Homosexuality, Bisexuality, and Transvestism

[CrystalDragon]

If they're proud that they have someone to love, then why do they need a parade labeled as "gay pride" if it's not about that? If a person is proud of the person they love, they usually brag to their friends that this man or woman is their husband or wife. Marching in a parade that goes by the name of Gay Pride (never mind the things we see people doing in them) indicates something different. I could love my dog, my dad, and the girl next door, but it wouldn't cause me to take part in a gay pride parade.

I think the reason for the Gay Pride name is because in the past being gay has lead to people being bullied, discriminated against, and possibly killed (IIRC on that last one). The parades are called "gay pride" because they're showing that you don't have to worry about being killed or beaten up (or at least you shouldn't have to worry about that) for liking someone of the same gender.

Do I feel like gay pride parades are done too much? Sure, I do think it's a bit overblown. But I think the reason for them is to have a kind of "you're not alone, be proud of who you are" thing. Like conventions, but, a parade.

 

[Aldebaran]

I think the reason for the Gay Pride name is because in the past being gay has lead to people being bullied, discriminated against, and possibly killed (IIRC on that last one). The parades are called "gay pride" because they're showing that you don't have to worry about being killed or beaten up (or at least you shouldn't have to worry about that) for liking someone of the same gender.

Do I feel like gay pride parades are done too much? Sure, I do think it's a bit overblown. But I think the reason for them is to have a kind of "you're not alone, be proud of who you are" thing. Like conventions, but, a parade.

Well, I'm still of the opinion, based on what I've read in scripture, that homosexuality isn't something that those who name Christ as lord and savior should be proud of, but rather repentant of.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Well, I'm still of the opinion, based on what I've read in scripture, that homosexuality isn't something that those who name Christ as lord and savior should be proud of, but rather repentant of.

Scripture only spoke of homosexual acts (which I don't agree with because that's not what sex is for). It says nothing about chaste attraction though. Plus it's understandable that in biblical times they might be against homosexuality in any form, whether chaste or not, because in that time period there really weren't too many people. Now there are over 7.5 billion of us and if gay people are 2% of the population—which is about the same statistic as the amount of people who have red hair—that's 150 million people. Not a lot but a decent number.

 

[Aldebaran]

Scripture only spoke of homosexual acts (which I don't agree with because that's not what sex is for). It says nothing about chaste attraction though. Plus it's understandable that in biblical times they might be against homosexuality in any form, whether chaste or not, because in that time period there really weren't too many people. Now there are over 7.5 billion of us and if gay people are 2% of the population—which is about the same statistic as the amount of people who have red hair—that's 150 million people. Not a lot but a decent number.

The logic that you're using about population and reproduction seems to indicate that you think what we're told in the bible has become somehow outdated based on population. If that was the case, then even things like murder could become scripturally acceptable because there are over 7.5 billion of us, and a few won't be missed. But in reality, there are much higher reasons that God has for giving us such guidelines, and those reasons are beyond the reasons the laws of the land are made here on earth for everyone to follow.

 

[-V-]

Plus it's understandable that in biblical times they might be against homosexuality in any form, whether chaste or not, because in that time period there really weren't too many people. Now there are over 7.5 billion of us and if gay people are 2% of the population—which is about the same statistic as the amount of people who have red hair—that's 150 million people. Not a lot but a decent number.

Because there's not too many people? So, there's a higher population now, so homosexual acts are ok. Heck, we might as well allow murder now, too. There's over 7.5 billion of us. Having a few knocked off wouldn't matter much.

Further, the idea that "people in Biblical times were against it" is from the viewpoint that Scripture is NOT divinely inspired. Rather, it's nothing more than the thoughts and feelings of the people who wrote it. God isn't actually against homosexual acts, it's just the people who penned the Bible who were against it.

 

[CrystalDragon]

The logic that you're using about population and reproduction seems to indicate that you think what we're told in the bible has become somehow outdated based on population. If that was the case, then even things like murder could become scripturally acceptable because there are over 7.5 billion of us, and a few won't be missed. But in reality, there are much higher reasons that God has for giving us such guidelines, and those reasons are beyond the reasons the laws of the land are made here on earth for everyone to follow.

Because there's not too many people? So, there's a higher population now, so homosexual acts are ok. Heck, we might as well allow murder now, too. There's over 7.5 billion of us. Having a few knocked off wouldn't matter much.

Further, the idea that "people in Biblical times were against it" is from the viewpoint that Scripture is NOT divinely inspired. Rather, it's nothing more than the thoughts and feelings of the people who wrote it. God isn't actually against homosexual acts, it's just the people who penned the Bible who were against it.

I think you guys are both twisting my words here.

