Homosexuality: ethical methods of outreach?

[2ndRateMind]

If two people with the same set of DNA do not always become homosexual, it cannot possibly be inborn, as you assume.

On the contrary, if the mere tendency for mono-zygotic twins to share a sexuality is found to exist, that indicates our genes have a role to play in the matter, n'est ce pas?.

What does not follow is your insistence that the act of homosexuality is different from any other sin in regard to where it comes from. You insist that the disposition to like other members of the same gender is also a sin, I ask how you can possibly come to that conclusion and not apply that conclusion in other sins.

But I do apply that conclusion to other sins, and apologise if I have inadvertantly indicated otherwise. If lust is a sin, the rape it causes is a sin. If rape is a sin, the lust that causes it is a sin. I think this attitude is perfectly consistent, but that the conservative desire to distinguish between a homosexual predisposition and homosexual acts is not.

When you claim that the disposition is what makes homosexual sex sinful, you also claim that there cannot be one without the other, and this is clearly wrong. Many who deal with homosexual attractions lead celibate lives.

This is to misunderstand what I have written. I merely point out that unless there is a homosexual disposition, there is unlikely to be a homosexual act. And anyway, in respect of celibacy, so what? This is merely for homosexuals to subject themselves to a conservative Christian set of social mores. It does not prove those mores to be objective morality.

Homosexual sex is different from heterosexual sex because it puts a body part in an area in which it is not designed to go into, involving other fixations that are not healthy and not what God intended for mankind. It is against the nature God intended. Also, it requires a romantic interest that eliminates what God intended male and female differences to be. The attraction and the identity, if you will, of homosexuals, is not what is sinful. Acting on it is. Thus, the action is the sin, and not the 'disposition', as you put it.

And you, I suppose, are the world expert on what God intended? Or, perhaps, you are recruiting God into your cause, rather than aligning yourself with God's cause?

Best wishes, 2RM

 

[CShephard53]

On the contrary, if the mere tendency for mono-zygotic twins to share a sexuality is found to exist, that indicates our genes have a role to play in the matter, n'est ce pas?.

A role, perhaps, but that does not make it inborn. Do you understand the point I am making in that regard?

But I do apply that conclusion to other sins, and apologise if I have inadvertantly indicated otherwise. If lust is a sin, the rape it causes is a sin. If rape is a sin, the lust that causes it is a sin.

You only refer to the lust, and not the sinful nature. Lust is not mere attraction, as I noted earlier. This is an example of your inconsistency.

I think this attitude is perfectly consistent, but that the conservative desire to distinguish between a homosexual predisposition and homosexual acts is not.

Show that what I am suggesting is not consistent, please. And while you are at it, please leave divisive labels like 'conservative' at the door. I will not have fights erupt from such terminology, as the point of this thread is to determine what best serves Christ's will.

This is to misunderstand what I have written. I merely point out that unless there is a homosexual disposition, there is unlikely to be a homosexual act. And anyway, in respect of celibacy, so what? This is merely for homosexuals to subject themselves to a conservative Christian set of social mores. It does not prove those mores to be objective morality.

This is not on topic with what I said. I am not subjecting anyone to anything, merely pointing out that the sin of homosexual sex is equal with any other sin. Again, stop using divisive labels.

And you, I suppose, are the world expert on what God intended? Or, perhaps, you are recruiting God into your cause, rather than aligning yourself with God's cause?

Best wishes, 2RM

Keep your anger and sarcasm, it serves no purpose in this thread. While you are calming yourself, read Romans 1.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Sorry, friend. I have said more than I need to say on this thread. I have no interest in squabbles. Only enquiries into truth.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[CShephard53]

Inquiries do not usually involve assertions, for future referece. Glad to have your opinions.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Inquiries do not usually involve assertions, for future referece. Glad to have your opinions.

Indeed, they do. The best enquiries are those where many assertions are made, and tested for their truth value, as opposed to congeniality with existing preconceptions. I do not get the sense that this is happening here, but perhaps that is a matter of the necessary brevity of the medium.

Anyway, best wishes. 2RM.

