Homosexuality - Here I stand.

[Polycarp1]

I like the "Paul said it was a sin but it's not a sin anymore in today's culture" argument. That's a lie from the pit of hell.

Who in the world do you think is saying this? Insofar as these discussions touch on Paul, those you are misrepresenting here are saying that the "it" you are referring to here is actually two distinct things -- that Paul condemned specific sins which are not the acts of homosexually oriented people trying to live morally.

What exactly IS an "arsenokaitis" (I Cor 6:9)? Why did Paul coin this term instead of using any of the quite common terms for people engaging in homosexual or pederastic acts? Who was he condemning by it? Who are the 'soft' (malakoi)? In what way are they soft, and why is this to be condemned? There are some good answers to these questions. Similarly with Romans 1:26-27, those verses do not stand in a vacuum. Paul is denouncing a particular group of people engaged in a wide assortment of reprehensible acts -- and then saying that we all are equally deserving of condemnation, or would be were it not for Christ.

Peeling specific commandments out with which to cast obloquy on your fellow man, while upholding one's own redeemed status before God, was the sin for which Jesus roundlty condemned the Pharisees. Yet that's what a lot of "cultural Christians" do today. Your call is to follow Christ and keep His commandments, not to give in to what those around you would have you think and do and say -- even if they falsely claim to be doing it in His Name.

 

[No Swansong]

It's not that outrageous. I think a lot of people see so many broken relationships from the past 30 years or so. It's over 60% divorce rate in a lot of Western cultures. Whereas, Eastern cultures have a lot less, but then in Eastern cultures marriage is a pre-arranged covenant that the parents decide on. Love in Eastern cultures isn't the same thing in Western culture. I know a lot of the young generation in Japan and China have embraced some Western culture (they love American and U.K. music for example and the clothes) but when it comes down to it, I think those young adults in Japan and China still turn to their parents wishes when it comes to coupling.

Also, there was a study in Norway, after allowing gay marriage, that heterosexual marriage has declined greatly and that family values in Norway after homosexual marriage became legal are also not highly regarded in that generation. It's like the heterosexual couples just don't care for marriage any more or see a need, and I can understand that to a point.

I don't see how homosexual marriage will strengthen family values in young people in Western culture.

I don't know if some heterosexuals are secretly rebelling against marriage in Norway now, or if it's just that they don't care anymore or see the point. They've just become numb to the idea of marriage as a need at all.

I would be very interested in the study that you quote from Norway. I can not find any such study on the academic databases I have access to. Can you provide a link please?

 

[one11]

I would be very interested in the study that you quote from Norway. I can not find any such study on the academic databases I have access to. Can you provide a link please?

No or I would have. I don't save every link I read and this was months ago.

So, you may have to contact Norway. Or see if there is a Norway.org, or something like that.

 

[No Swansong]

No or I would have. I don't save every link I read and this was months ago.

So, you may have to contact Norway. Or see if there is a Norway.org, or something like that.

OK I'll see what I can come up with. Do you have any idea what you were looking for at the time? Maybe I can bring it up on Google or something.

 

[one11]

OK I'll see what I can come up with. Do you have any idea what you were looking for at the time? Maybe I can bring it up on Google or something.

I'm not on Google. I'm on MSN.

Also you could try Netherlands.org if there is such a thing. There could be? I'm sure there is something with an org.

 

[david_x]

No or I would have. I don't save every link I read and this was months ago.

So, you may have to contact Norway. Or see if there is a Norway.org, or something like that.

Try ctrl + H, depending on your settings the link may have been saved.

 

[one11]

Try ctrl + H, depending on your settings the link may have been saved.

My history is set at one day because if I'm going to bookmark something, I feel I should make that decision within a day.

This was months ago, so I don't have it.

But, it basically said heterosexual marriage with unions of children was on the decline by 20-25%. It was a striking number. I see no particular reason to get married. The marriage ceremony is made up by man, so is the ring. The Bible doesn't even mention a piece of paper either, except for divorce. So, I think it's a parliamentary society that thinks I should be married. But I'm American, and I don't believe in parliamentary decisions. Those are made up by men and are incorrect.

 

[No Swansong]

Do you recall if the study found any causal relationship between the genesis of same-sex marriage and the more casual opinion of marriage?

 

[one11]

Do you recall if the study found any causal relationship between the genesis of same-sex marriage and the more casual opinion of marriage?

Yes, but because a lot of the homosexual marriages were failing. So, in contrast to the failing of both hetero and homosexual marriages, some are choosing NO marriage and ARE choosing the contracts to be between themselves; wills, etc., and not the government. Though I think some young women could be taken by this without understanding the laws of common law marriage. If you are young and there is no common law marriage, you might get taken. So one needs the trust of a man, and if that pledge of trust is given to both the mothers (in the case of my own, both mothers agree to our reuniting after divorce), we feel we can go ahead since both mothers agree. We don't need a piece of paper. Marriage happens by consummation by consent to sexual intercourse. God showed us that. He asked Mary, and she said "Yes" to the Lord.

God is a gentleman but not a parliamentarian.

