• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Hey Who Believves In Homosexuality because i am christain post your beliefs!!!!!!!!!

Discussion in 'Archived - Ethics & Morality' started by mnmcandiez, Jul 11, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. sad astronaut

    sad astronaut Robot in Disguise

    488
    +23
    Protestant
    US-Republican
    Some of you have touched on this topic. I think that different people are prone to different sins, based on genetic makeup and environment. For example, I believe that alcoholism has some genetic factors, but it does not doom the person to alcoholism and it definitely does not give them license to be an alcoholic. I believe the same thing with homosexuality. Some people may be born with certain leanings or raised with a lack of same-sex role model, making some people more susceptible to homosexuality, but the person is not doomed to homosexuality.
     
  2. tcampen

    tcampen Veteran

    +141
    Unitarian
    Private
    US-Others
    Jedi: (my comment on the website) is just ad hominim attack.

    Me: True, but it is also the truth. The website begins with a predetermined premise of reality and what ought to be, then selects particular data to back up that predetermined premise. Its methodology is painfully transparent. (Is that better?)

    Jedi: Considering that such relationships are relatively few and far between when compared to heterosexual ones, it seems you’re just grasping at straws. (referring to homo versus hetero relationships)

    Me: I don't disagree that the percentages of successful, long-term relationships is better among hetero's that homosexuals. (see, I'm reasonable.) The reasons for this are complex. Part of it is due to the gay culture, but part is also due to the fact that society shuns these relationships. Think about it...if all of society shunned the marriage or commitment of men and women, what do you think would be the state of heterosexual relationships? The fact that the rate of long term, monogamous gay and lesbian relationships is very much on the rise from 10, 20, or 50 years ago is a testiment to this fact.
     
  3. Blindfaith

    Blindfaith God's Tornado

    +76
    Non-Denom
    [mod hat on]

    This is suppose to be a G-rated Christian website. There are a lot of young people who come here and read the threads. Some of the posts I've read here are pretty blatant, and crossing over the line.

    Clean it up, and keep it G-rated, or the entire thing will be closed and trashed. This will be the only warning this thread receives.

    Thank you.

    [mod hat off]
     
  4. tcampen

    tcampen Veteran

    +141
    Unitarian
    Private
    US-Others
    Fair enough.there's always a way to engage in civil discourse without using words innappropriate for the younger viewers. Tho I'm not entirely sure where the line is, I'll do my best to stay clear of it.
     
  5. Jedi

    Jedi Knight

    +137
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    But that still doesn’t disqualify the data as illegitimate. If someone gathers up gobs of evidence to support a given claim, it does not change the facts even though they might have held that position before they had the evidence.
     
  6. Kyubi-no-Youko

    Kyubi-no-Youko Well-Known Member

    52
    +0
    JEDI:

    There are homosexuals who would disagree with you on that. But beside this topic, which is still in debate, it is irrelevant. Once again, innate desires are not necessarily moral desires. Simply because someone was born with some homosexual urges is no more an excuse to act out upon them than a man who was born with a bad temper acting out on his anger simply because “This is the way I was born.”


    ME: You obviously didn't read my entire post, Master Jedi. Either that, or I didn't make myself clear. I said nothing about the issue of morality. Morality is learned, but sexuality isn't. I agree we aren't controlled by our urges...but that doesn't make those urges any less natural. unnnatural doesn't equal wrong and natural doesn't equal right, nor does unnatural equal right or natural equal wrong. There is no moral code in nature. The choice parts comes in acting out on these urges, which are not solely sexual desire.

    As for there being homosexuals who disagree with me. I should like to meet them. (I'm not asking you to provide them). If you will take the word of a homosexual who says it is a choice...why not take the word of one who says it is not?




    JEDI:

    And stealing something doesn’t make a person a thief. I suppose you could also be bi, but that's both heterosexual and homosexual urges compiled into one. Instead of being neither, you're both.

    ME:

    My point was a person is homosexual whether or not they having homosexual sex or get into a same sex relationship. Personally, I think everyone is bi..but some people just lean more to one side. ^^


    The point of the 'unnatural' arguement is that it doesn't work. As I said above, there are no moral standards in nature. Many will argue it is wrong because it is not natural or it is not natural because it is wrong. There's no point to this agruement because it is flawed.