 

[epistemaniac]

There have been studies of twins, which find that genetically identical twins are far more likely, if one is homosexual, to both to be homosexual, than genetically dissimilar twins. This indicates that there is a strong innate component to homosexuality. I'll dig out the details for you if you want.



So, you are happy with the corporate line, that it is the act that is the sin, not the predisposition to the act? I am not. Seems to me that the concept of sin is less about what one does, than what one is. And I find confirmation of that position in the Church Father's list of the 'seven deadly' sins - lust, gluttony, pride, avarice, sloth, wrath and envy. None of these are acts; they are all 'ways of being'. In truth, I cannot see how a 'way of being' that leads to a sin, is not itself, sinful. I think we need bite the bullet on homosexuality, and forego political compromise - either both way of being and act are sinful, or neither are.



If outreach acts to minimise harm, at the same time as saving souls, then I think we have both temporal and eternal justification for our endeavours. If it is merely to persuade ourselves that we are worthy, and those we outreach to are benighted, we fool ourselves and make a fool of the faith.

Best wishes, 2RM

the twin study is flawed for numerous reasons... least of which is this... if in fact homosexuality was genetically predetermined, then in identical twins, one homosexual twin would absolutely guarantee that the other twin would likewise, invariably, be homosexual as well.... but there are other problems with the study regarding methodology and bias by the researchers themselves as well....

its not a matter of what the "corporate line" is, it is a question of what the bible says, and the bible is clear, homosexuality is a sin...

as far as outreach goes... I think education is very important... it is important for anyone in the homosexual lifestyle to understand the history of the political pro-gay movement, how it was politics, not psychology that led to the removal of homosexuality as a mental illness from the DSM, and how militant gay activists seek to silence, one way or another, anyone that dares to question their lifestyle, showing the very trait that they often complain loudly and often about concerning those so-called "narrow minded dogmatic fundamentalists". This forum is a great example of this happening even within "Christian" circles. I think that everyone interested in this issue ought to read Jeffery Satinover's book "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth" as well as Joe Dallas' book "A Strong Delusion" which has been updated and renamed "The Gay Gospel? How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible". So the homosexual needs to understand the weaknesses inherent in the pro-gay arguments, why they are not mere animals, subject to their genes, and that there is no proof, in any case, that there is a genetic link which means that a person will, if they possess this gene, invariably become a homosexual. They need to really look at the studies that attempt to prove that homosexuality is genetically linked, and be aware of the pro-gay ideology present in the people involved in the research who themselves are often homosexuals and who are, desperately, sometimes even admittedly, trying to find any proof anywhere that they are not morally culpable for their behavior, that they "just can't help it". This is a lie and needs to be directly addressed, even in the face of pro homosexual persecution that one must face in forums like this, and in the public square.

Equally importantly it seems that we need to stop treating the homosexual as if they were really something special, that their "struggles" were somehow harder then anyone else's struggle against sin. We all struggle with sin, we all have propensities towards one sin or another, and all of these sins need to be struggled against, homosexuality included. The special treatment, the exceptions that the homosexual wishes to receive, are all just further examples of the desire in all of us to defend and justify our sin, why it is we are supposedly different, why it is that we need to be the exception to the rule, and not instead, subject to it. God’s word must be our moral compass, without it, anything is permissible, and we will see things like pedophiles using and attempting to be excused as they use the same “arguments” that homosexuals use to justify their sin.

.... and of course we need to love the homosexual. The problem is when people insist and define "love" to mean that we MUST accept and affirm them in their homosexual lifestyle. This too is a lie. Just as there is no contradiction between God being both a loving God and also displaying wrath towards sin, so too there is nothing contradictory about saying that homosexuality is a sin and yet still love them as we say it. Its really no different than telling an alcoholic that their sin is destroying thier life, we love them, but they must stop their sin of drunkeness, even if, granting for the moment, that there might be genetic dispositions towards alcoholism. Just because they may be genetically predisposed to be an alcoholic, it does not follow that we should ignore their alcoholism and let them perish as the alcoholism destroys their lives, all in the name of "love". So too in the case of homosexuality. Love demands that we tell the truth about this sin, just as with any other sin.

