact - all the more for not being answered at once. Confidence becames stronger for being exercised - for the woman in that episode, & for the disciples. And so - for us also.

Your reading, as I read it, makes Him too much a Pharisee, too stand-offish to treat them as as anything but what decent respectable God-fearing people would not touch with a twenty-foot pole. There were people like that, & Matthew 23 tells us how much he respected them.

How isn't liberalism being used as a righteousness and holier-than-thou declaration?

Not once did Jesus attack the righteous. John (the Baptist's) father was a righteous cohen of Israel.

He, his wife, & others in Luke may have been anawim. A different bunch from the Pharisees & scribes.

He called those that used religion badly hypocrites.

## The scribes & Pharisees ? Is it likely they thought they "used religion badly" ? Yet Jesus rebuked them more than once for their piety.

He considered UN-repentent believers very badly. He told righteous believers to treat tham as you woud a pagan or a tax collector.

Why would the Pharisees & scribes think of themselves as unrepentant ? They paid tithes, they avoided becoming unclean, they loved the Temple, they had no dealings with Samaritans, they avoided women with "[an] issue of blood" (gonorrhoea ?), they were zealous for the God of Israel (which is one reason they opposed Jesus), they were exceedingly familiar w/ the Law, they gave alms they sanctified the Sabbath by fencing it about with prohibitions on activities that might be seen as work - they were godly, pious, God-fearing, righteous people. Therefore, they rejected Jesus.

They did not repent: why should such righteous people need to ? Their righteousness was their problem. The people who heard Jesus gladly were the people "outside the Law", the "sinners" that is; them, & people equally far removed from the Pharisees in their holiness.

As for those words of Jesus, they are no objection: to use the words, is not the same as expressing one's own position. If Jesus had used the words to people He addressed in order to describe them, your objection would be fatal to my remark. But where does Jesus do so ?

How is not liberalism whitewashing over Who and What Jesus is to appease a rabble crowd of angry activists?

## It depends what you mean by "liberalism". W/o a definition, your question can't be answered.

Yet the only ideology popping up to lead Christians astray and BACK into worldliness is liberalism.

The reviling and discarding of God's word.

## What about it ? If that's a link, it doesn't work.

The Bible is an exceptionally dangerous gift, because there is no corruption like the corruption of what is best; & the Bible is a very wonderful & precious gift. Precisely because it is so great a blessing, it is capable of being used in an extremely harmful way, & becoming a curse.
------

PreachersWife2004 · Sep 5, 2010

OllieFranz said:
Actually there are "Big is beautiful" type groups that complain about being harrassed because of their weight, to the point of having their rights violated and who are campaigning to have the laws spell out that they, too, deserve equal treatment. So the situation is exactly the same as gays.

link 1
link 2

You'll note that I said "most". I'm sure there are groups out there who are the exception.

Jase said:
There are many ways they are not equal. Employment is one. In many states and federal law, there is no law against discrimination on the basis of orientation. Civil laws do not protect gays as much as straights. Obviously, you can't be openly gay in the military, and you get kicked out if they find out, etc.

I would read the EOE's guildelines for sexual discrimination to at least open the door to forbidding it. I think the reason why there hasn't been any firmer response is because there are many religious organizations who would not hire a gay person because it directly goes against what that church believes. On the same token, they wouldn't hire an "active" alcoholic, either.

I thought DADT was repealed...what was all the fuss about it earlier this year?

We've certainly seen numerous recent cases of discrimination due to being gay in the news, like high schools banning gays from prom, or not allowing a lesbian to wear a tux.

But that's not exclusive to the gay culture. And you just made two separate events out of one event.

They don't have to know what orientation is to know they "feel" different than their friends.

Care to cite this somehow? How does a homosexual feel differently at 3 than a heterosexual?

Obesity is usually self-inflicted. 1/3 of Americans are not obese because they were born that way. It's because they sit on the couch and stuff their face with oreos. Obesity and Alcoholism also have proven health risks - including heart disease, diabetes, stroke, chirrosis, and of course drunk driving.

Homosexuality hurts no one. Unsafe sex can be harmful, but that applies to heterosexuals too, so it isn't a valid argument against gays.

You're going by the definition of sin that states that it has to be harmful to someone for it to be a sin? Do you throw out the "do not covet" part of the ten commandments as well?

An alcoholic runs the very real risk of killing someone while driving behind the wheel. What's a gay guy going to do, give you better fashion advice?

You don't have to be an alcoholic to drink and drive. And, again, sin doesn't have to hurt someone else in order for it be a sin.