    I just get the feeling that Christians feel a lot better convincing themselves it is a choice. Like they'd feel guilty if it was undeniably proven homosexuality was innate, natural, unchoosen, etc...
     
  7. Jedi

    Jedi Knight

    +137
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    I think “Jedi” will suffice. No need to be so formal. ;)

    Personally, I’ll take the latter.

    Again, this is still a topic of debate. Somehow I find it impossible to believe that a child growing up in a pro-homosexual environment wouldn’t be any more likely to become a homosexual than a child who grew up in a strictly heterosexual environment.

    Again, simply because you’re born with a given desire is no excuse to act out upon that desire.

    [qutoe]unnnatural[sic] doesn't equal wrong and natural doesn't equal right, nor does unnatural equal right or natural equal wrong.[/quote]

    It depends on what you define as “natural.” If by natural, you mean “what occurs in nature apart from the interference of man,” then you’re quite right. However, if by natural, we mean “What God originally intended,” it becomes a blatant moral issue.

    Because I see those who are still caught up in homosexuality as somewhat impaired, much like a person who was born with a bad temper yet still denies he has one. Being born with a tendency does not force you to follow that tendency or desire, nor does it mean that you cannot overcome it.

    Well, I’m sure you’ll have a lot of people disagreeing with you about their stance, but let me be the first to tell you what my stance really is: Straight. Not bi, not gay, but straight as an arrow.

    It works just fine, and should appeal especially to those who have a drop of talent in the world of puzzles. People ignoring it and brushing it off to the side doesn’t mean it doesn’t work any more than saying a medicine doesn’t work because a patient refused to take it.

    Then you’ve misunderstood the argument. I’ve stated that there are two arguments going on here: A rational rejection of homosexuality, and a moral one. The rational argument is the one concerning puzzle pieces, and that simply illustrates how the male & female were designed to be with each other specifically in that way, whereas that’s not the case in a homosexual relationship (they have to resort to other tactics because of the lack of compatibility). The moral argument has nothing to do with design, but rather, with decree from the ultimate authority concerning morality: God.

    Again, whether or not homosexual urges are innate or chosen is irrelevant. A man can be born with a bad temper, but simply because it’s innate does not mean he should act out on it whenever he so desires. I just get the feeling that pro-homosexuals feel a lot better convincing themselves it is not a choice, as if because a desire is innate, it must be good and that it’s impossible to overcome an innate desire (which is untrue).
     
  8. tcampen

    tcampen Veteran

    +141
    Unitarian
    Private
    US-Others
    Jedi: "Again, whether or not homosexual urges are innate or chosen is irrelevant."

    - Really? Then why all the talk about physical
    parts that are "designed" to fit between a male and female?

    The rallying cry of those who oppose gay rights was once based on the premise that homosexuality was unnatural. Now that the evidence casts serious doubt on that assumption, the rallying cry is, "it doesn't matter if its natural, it's still wrong." Boy, it sure would have saved a lot of heated debates if we could have cut to the chase long ago.

    If one believes homosexuality is wrong, an abomination, a sin, or whatever, based on religious convictions, then that's fine. We all choose to believe what we want, for whatever reason. (I do not accept the idea that "it's not what I believe, it what God says" position.) But even in an environment of disagreement, we must find common ground to exist harmoniously, and avoid creating an atmosphere that would justify in some people's minds doing great harm to those with whom there is disagreement.

    thank you all for the civil discourse
     
  9. Jedi

    Jedi Knight

    +137
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Because something innate can also be something that is bad (i.e. a bad temper). The desires of men also do not always reflect their intended purpose or place in the world.

    I still don’t think it’s “natural” in the sense that this is how God intended things to be. It appears to go on in nature given our world in its current condition, but more out of apathy rather than love. Like I said before, animals have an itch, and so they scratch – sometimes by any means necessary, whether the object of their pleasure is a human leg or another member of the same sex.

    You’re welcome. ;)
     
  10. Kyubi-no-Youko

    Kyubi-no-Youko Well-Known Member

    52
    +0
    Jedi: The point was Christians can be free to hate homosexuals for being born that way. There's no reason for them to play the 'choice' card.