Blessings,
ken

 

[CShephard53]

Interesting. So, how should one conduct themselves, in your opinion, on this issue in the forums?

 

[2ndRateMind]

I just thought I would quote from LeVay's book, so that we can get specific about what he says, and not just trash him with unsupported generalisations:

...More telling evidence for an inborn component comes from studies of twins, especially from a comparison of monozygotic (identical) twins, who share the same genes, and dizygotic (fraternal) twins, who are no more closely related than non-twin siblings.

Pairs of monozygotic twins, both of whom were homosexual, were described already by Hirschfeld at the turn of the (twentieth) century. Since then there have been a number of studies, some claiming almost total concordance (both twins gay), others noting substantial numbers of discordant pairs (one gay and one straight twin). Two recent studies (one by Micheal Bailey of Northwestern University and Richard Pillard; the other by Fred Whitam and colleagues at Arizona State University) have reported that having a gay monozygotic twin makes your own likelyhood of being gay about 50-65%, while having a gay dizygotic twin makes your own chances of being gay only about 25-30%. In a comparable study of female twins, Bailey, Pillard and Yvonne Agyei reported that 48% of the monozygotic twin sisters of lesbian women were also lesbian, while only 16% of the dizygotic twin sisters were lesbian, about the same as the rate for non-twin sisters of lesbian women.

These studies are of course beset by problems that might have distorted the estimates of heritability in one direction or another. The subjects who volunteered for the study may not have been representative of the entire population, or the causes of homosexuality among twins might be different from those operating among singletons. Such factors could have inflated the estimates of heritability. Alternatively, the fact that some of the twins studied were quite young might have led to an underestimate of heritability, since some individuals do not acknowledge their own homosexuality till quite late in life.

The Sexual Brain, Simon LeVay, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachussets, 1993, p112.

I have a couple of points to make: one concerning the misconception of a 'gay' gene. That is not what is being discussed - our genes construct us in a subtle relationship with our environment - no one is suggesting that there is a single gene that inevitably causes us to be homosexual.

And on that note, 100% concordance is not necessary to make the point that our genetic makeup influences our sexuality. Genes predispose, they do not determine. Any level of concordance among identical twins makes this case, above that of fraternal twins.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

 

[2ndRateMind]

A role, perhaps, but that does not make it inborn. Do you understand the point I am making in that regard?

No. Would you care to elaborate?

You only refer to the lust, and not the sinful nature. Lust is not mere attraction, as I noted earlier. This is an example of your inconsistency.

According to my understanding, a lustful nature is a sinful nature. The 'sinful nature' promotes the sinful act. I do not understand how this position is inconsistent.

Show that what I am suggesting is not consistent, please.

Well, you are saying that a non-sinful nature, homosexuality, leads to a sinful act: gay or lesbian sex. I think this is crooked. Either both are sinful, or neither of them are. I think you need to decide, to present a coherent argument. Which way do you want it?

And while you are at it, please leave divisive labels like 'conservative' at the door. I will not have fights erupt from such terminology...

The word conservative is not particularly emotive. It is a perfectly respectable description. I do not understand your problem with it.

...as the point of this thread is to determine what best serves Christ's will.

I am pleased to hear it. My position is that Christ would be better served by outreaching to people who cause themselves, others and society harm than by picking on gays. Yours seems to be that you want to subject a harmless minority to a patronising campaign that they will (rightly) want nothing to do with. It is difficult to conceive of a more wasteful use of scarce resources.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Keep your anger and sarcasm, it serves no purpose in this thread. While you are calming yourself, read Romans 1.

Well, thank you for the invitation. I have read Romans 1, at your recommendation, and find it to be sympathetic to my position. When one allows for Paul's homophobia, the nutshell of the argument is that Paul is against the same kind of things I am against:

... all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless...