There is no compelling reason on why homosexuality is a sin. Even if the sex portion of it is (and I don't believe it always is), being gay cannot and will never be a sin. Makes no logical sense.

There is biblical evidence that sexual immorality, anything outside of a marriage union by God's definition, is sin.

Homosexuality is only at the forefront of your mind, because gays are an easy target. Just like blacks used to be an easy target. Mark my word, in 50 years, homosexuality will be a non-issue, and the next generations will think our generation was absurd for arguing about it so much.

Homosexuality is not at the forefront of my mind. I don't obsess over it. I post about here because that's what the majority of the threads are about. But I don't lay awake at night wondering about homosexuality. Gays are not an easy target. They are sinners in need of a savior just like the rest of the world.

I don't personally know any gays that go around parading their sexuality, and one of my best friends is very openly gay.

That's great. I know many who do.

Maybe it has more to do with an attempt to make people recognize that gays exist, and are not second class citizens. No one needs to bring about the issue of heterosexuality, because it's common and heteros are not treated like aliens from another planet.

If that's what they're going for, they're failing miserably. I participated in an interview awhile back and the applicant casually dropped into conversation that he was gay. My boss at the time felt he had to hire that person because he didn't want a lawsuit on his hands. A month later, the new hire stunk at his job and couldn't do what we needed him to do, so he was fired. He tried to sue on the basis of sexual discrimination. He shouldn't have gotten the job in the first place.

Hairy Tic · Sep 5, 2010

onemorequestion said:
Jesus. as "The Rock" is FROM the Bible.

If by that you mean Jesus is what Christians believe Him to be, & that the Bible helps to show this, that may be debatable for all sorts of reasons, but (for the sake of argument) I'll concede the point If you would clarify what you intend, that would help.

It is not a catchy slogan of political correctness.

Is anyone advocating PC in this thread ?

In fact, Jesus and His followers are the least politically crowd organization of all time. Per Jesus.

My application of the Rock metaphor depends on having faith in Christ, which is like a prism through which the meaning of the OT is seen. You too are a Christian, so you too see Jesus as the Rock. The opponents of Jesus, not seeing Jesus in the same light as Christians do, saw him as a Very Bad Thing. And Scripture:
(a) did not lead them to do otherwise;
(b) contains a lot that can be used to show Jesus is a Very Bad Thing.
(c) gave Biblical proof that He was a Very Bad Thing. The OT, their Bible, shows Him in one light to believers, & shows Him as a sort of AntiChrist figure to His opponents.

That is the picture of Him in St. Matthew that the Pharisees & scribes have: Jesus is seen as a false Messiah. And the OT led them to that conclusion. That is what the Bible can do - it can show that Christ is a liar, a blasphemer, a deceiver, a seducer of the People, unclean, accursed (the man was crucified, "hanged on a tree"; & Deut.21.23 calls everyone who is hanged on a tree accursed). And this accursed, blasphemous, Temple-destroying, Law-breaking Enemy of God, is the Saviour. How can a God Who is great enough to become one with His own - sinful - creatures be contained in a book ? According to the OT:

He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD. (Proverbs 17:15)

But:

Rom 4:4 Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due.
Rom 4:5 And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.
Rom 4:6 So also David pronounces a blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works:

God is therefore an abomination to Himself, for the righteous & Law-abiding Pharisees are condemned, & the unclean Gentile dogs, the Law-breakers, harlots & tax-collectors are justified.

Or there is Habakkuk 1.13:

Thou who art of purer eyes than to behold evil and canst not look on wrong, why dost thou look on faithless men, and art silent when the wicked swallows up the man more righteous than he?

What was Jesus doing when He fraternised with Romans (read: occupying troops), who were idolaters not JHWH-worshippers, & all those other folk condemned by the OT ?

And if they were were good enough for Him, despite the OT - how can their modern equivalents not be good enough for their fellow-Christians ? Christians wonder whether they should even have gay people as friends; I know this, because I've seen threads on it. But how are homosexuals any worse than Samaritans, or Roman soldiers, or that woman with "an issue of blood" (= gonorrhoea (?)) who touched Jesus in the crowd, & thereby made Him unclean ? And how are Christians entitled not to fraternise with those they call sinners ? Is it usual for Christians to fraternise with them ?

"But what about preaching repentance ?" Jesus did that - what He did not do, was to stand at a safe distance from those he preached to; He got stuck in instead, & treated people as human beings, not as conversion-fodder. He did not demean them, but did treat them as friends. Is that the usual behaviour of Christians ? Friendship is a form of love - but how much preaching of repentance is an expression of love ? Telling people to repent is not enough - they need to know they are cared for, rather than preached at by "Bible-bashers". For that is how Christian preaching is too often perceived, not w/o reason. Or don't Christians know why atheists (for instance) often find Christians self-righteous ?