    I also said I agree that we aren't ruled by our 'urges'. I accept there is a moral code for us humans, but such codes are not set in stone. If homosexuality was encouraged...even in the Bible and excepted then there wouldn't be any constroversy. Morality is learned. When you were little...if you're mother let you hit other kids you'd think it was OK to hit other kids. If you were reprimanded for hitting kids you'd know it was wrong. That doesn't mean you'd never have the urge to hit someone again..but you learn whether it is right or wrong.

    Now..with something like homosexuality. You can drill acceptance and tolerance or hatred and intolerance into someone as much as you want. It doesn't change a person's sexuality. Influence it to the point where they want or don't want to change it or repress it/accept it, maybe...

    I'm not against anyone wanting to change their sexuality if they aren't happy...as long as there's a safe way, of course ^^

    Point (ha! I knew you were somewhere in there!) I think it's both natural and a choice.

    And I've never heard pro-homosexuals say unchoosen=uncontrollable. If I did I'd laugh. That's silly. A lot of pro-homsexuals are left wing extremists radicals trying to get the gay vote...what with their hate crime laws and parades. They don't represent the majority.

    Sorry...rant from a conservative liberal XP We exist, you know ^^

    Back on morality...God/The Bible does not have the monopoly on morality *experiencing Deja vu* So that's the questionable point.

    As for the puzzle peices...this has been said before, but logically a lot of different 'peices' fit into other 'peices' (I'm not solely talking about the human body here). Just because the peices fit doesn't mean we have to fit them there. Just because a man's ***** fits inside my ****** doesn't mean I have to have one in there. Or just because I have the ability to make children doesn't mean I have to.

    So...where back to the natural/chosen action bit.

    Let's move to the moral point. Why does it have to be immoral? I've always figured it was because of the whole sodomy...can't get pregnant thing. But then there are so many double standards. I usually get it's wrong and disgusting. That's a matter of opinion...but...why? I usually get 'the bible'..then I wonder...of all the things going on in the world, why does God want to bother with homosexuals? Why give them so much heat? To say homosexuality is a sin and harmful is pointless because (in a consenting relationship) it harms no one. I see no point in calling it immoral when it harms no one. Just because it is different doesn't make it wrong.

    And other thing. Why do people who think being gay is disgusting, etc...always become so involved in it? It's not like they're being forced to. Most gays don't care about proven their homosexuality is natural/innate. They just know they are the way they are. We just want to live our lives in peace ^^

    Jedi: You said that you didn't accept the word of homosexuals because you thought they were 'impaired'...or words to that effect. So, then it would be OK for me to say I don't accept the word of anti-gays and/or straights on their opinions of gays because they are blinded by stereotypes and prejudices and have never experienced being gay so they can only possibly have an empathetic (?) idea of what it feels like?

    Gah...I hope I'm making sense. It's 6am here and I'm tired.

    I may clean this up if I actually read it and it doesn't make sense.
     
  11. Kyubi-no-Youko

    Kyubi-no-Youko Well-Known Member

    52
    +0
    Why aren't we allowed to use medical terms here?
     
  12. Blindfaith

    Blindfaith God's Tornado

    +76
    Non-Denom
    It depends on what your definition of "medical term" is.

    We have 12 year olds who read these threads, and not all parents want their kids to read the details. Me for one of them. I'd rather my kids get their education from me and not a messageboard.

    Just keep it clean and the thread can stay open until it dies out.

    Thanks all.
     
  13. Kyubi-no-Youko

    Kyubi-no-Youko Well-Known Member

    52
    +0
    blindfaith: I meant certain reproductive organs. what words are we allowed to use in place of them, then?

    Personally, I'd rather my children use the correct terms/read the correct terms. Bleeping them out makes it sound like they are dirty words...and there are much dirtier words that could be used-such as the name of a male chicken and a type of mexican food.

    But..that's a different subject...
     
  14. foolsparade

    foolsparade Well-Known Member

    +24
    Atheist
    This is a Christian site! no medical terms please!! :D
     
  15. tcampen

    tcampen Veteran

    +141
    Unitarian
    Private
    US-Others
    Yea, I sorta got dinged for using some of those words too. So from now on, lets use ******* instead of the actual words, and we'll just have to gleen from the context what we're taking about. Sure it may cause a little confusion, but hey, that's half the fun. ;)

    (hey, just having a little fun, that's all)
     
  16. Blindfaith

    Blindfaith God's Tornado

    +76
    Non-Denom
    ;) At least you have a sense of humor tcampen. ;)
     
  17. Jedi

    Jedi Knight

    +137
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Of course, but that’s like saying “If bad was good, there would be nothing wrong with doing bad.”