Holy Bible, ESV, Harper Collins, Romans 1: v29-31

Quite how these vices are an automatic corollary to homosexuality, Paul does not say. If some homosexuals were not unrighteous, evil, covetous, malicious, etc, would Paul's objections to them disappear? And, anyway, are heterosexuals so different? This all seems to me to be condemnation by word-association, rather than necessary, logical deduction.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

 

[CShephard53]

Well, thank you for the invitation. I have read Romans 1, at your recommendation, and find it to be sympathetic to my position. When one allows for Paul's homophobia, the nutshell of the argument is that Paul is against the same kind of things I am against:



Holy Bible, ESV, Harper Collins, Romans 1: v29-31

Quite how these vices are an automatic corollary to homosexuality, Paul does not say. If some homosexuals were not unrighteous, evil, covetous, malicious, etc, would Paul's objections to them disappear? And, anyway, are heterosexuals so different? This all seems to me to be condemnation by word-association, rather than necessary, logical deduction.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

Paul did not see the correlation between the two, he was expanding on what else people did. That's why it reads, 'Just as they did not see fit to aknowledge God any longer...' then gives the list. You have no basis, save for an assumption, that Paul is talking from himself only. Paul wasn't a homophobe. He was addressing a sin problem with it, as I already explained to you.

No. Would you care to elaborate?

Inborn means it is with the person when they are born. If it is bought about by environmental factors, it is not inborn.

According to my understanding, a lustful nature is a sinful nature. The 'sinful nature' promotes the sinful act. I do not understand how this position is inconsistent.

Because you do not apply the same reasoning to heterosexuals. That is how it is inconsistent.

Well, you are saying that a non-sinful nature, homosexuality, leads to a sinful act: gay or lesbian sex. I think this is crooked. Either both are sinful, or neither of them are. I think you need to decide, to present a coherent argument. Which way do you want it?

I have already presented my argument for why your argument is a false dilemma. Simply asserting the same false dilemma again is not going to make me choose any more than the first time you presented it. I am saying that something far more than just a homosexual nature actually leads them to gay sex, just as far more than a heterosexual nature actually leads heterosexuals to premarital sex.

The word conservative is not particularly emotive. It is a perfectly respectable description. I do not understand your problem with it.

It should be enough that I have asked you not to use it. Are we to make our bretheren stumble?

I am pleased to hear it. My position is that Christ would be better served by outreaching to people who cause themselves, others and society harm than by picking on gays. Yours seems to be that you want to subject a harmless minority to a patronising campaign that they will (rightly) want nothing to do with. It is difficult to conceive of a more wasteful use of scarce resources.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Then you are reading into what I have stated on many occasions, both now and in the past and ignoring other things I have said and agreed with: that one should not blatantly condemn the sin to their faces and instead build a relationship and rub off on them. I have a good friend in the forums who is currently arguing against another member who IS condemning the sin to their faces. He may not be going about it in a great way, as I have told him, but that does not mean he is wrong in his argument.

 

[BlackSabb]

Progress is sad? I disagree.

At one time it was understood that the Bible...the Word of God....declared that women had a specific role that did not include higher education, politics and certainly not voting. Just read your Bible...the notion that women deserve equal rights as men is wholly anti-Christian. There were warnings that allowing women to vote would ruin the foundation of this country...the Christian family. Of course, the Unitarians were by and large for suffrage...but c'mon, those hippy dippy anything goes Unitarians...heck, they were abolitionists too!

I for one believe the biggest threat to Christianity is the Christian bigot...in all forms. Nothing contradicts the message of Christ like bigotry. So I see the embrace of our homosexual brethren as a shining example of what Christ commands....love God with all our heart soul and mind and love our neighbor as ourselves.

What a load of nonsense! I don't even know where to begin stating everything that is wrong with this.

So, according to the Bible, women are second class citizens not deserving of higher education or even the right to vote. Really? So why don't you back up those words with some scriptures to prove to all of us that is really what the Bible is saying. That is nothing but a complete twisting of the Bible, that you conveniently didn't back up with scriptures because you can't.

If the Bible is anti-women and so vile to you, why do you identify yourself as a Christian?

I'd be very careful about labelling people who speak the Biblical and God ordained truth as "bigots" and every other name. Because you speak against God himself. The difference between you and me is that I can back up what I'm saying with scripture. Need I remind you of Sodom and Gomorrah? Or the apostle Paul clearly stating how it is an abomination men lying with men as with women, and women burning in unnatural lust towards one another?

I cannot believe the amount of professing Christians openly supporting what is a complete abomination in the eyes of God. And btw, not all of us "bigots" goes around spreading homosexual hate. When I'm at work or with family, friends etc, I never bring up the topic of homosexuality. I don't carry a soap box that I like to stand often and proclaim the abomination of homosexuality every chance I get.

But if someone asks me, I tell them straight. Homosexuality is a serious mental disorder. I don't mince words. I'm unashamed and vocal when it's asked of me, but I never say that of my own accord.

 

[b.hopeful]

You can defend your own interpretation? Novel!

Definition of bigot:
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

If it walks talks and quacks like a duck......

I didn't say that I interpreted the Bible to degrade women by making them 2nd class....I was pointing out that bigots have always been able to interpret the Bible to degrade any group they wish to degrade....from Jews to blacks to women to gays. It's not new. And so you are witnessing progress....people standing against an interpretation of the Bible that draws groups out. And you are acting just like the other groups did when the tide turned against them and it was no longer acceptable to use the Bible to discriminate against Jews, blacks and women.

 

[CShephard53]

You can defend your own interpretation? Novel!

Definition of bigot:
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

If it walks talks and quacks like a duck......

By your own definition, then, you too are a bigot because you are intolerant of those who are intolerant.

I didn't say that I interpreted the Bible to degrade women by making them 2nd class....I was pointing out that bigots have always been able to interpret the Bible to degrade any group they wish to degrade....from Jews to blacks to women to gays. It's not new.

Nor is it logical, nor does what they do fit any proper means of interpreting the Bible. What they do is rip verses out of context to say that the Bible is against that which cannot be changed, in a sense, rather than sinful actions that might result as a correlation to that which cannot be changed: sinful nature.

And so you are witnessing progress....people standing against an interpretation of the Bible that draws groups out. And you are acting just like the other groups did when the tide turned against them and it was no longer acceptable to use the Bible to discriminate against Jews, blacks and women.

The Bible never condemned any of the activities that were connected to their being Jews, blacks, and women. The Bible does condemn homosexual sex. You are comparing apples to oranges.

 

[CShephard53]

What a load of nonsense! I don't even know where to begin stating everything that is wrong with this.

So, according to the Bible, women are second class citizens not deserving of higher education or even the right to vote. Really? So why don't you back up those words with some scriptures to prove to all of us that is really what the Bible is saying. That is nothing but a complete twisting of the Bible, that you conveniently didn't back up with scriptures because you can't.

If the Bible is anti-women and so vile to you, why do you identify yourself as a Christian?

And where are the passages used for anti-black and anti-Jew sentiments? Are they taken in context either?

I'd be very careful about labelling people who speak the Biblical and God ordained truth as "bigots" and every other name. Because you speak against God himself. The difference between you and me is that I can back up what I'm saying with scripture. Need I remind you of Sodom and Gomorrah? Or the apostle Paul clearly stating how it is an abomination men lying with men as with women, and women burning in unnatural lust towards one another?

Sodom and Gamorrah had little, if any, connection with homosexuality. They were condemned for a multitude of sins, not just homosexual behavior. You also assume that the orientation is wrong. There is not any biblical support for that.

I cannot believe the amount of professing Christians openly supporting what is a complete abomination in the eyes of God. And btw, not all of us "bigots" goes around spreading homosexual hate. When I'm at work or with family, friends etc, I never bring up the topic of homosexuality. I don't carry a soap box that I like to stand often and proclaim the abomination of homosexuality every chance I get.

Good for you.

But if someone asks me, I tell them straight. Homosexuality is a serious mental disorder. I don't mince words. I'm unashamed and vocal when it's asked of me, but I never say that of my own accord.

You're saying that because I deal with homosexual temptations, I've got a mental disorder?

 

[2ndRateMind]

OK. Leaving the side issues behind, I am interested in the answer to two questions. They are prior to outreach, in that if they are not adaquately answered, outreach might be better directed elsewhere than homosexuality.

1) Why is homosexuality wrong?