As for the other points you raise, I think you may have missed the point I'm trying to make: that the Bible, & obeying it, & seeking very earnestly to obey God, can lead to disobeying & denying & rejecting God - in Himself, or as present in our neighbour. Only God can save us: from the grace He has given us, from our attempts to obey Him, from our reverence for the Bible, & from the Bible itself. However paradoxical that may sound.

Sorry about the length.

AngelusSax · Sep 5, 2010

If that's what they're going for, they're failing miserably. I participated in an interview awhile back and the applicant casually dropped into conversation that he was gay. My boss at the time felt he had to hire that person because he didn't want a lawsuit on his hands. A month later, the new hire stunk at his job and couldn't do what we needed him to do, so he was fired. He tried to sue on the basis of sexual discrimination. He shouldn't have gotten the job in the first place.

Unfortunately, too many people do that, whether on sexual orientation grounds, or race grounds, or what-have-you. There are many people who try and take situations beyond what the core is calling for. I hate when anyone gets hired because they happen to be either gay, black, hispanic, a female, or... well, insert anything else in there. Job qualifications shouldn't include that stuff, and legally it isn't supposed to, but... unfortunately, many people fear being labeled as discriminatory so they over-non-discriminate.

Still, I'm not sure how this means "they" are failing miserably. Some will "casually mention" they are gay, but most of the people I know who are gay aren't open about it, and won't bring it up, even if it could conceivably "help" them at that moment.

But then, maybe that's just a local area culture thing.

I thought DADT was repealed...what was all the fuss about it earlier this year?

If I remember right, it sort of was repealed. I think it was "recommended" that it be repealed, but there's a further study the Pentagon is going to do to figure out how and when to implement it... so it's heading towards being repealed, but AFAIK, there's enough time allotted in the study to allow for a new president and congress to come in and "recommend" the repeal of the repeal... or something.

Jase · Sep 5, 2010

PreachersWife2004 said:
I would read the EOE's guildelines for sexual discrimination to at least open the door to forbidding it. I think the reason why there hasn't been any firmer response is because there are many religious organizations who would not hire a gay person because it directly goes against what that church believes. On the same token, they wouldn't hire an "active" alcoholic, either.

They wouldn't hire a gay person, merely for being gay? Even if he happened to be celibate or married to a woman? I find that absolutely disgusting.

I thought DADT was repealed...what was all the fuss about it earlier this year?

No it hasn't. There has just been a push from some at the Pentagon to do it, since we're the only NATO country who don't allow gays to openly serve, and no other country's military has collapsed, because of it.

But that's not exclusive to the gay culture. And you just made two separate events out of one event.

I may be wrong, but I thought it was two different schools in Mississippi. Ironically, it occurred in the most obese state in the country. Lots of hypocrisy there, that's for sure....

Care to cite this somehow? How does a homosexual feel differently at 3 than a heterosexual?

Homosexuality and Sexual Orientation - Children and Homosexuality - Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society

Though children gain a gender identity sometime between one and two years old, they do not yet have a sense of gender constancy. A little boy may believe, for example, that at some later point in life he will be a girl. Even though the overwhelming majority of children soon realize this is an error, many keep wishing they were of the opposite sex and try to act like they are, and this seems to be a strong disposing factor for later transsexualism and homosexuality.

You're going by the definition of sin that states that it has to be harmful to someone for it to be a sin? Do you throw out the "do not covet" part of the ten commandments as well?

Not necessarily, although I think intent is an important part of morality. One can't keep desire out of their head. Of course, you don't follow all of the commandments, so I don't know why you expect me to abide by them.

There is biblical evidence that sexual immorality, anything outside of a marriage union by God's definition, is sin.

Sorry, I don't buy the whole Biblical definition of marriage. It doesn't exist, and never has. God originally supported incestuous marriage and polygamy. Marriage has always been a business arrangement, usually arranged by family members. In the Old Testament, women were nothing more than property.

The whole modern day version of "Christian marriage" that you cling to, has not been around very long. Romantic love and ceremony were never requirements for marriage. The first "wedding" of sorts, wasn't until the 9th Century. The early church fathers in general opposed marriage, and considered it misery and completely inferior to celibacy. Cyprian, the Bishop of Carthage, said the command to multiply was no longer necessary, therefore invalidating marriage. Martin Luther called marriage a "worldly thing" and gave it over to the state to handle, since it was not something the church should be involved in. It wasn't until John Calvin that marriage required both state license, and be performed in a church. Catholics then added witnesses being required.