    Quite right, but this doesn’t take away from the argument. Refraining from jamming two puzzle pieces together that weren’t designed to go together doesn’t mean you’re then somehow obligated to put two together that were designed for each other. The third option is to do neither: abstinence. It is to leave the field of sex altogether.

    Because the ultimate authority concerning morality, that is, God, said it is. In this case, we have goodness itself denouncing homosexual activity.

    Naw, I don’t agree with that line of reasoning. If that’s what made it wrong, I would think contraceptives should be classified as immoral as well, as well as having sexual intercourse with one’s wife when she is no longer able to bear children.

    Heh, coincidentally, I was talking about a friend over AIM about this as I was typing this reply to you. She said that exact same thing. :)

    Because He loves them & wants the best for them.

    Their homosexual actions are condemned, but this does not mean they are any more condemned by God than I am for lying, cheating, or lusting after women. I think often times, people think God hates homosexuals. This is untrue. I’m guilty of sin just like the homosexual is; we’re in the same boat – in need of a savior.

    This is the atheistic basis of morality: If it doesn’t hurt anyone, it’s permissible. This is nonsensical. Suppose I’m walking in a crowd of people and a man tries to trip me, but fails. Then another man trips me up, but in this case, it is an accident. Now after I came to my senses, I would be more upset with the man who tried to trip me but failed than the man who did trip me by accident, although the second has hurt me and the first has not. It seems there’s more to morality than just “did it hurt someone or not.” The Christian basis of morality goes beyond such a basic philosophy and goes straight to the source of morality: God.

    The same could almost be said about those who do drugs in the privacy of their own home. If it concerns only them, why bother, right? Jesus answered this for us by telling us that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves (Luke 10:27-28), and I could not simply turn a blind eye to a loved one’s actions if they were clearly contrary to the will of God.

    That’s not what is at stake here. We are talking about practicing homosexuals who say they cannot change versus ex-homosexuals saying that it’s possible. It is like a man at the bottom of a cliff saying, “It can’t be done” whereas there is also a man who started at the same point, climbed the mountain, and is saying, “It can be done.” The accomplishment of the second man is proof that it can be done, although it does not mean the journey is easy.
     
  18. Philostratus

    Philostratus Member

    107
    +0
    Agnostic
    Q: What did Jesus ever say about homosexuals?

    A: Nothing.
     
  19. Jedi

    Jedi Knight

    +137
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    That's not entirely true. Since Christ is God, and all of scripture is Godbreathed (2 Timothy 3:16), then what the Bible teaches against & what it promotes is as good as Christ's words, and as I've posted here earlier, scripture (both the New and Old Testament) clearly speaks against homosexual activity.
     
  20. Kyubi-no-Youko

    Kyubi-no-Youko Well-Known Member

    52
    +0
    Jedi: That's because there is a rational reason why you should be mad at the man who tripped you/tried to trip you.

    There's no rational reason to hate homosexuals. There may be one to dislike homosexuality, but that's only opinion.

    Of course, when dealing with the Bible anything is logical. If God said to stand on your head until you pass out it would be logical because God said it. Or something like that XP

    The 'it harms none' agruement does work. Let's say I said it was immoral to wear yellow. Wouldn't you think 'that's silly it doesn't hurt anyone?' (save for Xanthophobics) or something alone those lines. I'm sitting here, typing at my computer, being gay...how am I hurting anyone? I'm a good person, a tax paying citizen, a religious person, etc..etc...and yet I'm condemned for thinking Kelly Rowland from Destiny's Child is pretty? Where is the logic in that?

    I think the choice part usually comes up in:

    "Why would we choose to be homosexual knowing we are going to be hated and feared and abused?"

    Just me, it's not just for kicks.

    You know...I read somewhere (maybe it was on here, I don't remember) that someone said 'If homosexuals are so worried about being hated and abused, then they should stop being homosexual'

    As for the changing part. I've said already, I have nothing against people who want to change and who have. Right now though there is no 100% proven safe way to do so. .5% of those cases come out Ok. The rest don't.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...