What I meant was I was linking homosexuality to population growth in particular because sexuality is directly related to reproduction or lack thereof. I wouldn't make the same argument for eating shellfish. Which the Bible also calls an abomination, by the way. You don't see people criticizing or hating that, do you? No, people gloss over it.

Murder is wrong (though if we go by the Bible it's perfectly okay if God tells you to) because it infringes on another's life, their liberty, and happiness because it, you now, kills them. While homosexual acts are wrong, committed chaste relationships can relate to someone's pursuit of happiness that doesn't harm people like murder.

As for Scripture being divinely inspired, I can't say I think it's divinely inspired. There's far too many "of the day" viewpoints in it, the view of God changed, and the Gospels were written decades later by people who it doesn't seem were even there at the time (it just says "Jesus said to his disciples", not "Jesus said to me and the other disciples" or "and Jesus said to us", whereas Paul's letters show a distincy 1-st person perspective indicating he was there.)

 

[Aldebaran]

I think you guys are both twisting my words here.

What I meant was I was linking homosexuality to population growth in particular because sexuality is directly related to reproduction or lack thereof. I wouldn't make the same argument for eating shellfish. Which the Bible also calls an abomination, by the way. You don't see people criticizing or hating that, do you? No, people gloss over it.

Murder is wrong (though if we go by the Bible it's perfectly okay if God tells you to) because it infringes on another's life, their liberty, and happiness because it, you now, kills them. While homosexual acts are wrong, committed chaste relationships can relate to someone's pursuit of happiness that doesn't harm people like murder.

As for Scripture being divinely inspired, I can't say I think it's divinely inspired. There's far too many "of the day" viewpoints in it, the view of God changed, and the Gospels were written decades later by people who it doesn't seem were even there at the time (it just says "Jesus said to his disciples", not "Jesus said to me and the other disciples" or "and Jesus said to us", whereas Paul's letters show a distincy 1-st person perspective indicating he was there.)

I wasn't attempting to twist your words, but rather indicate what my understanding of your words is. Perhaps a better analogy than murder would be prostitution. If two people were to have sexual relations with each other without marriage, and then go out and have sex with other people as well on a regular basis, God has a problem with that and says so in multiple places in scripture. By today's earthly standards, it could be said that two consenting people can do whatever they want with each other. But if we're obeying a higher set of standards, understanding that we're accountable to God rather than just the police and the courts, then we live according to that higher standard.

 

[keith99]

I think the reason for the Gay Pride name is because in the past being gay has lead to people being bullied, discriminated against, and possibly killed (IIRC on that last one). The parades are called "gay pride" because they're showing that you don't have to worry about being killed or beaten up (or at least you shouldn't have to worry about that) for liking someone of the same gender.

Do I feel like gay pride parades are done too much? Sure, I do think it's a bit overblown. But I think the reason for them is to have a kind of "you're not alone, be proud of who you are" thing. Like conventions, but, a parade.

If only it were in the past. A couple of months ago I went to a presentation given by the LAPD and hosted by a local gay leather organization about reporting hate incidents and what to do if in an active shooter situation. Very informative BTW. At least in California if you call 911 do it from a land line if possible. If you call from a cell it has an extra step of going to the CHP before it gets forwarded to your local police department. The time difference could cost you your life.

Anyway afterwards they usually go to a local gay bar, the thing is because of construction they have to part a couple of blocks away and enough men have been attacked that the suggestion is to not walk alone. Things are getting better, but gays being targeted is not a thing of the past.

 

[Phil 1:21]

As for Scripture being divinely inspired, I can't say I think it's divinely inspired. There's far too many "of the day" viewpoints in it, the view of God changed, and the Gospels were written decades later by people who it doesn't seem were even there at the time (it just says "Jesus said to his disciples", not "Jesus said to me and the other disciples" or "and Jesus said to us", whereas Paul's letters show a distincy 1-st person perspective indicating he was there.)

Paul was not an apostle and follower of Christ until he met Jesus on the road to Damascus, where he was going to hunt down Christians several years after the crucifixion and resurrection. Paul was not with Jesus during His ministry, but received his Gospel via diving revelation.

 

[CrystalDragon]

I wasn't attempting to twist your words, but rather indicate what my understanding of your words is. Perhaps a better analogy than murder would be prostitution. If two people were to have sexual relations with each other without marriage, and then go out and have sex with other people as well on a regular basis, God has a problem with that and says so in multiple places in scripture. By today's earthly standards, it could be said that two consenting people can do whatever they want with each other. But if we're obeying a higher set of standards, understanding that we're accountable to God rather than just the police and the courts, then we live according to that higher standard.

I get what you mean with the prostitution thing, but my thing in saying gay people shouldn't be condemned is for relationships that are loving and committed that don't involve any sexual relations at all, in any way, whatsoever.