I don't know where you got your concept of marriage from, but it's neither Biblical or historical. For the 1st 1500 years of Christianity, marriage was never viewed how you view it.

CreedIsChrist · Sep 6, 2010

Anglican, Catholic and Lutheran are known history wide as "mainstream." All are dealing with unwanted gay activism demanding that gay marriage be celebrated "in the Church." That's as mainstream an example as there can be.

While gay marriage will never be allowed in the Catholic Church, it is already allowed in many Lutheran and Anglican groups. In fact the anglican community is in a horrible schism because of this and the Lutherans, especially the ELCA,have already allowed women pastors and gay weddings. In fact the episcopal community is one blaring reason of homosexuality being forced into an ecclesiastic community..I don't think many need to bring up Gene Robinson. And it dosen't stop there, even baptist, Presbyterian, and Methodist Churches are allowing this too. Many already have women pastors.

It seems the only areas that won't be effected are the apostolic Churches,(Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental/Coptic, etc). on the protestant side maybe a few independent baptist churches and non-denominational.

The whole modern day version of "Christian marriage" that you cling to, has not been around very long. Romantic love and ceremony were never requirements for marriage. The first "wedding" of sorts, wasn't until the 9th Century. The early church fathers in general opposed marriage, and considered it misery and completely inferior to celibacy. Cyprian, the Bishop of Carthage, said the command to multiply was no longer necessary, therefore invalidating marriage. Martin Luther called marriage a "worldly thing" and gave it over to the state to handle, since it was not something the church should be involved in. It wasn't until John Calvin that marriage required both state license, and be performed in a church. Catholics then added witnesses being required.

I cannot even begin to address the amount of errors in this post.

The Fathers didn't oppose marriage. They considered celibacy a higher call and was considered more honorable, but marriage was never condemned or considered misery and invalid. Celibacy was considered a higher call but they knew that many would not be able to handle it. Read Ambrose's letter concerning virgins. Marriage always remained a sacrament, even before the Council of Trent. lastly the first recorded rite of marriage wasn't until the 9th century. Your forgetting all the marriages that existed before then that weren't recorded. if it was such a small thing as you say, St. Augustine would not have praised the institution as much and wrote about it as much as he did, nor Ambrose. The Church still had a rite for marriage long before the 9th century..

The Fathers believed that marriage was a sacrament because it was a symbol used by Paul to express Christ's love of the Church. However, there was also an apocalyptic dimension in his teaching, and he was clear that if everybody stopped marrying and having children that would be an admirable thing; it would mean that the Kingdom of God would return all the sooner and the world would come to an end

Some Fathers of the Church considered advocated celibacy and virginity as preferable alternatives to marriage. Jerome wrote: "It is not disparaging wedlock to prefer virginity. No one can make a comparison between two things if one is good and the other evil.

"St. John Chrysostom wrote: "...virginity is better than marriage, however good.... Celibacy is...an imitation of the angels.
Therefore, virginity is as much more honorable than marriage, as the angel is higher than man. But why do I say angel? Christ, Himself, is the glory of virginity

The Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him"...and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the ribor "side" he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Phinehas2 · Sep 6, 2010

Hairy Tic,
Jesus also said to people, do what the Pharisees teach but don’t do what they do.
Perhaps if the Pharisees had known the spirit of the OT law and prophets they would have recognised Jesus.
But onemorequestion is correct, this is typical liberalism, to freely and accurately discuss one aspect and a passage of scripture that poses no threat to liberalism whilst avoiding the clear passages excluding and condemning of homosexuality; which is a humanistic approach.

Phinehas2 · Sep 6, 2010

Hairy Tic,
Jesus also said to people, do what the Pharisees teach but dont do what they do.
Perhaps if the Pharisees had known the spirit of the OT law and prophets they would have recognised Jesus.
But onemorequestion is correct, this is typical liberalism, to freely and accurately discuss one aspect and a passage of scripture that poses no threat to liberalism whilst avoiding the clear passages excluding and condemning of homosexuality; which is a humanistic approach.

Forcing the Chruch to accept homosexuality..

by his wounds we are healed

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Faithful Servant & Seminary Student

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Active Member

AKA: Tom - Saved By Grace Through Faith

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

by his wounds we are healed

Well-Known Member

Believe

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Phinehas2

Guest

Phinehas2

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency