Homosexual agenda

[juiblex]

It is a delight to compare the arguments used in these threads today with those used in mixed marriage legal cases fifty years ago.

the best thing about the analogy, is that people tout the 'interracial marriages cant be based on love' still today, and more and more people keep proving them wrong. it clearly shows how people can be prisoner to their beliefs despite overwhelming evidence otherwise.

or more succinctly, having your heart open to Jesus seems to have caused some to close their eyes.

they dont call it blind faith for nothing.

 

[Starscream]

Originally posted by juiblex
i would tell you, but i'd be banned.

I see what you're getting at, but I think that particular similarity between is being purposely avoided, or at least not being honestly researched.

 

[juiblex]

i was just joking seebs. there isnt a theory at all. well there is, but its more an opinion, and not what one would call ground-breaking.

 

[seebs]

Well, feel free to share it; I'd be curious.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by Starscream
Do you not see how this resembles racism praticed by so many white Christians in the past?

Yep.

Originally posted by seebs

It is a delight to compare the arguments used in these threads today with those used in mixed marriage legal cases fifty years ago.

Not to boast or anything, but I noticed that back in post #15. "The Homosexual Agenda" is just new packaging for the same old bigotry.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by Havoc
For the same reason one should not discard the KJV simply because King James was a homosexual.

Hey Havoc,

Reference please? (trivia buff)...

I see it now... sitting in the Who wants to Be a millionaire Chair...

and this question pops up.....

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by Outspoken
"Well, all of a sudden, we're back in the 1960s, now aren't we?"

BIG difference, you are not proven to be born homosexual yet and I doubt it ever will be so.

Some facts for you to consider:

From the Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology:

Through history, various theories have been proposed regarding the source and development of sexual orientation. Many scientists believe that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological, and social factors. In most cases, sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Many reports have been recorded by people recounting efforts to change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual with no success. For these reasons, psychologists believe that sexual orientation is not a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed. In addition, scientific research over 30 years confirms that homosexual orientation is not associated with emotional or social problems. Based on research conducted in the 1960s, psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals concluded that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder, or emotional problem.

............

There is no scientific evidence to support the idea that sexual orientation can be changed through therapy. Some well-meaning parents have sought therapy to help their child change his or her sexual orientation, especially when the admission of homosexuality seems to be causing the child great emotional pain. In fact, there have been reports of cases where such therapy was successful; however, several factors in these reports cause psychologists to question the results. First, none of these cases have been reported on by objective mental health researchers; rather, many of the reports about sexual orientation being changed through therapy have been generated by organizations who are ideologically opposed to homosexual orientation. In addition, the reports have not allowed for a realistic follow-up period. In 1990, the American Psychological Association stated that scientific evidence does not support conversion therapy; in fact, the evidence reveals that it can actually be psychologically damaging to attempt conversion. Sexual orientation is a complex component of one's personality not limited to sexual behavior. Altering sexual orientation is to attempt to alter a key aspect of the individual's identity.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by Starscream

It's remarkable how vile people that have promised themselves to an all-loving God can be towards others that are different.

1. The Klu-Klux-Klan (and their agenda)

2.  President Andrew Jackson (and his agenda of removal of the Southern Native Americans)  ... oh yeah..because gold was discovered in Georgia... oh yeah...thousands of Cherokee were marched to death (many were Christians)

3.  Slavery (remember that agenda?)  Funny that early Christians saw fit to 'own' other humans.

4. Woman shouldn't have the right to vote... (remember that agenda?)

5.  The persecution of the early Chinese immigrants to the United States.

and Christians now direct their hate towards homosexuals.... tsk, tsk....

I agree with a comment made by a very good friend of mine...It's hard for me to believe that we are of the same faith.

For those of you who sit in judgement.... walk in someone elses shoes who is 'different'... 

 

 

[Texas Lynn]

Originally posted by Outspoken
"Frankly, we did a lot better by the lepers. The establishment of houses for lepers, where they were fed and treated as well as anyone could manage, *that* was Christianity in action. "

Exactly, why? 1. you can't choose weather or not you're a leper, you contract a disease, ie you have no choice. 2. having this disease is not a sin
Both of these are not true for homosexuality.

The Leper parallel is quite apropos.  Lepres were considered "unclean" and to have become such because of sin.  Fifty years ago "cancer" was a word that was whispered because it was assumed to be disgraceful to have it.

Assumptions of "uncleanness" by homosexuals is also based on myth and ignorance.  James Dobson's Focus on the Family Citizen Magazine is a good example:  once they presented a graphic description of an unsafe and somewhat unwise sexual practice said to have been done at one time by two gay men according to one neighbor who heard about it, and the implication was all homosexuals do this several times every day therfore civil rights laws which allow them equal access to housing are wrong.  It is worth noting that in minority communities, prisons, etc., the exact role a male takes in homosexual acts is considered defining and a male who is passive is considered a 'punk' of low status but the other participant is often not.  Again, oppression leading to dysfunctional behavior and thought distortions.  Lesbians are usually ignored, disdained if we're ugly, or, if not sometimes seen as depriving some man of a sexual partner and disdained because of that. 

The "choice" argument is ultimately merely an uninformed opinion.  If one does not have homosexual orientation one cannot determine its cause.  Every person has a "love map" which determines to whom they are attracted.  I've always had the one I have.  Essentially the choice argument boils down to "I'm okay, you're not okay" and is essentially hot air.   

 

[seebs]

You have no idea how offended I am that you won't sleep with me. My wife agrees. You must be a very bad person.

To be strictly pedantic, I must grant that it is possible that all the gay people I have ever met are mistaken about how they came to be gay, and that some Christian conservatives have twigged to the underlying truth. I must, however, admit that I think this is "theoretically possible" in the same way that I believe it is "theoretically possible" that Neo is a Catholic whose sole function is to try to discredit "sola scriptura" by posting snippets of the Bible out of context. Other explanations strike me as better.

I personally think it's *just* as obvious that the judgements we see are arrogance and pride, and therefore sin... but that's my personal opinion, and it would be a particularly thorough form of hypocrisy for me to assert that my opinion is necessarily God's on this issue. It might not hurt for people to ask Him, though.

 

[Outspoken]

"That argument breaks down when you take into account the fact that people actually do *choose* to smoke and they are perfectly *aware* that they are hopelessly addicted to nicotene. "

LOL, addiction can be overcome, and should be in this case. That's why its a choice.

"The problem I see is that you assert, over and over and over that it is a choice when you have absolutely no experience whatsoever in this arena."

Invalid argument. You're saying that this is subjective truth when its not, sorry, try again.

"I do feel sorry for the homosexuals that know that some people will never except them the way they are. Don't you hold any compassion at all for their plight? Any at all?"

I hold a lot of compassion for them, for denying unnatural desires you have isn't easy, but you should because its sin. This is nothing like racism since you aren't born homosexual, its a choice. Period. Rant and rave all you want Star, but I won't accept sin and a right course of action. You might as well accuse me of being incompassionate to murders that say, I can't stop ruthlessly murdering people, i was born this way. Same principle.


"on what authority can you say that it is impossible for two people to be in love, because of their gender? "

Again an invalid comparison. People are born with skin color, heratage, etc, homosexuals choose to be that way. The type of "love" you describe is sinful and unnatural.

 

[Outspoken]

Its quite amazing how people love to discard a creditable position (homosexuality is sinful and a choice) by illogicall comparing it to a position(pro-slavery) that is clearly wrong according to the first positions points. It just shows me how people love to bury their head in the sand and atempt to justify their position of homosexuality is okay.

If I was to make a similar comparison, Accepting homosexuals is like accpeting murders or snuff tape makers it would be just illogical, but if that's the ground you wanna play on I can do that too.

" Lepres were considered "unclean" and to have become such because of sin"

LOL wrong-o People knew you could quickly catch it and thus they were seperated, they didn't call out "sinner" they called out unclean.

"The "choice" argument is ultimately merely an uninformed opinion. "

*sigh* Its amazing how quickly you want to put cotton in your ears and say, no no, its not true. So what about those classes? Can I get the texts you used? I too have taken quite a few texts on the study of christianty and related topics. I'm willing to bet, if you want to size it up, far more then you, so I see this as no reason to believe you or anyone else, nor should someone believe me because I've, "taken classes".

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Outspoken
Its quite amazing how people love to discard a creditable position (homosexuality is sinful and a choice) by illogicall comparing it to a position(pro-slavery) that is clearly wrong according to the first positions points. It just shows me how people love to bury their head in the sand and atempt to justify their position of homosexuality is okay.

That's funny. I feel the same way about people who bury their heads in the sand and attempt to justify their position that homosexuality is "wrong".

*shrug* You've got your sandbox, I've got mine, I guess.

 

[Outspoken]

"I feel the same way about people who bury their heads in the sand and attempt to justify their position that homosexuality is "wrong"."

No problem, I have the bible saying I'm right, and I'm satified as that is part of my justification. My head isnt in the sand, sorry

 

[Christina25]

Sure thing Outspoken, feel free to PM me and I'd be happy to send them to you. Or if you would rather me give you the titles so you can search for them in your local library I can do that too. I would however, like you to answer to what I put forth for you to examine. That the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was of not being hospitable and explain to me how homosexual can be used in modern versions of the Bible when the term was not even invented til the late 1800's. Also... explain to me why arsenkoite as used by Paul can be interpreted as 'homosexual'. You have sidestepped my arguments with personal attacks, but not with explanation of the facts stated. I am by far no expert, but I did further educate myself on the subject instead of sticking my head in the sand and hoping my sexuality would go away. It is not a choice like smoking... it is how a person is, just as you are heterosexual. I have memories as far back as age 5 of being attracted to females, although I didn't understand them at the time. Being straight would solve alot of my problems but it would deny what God made me, which to me is a bigger sin than the 'lifestyle' you call sin.

 

[Outspoken]

"explain to me how homosexual can be used in modern versions of the Bible when the term was not even invented til the late 1800's."

I really think this is irrelvant. The word "trinity" wasn't used until a certain time, just as the word "gravity" wasn't either, that doesn't make them any less true.

" It is not a choice like smoking"

Yes, it is. I made my choice and it looks like you made yours.

"Being straight would solve alot of my problems but it would deny what God made me"

No, it would show you that God can help you through the process, and that sinning is never a "right" action. I might have the same problem with drinking today if I didn't follow God's path.

 

[Starscream]

Originally posted by Outspoken
"I feel the same way about people who bury their heads in the sand and attempt to justify their position that homosexuality is "wrong"."

No problem, I have the bible saying I'm right, and I'm satified as that is part of my justification. My head isnt in the sand, sorry

Have men ever been "wrong" about what the Bible apparently says before?  You do realize that people have found plenty of scripture that supports slavery.

"Slaves, obey your masters" - do you agree with Paul's words?

 

[seebs]

Well, Outspoken has said before that all the people who believed the Bible condoned slavery were ignoring the Bible.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Originally posted by Outspoken
Its quite amazing how people love to discard a creditable position (homosexuality is sinful and a choice) by illogicall comparing it to a position(pro-slavery) that is clearly wrong according to the first positions points. It just shows me how people love to bury their head in the sand and atempt to justify their position of homosexuality is okay.

Not at all.  In the early 19th Century, the Bible was cited frequently by pro-slavery forces to justify their position, same as is done today by anti-gay hatemongers. 



 

 

[Starscream]

Originally posted by seebs
Well, Outspoken has said before that all the people who believed the Bible condoned slavery were ignoring the Bible.

Even the parts where the only righteous man on Earth codemns his son and lineage to slavery?  Even when the Bible tells us how close to death you can beat your slave, and still be okey-dokey (because they are, btw, *you're* property)?  Even when Paul tells slaves to obey their masters?

I'm sure to Outspoken and nearly everyone else in the 21st century that slavery is so obviously wrong, but he can't deny that Christians have practised it for nearly 18 hundred years, using sciprture (just like he does) as justification.

It's amazing when you think about it.  You're right about one thing, seebs, two people are bound to have this discussion 100 years from now:

open minded:  Why do you detest foo so much?  Can't you just leave foo alone?

close minded:  *sigh* I don't hate foo.  Some of my friends are foo.  I just hate their sin, which is a sin worse then other sins.  Do you see God approving of foo in the Bible.  No.  Besides, foo is completely unnatural.  Yep, foo is wrong.

 

open minded:  You sound just like those anti-gay Chrisitans of the past.

close minded:  wrong-o.   They weren't true Christians.  Better luck next time.  LOL!