Paul was not an apostle and follower of Christ until he met Jesus on the road to Damascus, where he was going to hunt down Christians several years after the crucifixion and resurrection. Paul was not with Jesus during His ministry, but received his Gospel via diving revelation.

I actually forgot about that, thanks. What I'm saying though is that Paul was involved in some form in the sense that he appeared to have divine revelation. The Gospel writers wrote as if they were part of a third party who had no interaction with Jesus or those who knew him and had no divine intervention.

If only it were in the past. A couple of months ago I went to a presentation given by the LAPD and hosted by a local gay leather organization about reporting hate incidents and what to do if in an active shooter situation. Very informative BTW. At least in California if you call 911 do it from a land line if possible. If you call from a cell it has an extra step of going to the CHP before it gets forwarded to your local police department. The time difference could cost you your life.

Anyway afterwards they usually go to a local gay bar, the thing is because of construction they have to part a couple of blocks away and enough men have been attacked that the suggestion is to not walk alone. Things are getting better, but gays being targeted is not a thing of the past.

You have a point that unfortunately it does still happen. But I think luckily it's getting less common now.

 

[-V-]

I think you guys are both twisting my words here.

What I meant was I was linking homosexuality to population growth in particular because sexuality is directly related to reproduction or lack thereof.

That explanation doesn't show any twisting on our part. In fact, it seems to reinforce our counter-argument. You seem, once again, to say homosexuality was wrong then but fine now because there's more people. So homosexuals not having offspring doesn't hurt the population as much. That is the SAME justification we gave that murder should be ok. There's enough people around that a few getting knocked off know and then doesn't hurt our overall numbers as much.

I wouldn't make the same argument for eating shellfish. Which the Bible also calls an abomination, by the way. You don't see people criticizing or hating that, do you? No, people gloss over it.

We "gloss over it" because the new covenant (what Christians are bound by) doesn't have such dietary restrictions. The new covenant *DOES*, however, still condemn homosexual acts.

Murder is wrong (though if we go by the Bible it's perfectly okay if God tells you to) because it infringes on another's life, their liberty, and happiness because it, you now, kills them. While homosexual acts are wrong, committed chaste relationships can relate to someone's pursuit of happiness that doesn't harm people like murder.

Well, *SOME* Christians tend to think GOD gets to determine what rights we have. You apparently don't accept God's sovereignty, though.

As for Scripture being divinely inspired, I can't say I think it's divinely inspired. There's far too many "of the day" viewpoints in it, the view of God changed, and the Gospels were written decades later by people who it doesn't seem were even there at the time (it just says "Jesus said to his disciples", not "Jesus said to me and the other disciples" or "and Jesus said to us", whereas Paul's letters show a distincy 1-st person perspective indicating he was there.)

It must be nice when you can pick & choose what you like and make the Bible a spiritual/moral buffet.

 

[Aldebaran]

I get what you mean with the prostitution thing, but my thing in saying gay people shouldn't be condemned is for relationships that are loving and committed that don't involve any sexual relations at all, in any way, whatsoever.

I'm not sure what kind of relationship gay people would have that would involve romance and marriage but not involve sex. I've been in relationships with other guys, but we called each other friends. Friends can be loving and committed and not be gay. So when 2 guys refer to themselves as gay, and also want to be considered married to each other, it's difficult to envision something that doesn't involve sex. If it's not sexual, then they'd would have no problem being a couple of friends who decide to be roommates.

 

[CrystalDragon]

That explanation doesn't show any twisting on our part. In fact, it seems to reinforce our counter-argument. You seem, once again, to say homosexuality was wrong then but fine now because there's more people. So homosexuals not having offspring doesn't hurt the population as much. That is the SAME justification we gave that murder should be ok. There's enough people around that a few getting knocked off know and then doesn't hurt our overall numbers as much.

That's not entirely what I was intending, and I suppose I worded it incorrectly. Homosexual acts are still wrong, since sex is supposed to be for procreation. But homosexual minor attraction is never touched on. there's no mention in the Bible of that, just "if a man lies with a man as with a woman", which again, is an act.

We "gloss over it" because the new covenant (what Christians are bound by) doesn't have such dietary restrictions. The new covenant *DOES*, however, still condemn homosexual acts.

Yes, it condemns homosexual ACTS. Nothing is said about chase attraction and romantic feelings. All too often people lump the two together.

Well, *SOME* Christians tend to think GOD gets to determine what rights we have. You apparently don't accept God's sovereignty, though.

Here's the thing, the Bible was written over centuries with different viewpoints of God, salvation, the afterlife, etc. developing over time. You don't even have to look into the history of the Bible to see that, it's in the Bible itself. Not to mention some books were added ore removed from the Bible over time, and not every denomination has the same set of books, which means that some denominations have books that others don't consider the word of God. And God hasn't really come to clarify to everyone which precise version of the Bible is true, if any. People of different denominations have claimed "God told me that my version of the Bible/my denomination is the One True Way". They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

It must be nice when you can pick & choose what you like and make the Bible a spiritual/moral buffet.