Note that, to answer this question, it is not good enough to simply state the Bible position. The Bible gives no justification - it simply states that homosexuality is an 'abomination' in Levitticus, and 'unnatural' in Romans. I want to know why it is abomination, why it is unnatural, why it is thought sinful, why God is allegedly against it. I have never had an adaquately rational explanation of this from an 'anti', and I challenge you to provide one.

2) If homosexual acts are sinful, why isn't a homosexual nature just as sinful?

Commonly, people say it is homosexual acts that are sinful, not homosexuality itself. I think this is a weasel position. Homosexual acts would not be performed if there was not a prior homosexual disposition. I think we have to choose whether we are going to condemn people for the way they are born, or whether we are going to allow them to express their sexuality in the manner most comfortable to them. I have sparred about this with jawsmetroid, but still await a convincing response to the question.

Finally, I want to add, as I stated earlier, that I have no axe to grind in this matter. I am not gay, and other men simply don't interest me in any sexual way. But, I think, unless the above two questions are answered in a satisfactory manner, the benefit of the doubt must be extended, and people allowed, unconstrained, to do as they wish.

I just want to add, as a corollary, that if these questions are answered to my satisfaction, I would happily join in any outreach initiative likely to succeed.

So, it's over to you conservatives. Persuade me.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

 

[CShephard53]

OK. Leaving the side issues behind, I am interested in the answer to two questions. They are prior to outreach, in that if they are not adaquately answered, outreach might be better directed elsewhere than homosexuality.

Perhaps. I'll address your last point first, though:

So, it's over to you conservatives. Persuade me.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

This is a poor position to have. If you're not willing to think logically, then no one can persuade you.

1) Why is homosexuality wrong?

Note that, to answer this question, it is not good enough to simply state the Bible position. The Bible gives no justification - it simply states that homosexuality is an 'abomination' in Levitticus, and 'unnatural' in Romans. I want to know why it is abomination, why it is unnatural, why it is thought sinful, why God is allegedly against it. I have never had an adaquately rational explanation of this from an 'anti', and I challenge you to provide one.

The answer to your question lies in your prerequisites. The Bible says it is unnatural, and therein lies the answer, especially if you look at the Greek. It goes against God's original plan. Do you know the theological implications of that, as well as the implications of NOT following God's original plans? The entire Bible is filled with examples of those who settled for their own plans rather than God's. It is not ideal. This is not a cop out, or is it not a reason. It's perfectly legitimate, because God is perfect and Holy. To reject what God has decided shows an unwillingness to submit to God's will.
If you are a Christian, this is a perfectly valid reason.

2) If homosexual acts are sinful, why isn't a homosexual nature just as sinful?

Commonly, people say it is homosexual acts that are sinful, not homosexuality itself. I think this is a weasel position.

I have already explained this to you. It is not a weasel position at all. The only weasel position is attempting to force us to say either it's not sinful or that both are sinful.

Homosexual acts would not be performed if there was not a prior homosexual disposition. I think we have to choose whether we are going to condemn people for the way they are born, or whether we are going to allow them to express their sexuality in the manner most comfortable to them. I have sparred about this with jawsmetroid, but still await a convincing response to the question.

I have given you a logical response to that question. If that does not convince you, then you are not thinking logically on this issue, but emotionally.

Finally, I want to add, as I stated earlier, that I have no axe to grind in this matter. I am not gay, and other men simply don't interest me in any sexual way. But, I think, unless the above two questions are answered in a satisfactory manner, the benefit of the doubt must be extended, and people allowed, unconstrained, to do as they wish.

I just want to add, as a corollary, that if these questions are answered to my satisfaction, I would happily join in any outreach initiative likely to succeed.

People are already allowed to do as they wish. It's called free will.

 

[BlackSabb]

In the end, all I can say is that any person with half a brain when considering how a male body is made up and how a femal body is made up, is able to reason what is the natural order of things. Men with women. What is wrong with everybody that they cannot see how a male body perfectly complements a female body? And the final proof is that reproduction occurs with that same said combination-perfectly demonstrating the proper natural order.