People do that all the time. Jesus even said that no word from The Law (the Old Covenant) shall pass away), and anyone who tells others to set aside the least of those will be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:18-19). So if we go by what Jesus appears to have said in the Bible, then the Old Covenant is still valid, which means by Jesus's admission (according to the Bible assuming the one who wrote the Gospel of Matthew got Jesus's words correct) we should still be doing those. But people say "the Old Covenant no longer applies".

I'm not sure what kind of relationship gay people would have that would involve romance and marriage but not involve sex. I've been in relationships with other guys, but we called each other friends. Friends can be loving and committed and not be gay. So when 2 guys refer to themselves as gay, and also want to be considered married to each other, it's difficult to envision something that doesn't involve sex. If it's not sexual, then they'd would have no problem being a couple of friends who decide to be roommates.

Hey, I want to get married someday but I never want to have sex ever. Not ever marriage has to involve that. And if every marriage does then I guess I can never get married. But some people get married who are infertile and can't have kids anyway, so they probably don't have sex, and they can be happy and no one says "Oh, you're infertile and/or don't have sex so you shouldn't be married!".

 

[Lily of Valleys]

The thing that wasn't okay in the Bible was same sex actions.

According to Jesus, you can commit a sin in your heart even if you haven't taken any external action.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:27-28)

 

[CrystalDragon]

According to Jesus, you can commit a sin in your heart even if you haven't taken any external action.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:27-28)

True, but "romantic crush" isn't the same thing as "lust". I got plenty of romantic crushes as a kid for instance but it certainly wasn't "lust".

 

[Lily of Valleys]

Hey, I want to get married someday but I never want to have sex ever. Not ever marriage has to involve that. And if every marriage does then I guess I can never get married. But some people get married who are infertile and can't have kids anyway, so they probably don't have sex, and they can be happy and no one says "Oh, you're infertile and/or don't have sex so you shouldn't be married!".

If you don't want to have sex, you may as well just live with someone you like as friends, why get married? Marriage according to Jesus is for a male and a female to become one flesh:

Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. (Mark 10:5-8)

 

[CrystalDragon]

If you don't want to have sex, you may as well just live with someone you like as friends, why get married? Marriage according to Jesus is for a male and a female to become one flesh:

Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. (Mark 10:5-8)

So people who love each other but are infertile or have no interest in sex shouldn't get married? Isn't it said that people should live together only if they're married though?

 

[-V-]

Here's the thing, the Bible was written over centuries with different viewpoints of God, salvation, the afterlife, etc. developing over time. You don't even have to look into the history of the Bible to see that, it's in the Bible itself.

So? "Differing viewpoints" doesn't mean they contradict or that any of it is untrue. "Developing" doesn't mean they contradict or that any of it is untrue. God didn't reveal every detail about Himself in one instant. He revealed different parts of Himself over time. No detail is less true than any other detail just because it was revealed at a different time.

Not to mention some books were added ore removed from the Bible over time, and not every denomination has the same set of books, which means that some denominations have books that others don't consider the word of God. And God hasn't really come to clarify to everyone which precise version of the Bible is true, if any. People of different denominations have claimed "God told me that my version of the Bible/my denomination is the One True Way". They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

That's like arguing, "since counterfeit money exists, we should think that all money is counterfeit."

People do that all the time. Jesus even said that no word from The Law (the Old Covenant) shall pass away), and anyone who tells others to set aside the least of those will be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:18-19). So if we go by what Jesus appears to have said in the Bible, then the Old Covenant is still valid, which means by Jesus's admission (according to the Bible assuming the one who wrote the Gospel of Matthew got Jesus's words correct) we should still be doing those. But people say "the Old Covenant no longer applies".

For one, that "people do it all the time" doesn't make it right. Second, that view of the old covenant (still being valid) is only reached by cherry picking verses out of context. So, you basically defended your buffet style Bible by once again treating the Bible as a buffet. That doesn't really work.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

So people who love each other but are infertile or have no interest in sex shouldn't get married?

There is a difference between the definition of marriage by the law of a country and what God intended. God has intended marriage to be between a male and a female, united to become one flesh. Sex is a design of God. Unless the person is asexual, most people would have sexual desire and would expect sex in a marriage, regardless if they are fertile or not.

Isn't it said that people should live together only if they're married though?

These days when people said "living together", they don't simply live together platonically, it means they are in a sexual relationship. When people said they should live together only if they are married, it means they should not have sex until they get married.

There is nothing wrong about living together without getting married as long as the two people are simply room mates and nothing more.

 

[Zoii]

Is it a sin that the whole LGBT thing just doesnt bother me at all?