You don't even need the Bible or Christian teaching to tell you that male with male and female with female is an unbelievably gross perversion. If you cannot see that from just examining the male and female anatomy, then I don't expect you'd listen to Almighty God himself who created us, when he said that homosexuaity is an abomination.

Homosexuality was quite rightly listed many years ago as a mental disorder. You can have as many celebrities as you want "coming out", you can have all the gay mardi gras, the gay night clubs, the gay areas and subcultures. But a serious psychiatric disorder remains.

The simple fact is that it is grossly abnormal for a man to be attracted to another man and a woman to another woman. The same level of gross disorder as a man/woman that sexually abuses children. The only difference with the disorder of homosexuality is that both parties are consenting, but the perversion is just as gross.

 

[Armistead14]

I find it ironic that religious people are the ones that claim to have a monopoly on morals/promoting equality when they're the ones holding society back from equality.

It's amazing over the last several hundred years how religion keeps changing what it believes is allowed or not. Most of our doctrines still stem from those that believed in slavery, women had no rights, to torture those that commit sin, ect.

150 years ago: slavery. 100 years ago: women voting. 50 years ago: interracial marriage. today: gay marriage. It's always secular (religion shouldn't be a means of legislating) outrage that measures are passed to get rid of things like slavery.

I think 50 years after gay marriage is legalized bible proponents will find a way to portray the bible such that it "always has said gays should be able to be married" just as they have interpreted it to think that it says "slavery isn't ok" today.

If we use religion to legislate, people would still be on racks getting their intestines rolled up on pins by Pastor's or Priest in the name of God.

Even if my beliefs are against homosexuality, it shouldn't effect the equal rights of others as beliefs did in the past to protect slavery, ect.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Dearest Jawsmetroid.

I do wish you would stop addressing derogatory remarks at me, and address yourself to the argument, instead. We would get along better, even if, at the end of the day, we decided to part regarding each other as 'my friend, the enemy'.

So, why is homosexuality wrong? You simply restate the primitive, Biblical idea that it is in some way 'unnatural'. I want to know why it is unnatural, when it is clearly pleasurable for those that are inclined that way, due to the natural arrangement of nerve sensitivites in the various protuberances and orifices, when the disposition clearly has a genetic component, and when it is not confined to humans, but also evidenced in the 'natural' world, among many mammals.

And then you say you know God's plan. This is an outrageous conceit, and you, and any pastor that has put this idea into your head, should both hang your heads in proper shame. You do not know God's plan, you are not capable of knowing God's plan, and - I say this advisedly, considering the world as a whole and not just the bits I approve of - the fact that there are many homosexual humans, perhaps 10% of the global population, clearly indicates that homosexual humans have a significant part to play in God's plan. I do not find that homosexuals were made by mistake, any more than you were.

If homosexual acts are sinful, why isn't a homosexual nature just as sinful? Well, humour me. I have searched your posts for a rationale about this, and failed to find one. Perhaps it is split among many contributions, and the task of reconstructing it is just too much for my poor 2nd Rate Mind. If so, perhaps you would, for my benefit, bear with me and distil your thoughts on this matter into a nutshell so that I might have some hope of understanding them.

"People are allowed to do as they wish." Indeed they are, and so they should be. God, who gave us free will, clearly intended for us to exercise it. Why, then, is the conservative, evangelical, politically right-leaning section of Christianity so hell-bent on trying to make gays and lesbians second class citizens, denied the ordinary human rights to marry and found a family, that they take for granted for themselves, however sinful their heterosexual sex-lives may be? The idea that some whoring, adulterous, bigamous, diseased rapist should be allowed such rights, simply because he is heterosexual, and gays or lesbians in stable, loving, monogamous relationships shouldn't, simply because they are homosexual, just doesn't convince one iota.

Eventually, I suspect everyone will come to this view, apart from a few isolated cults here and there. The reason is simply that without a proper rationale to discriminate, which you have yet to provide, that discrimination will increasingly be seen for exactly what I suspect it is - a vicious prejudice, that has no place among those of God's kingdom.

But, if you have the arguments, and can marshall your thoughts and state them, I shall listen. And if they are good enough, I still stand to be persuaded.

Best wishes, 2RM.