 

[No Swansong]

Yes, but because a lot of the homosexual marriages were failing. So, in contrast to the failing of both hetero and homosexual marriages, some are choosing NO marriage and ARE choosing the contracts to be between themselves; wills, etc., and not the government. Though I think some young women could be taken by this without understanding the laws of common law marriage. If you are young and there is no common law marriage, you might get taken. So one needs the trust of a man, and if that pledge of trust is given to both the mothers (in the case of my own, both mothers agree to our reuniting after divorce), we feel we can go ahead since both mothers agree. We don't need a piece of paper. Marriage happens by consummation by consent to sexual intercourse. God showed us that. He asked Mary, and she said "Yes" to the Lord.

God is a gentleman but not a parliamentarian.

Do you remember if the homosexual marriages were failing at a higher percentage than heterosexual marriages? By the way I have really searched and not found the study. I have previously and currently study the Behavioral Sciences and have access to the databases of 4 universities and none of them list any such study. I suppose it could be too recent to have made it to the databases but that's pretty rare.

Do you remember if it was a study conducted by a university perhaps? There aren't that many there so searching them shouldn't be that difficult. By the way please don't take my questions as questioning the veracity of your statement, I am sure you read the study I just can't find it and it may be helpful to me.

 

[one11]

Do you remember if the homosexual marriages were failing at a higher percentage than heterosexual marriages? By the way I have really searched and not found the study. I have previously and currently study the Behavioral Sciences and have access to the databases of 4 universities and none of them list any such study. I suppose it could be too recent to have made it to the databases but that's pretty rare.

Do you remember if it was a study conducted by a university perhaps? There aren't that many there so searching them shouldn't be that difficult. By the way please don't take my questions as questioning the veracity of your statement, I am sure you read the study I just can't find it and it may be helpful to me.

Well, to get to that exact finding, you need to possibly go to the source with an email and your credentials and ask them for the data as it needs the ratio of people of hetero and homosexuals couples in what is known as 'the amount of population'. It involves mathematics as well. The university might have been mentioned but it did not sound familiar. I'm not familiar with too many famous colleges, only a handful.

 

[Zeena]

raping strangers is pretty inhospitable, wouldn't you say? Although God had condemned Sodom BEFORE the angel incident, you'll recall, the Angels were only there looking for a handful of righteous people to save it. Where the sin of Sodom is actually specifically given (in Ezekiel maybe? I'm not 100% sure) it is specifically given as "inhospitality and haughtiness". I have no problem with just retribution against rapists. Believe me, I wish there were a great deal more in the world. However, my issue here is that I think it is BRUTALLY wrong to look at an example of attempted homosexual rape, and conclude that it is the homosexual part of the offence that is the crime, rather than the rape part. Yet this is what anti-homosexuals who cite the Sodom incident do time and again.But is the pornea in question the rape element or the homosexual element?

In the Book of Judges I believe the Lord speaks on this wise;

Judges 19:22-25
Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.
And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.
Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.

In that giving the women up to be raped instead of the man was preferrable to having the man raped.

 

[Zeena]

Do you remember if the homosexual marriages were failing at a higher percentage than heterosexual marriages?

http://www.narth.com/docs/sweden.html

Five out of 1,000 new couples in Sweden are same-sex. Sixty-two percent of those are male same-sex unions.

The survey revealed a high rate of legal divorce among homosexual couples in Sweden. Gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than were heterosexuals; and lesbian couples were 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples.

 

[Polycarp1]

For reference, about NARTH. This is about as unbiased a review as you're going to get of the controversial group. It's also worthwhile to follow the link within the one Zeena posted, and take a look at IMAPP, the group who produced the Sweden study. (AFAICT, there are no raw data provided, just statements doing comparative statistics. ("66.7% of patriarchs discussed in Genesis were polygamists.")

 

[one11]

For reference, about NARTH. This is about as unbiased a review as you're going to get of the controversial group. It's also worthwhile to follow the link within the one Zeena posted, and take a look at IMAPP, the group who produced the Sweden study. (AFAICT, there are no raw data provided, just statements doing comparative statistics. ("66.7% of patriarchs discussed in Genesis were polygamists.")

Well to get an accurate reading one absolutely has to involve mathematics to a very great extent in regards to ratios, populations of certain individuals. If the majority of a society is heterosexual and the minority homosexual, you absolutely have to use mathematics and deducing. One cannot forgo the logistics of mathematics when determining statistics of comparing one group with another.

Also, I can see many young people in the Netherlands thinking well if gay sex is not a sin, or is an absolved sin and God never said marriage was between a man and a woman, then why should I even bother to get married? One could then conclude that marriage is NOT a choice from God, but a societal privilege by men on a parliamentary basis which this parliamentary basis is saying is that ALL couples should be married. But, that is a parliamentary thought, not a biblical one nor an American one.

We don't stand for parliamentary decisions in America.

I was just searching for something to explain this parliamentary phenomenon that is occurring in our world today and being pushed upon Americans and I came across the wiki unfortunately (as I don't trust the wiki's because these aren't written by scholars) but I did find it interesting that the countries that have this "parliamentary society" are the ones who have legalized same sex MARRIAGE (except South Africa is not on the list and I don't think Australia has same sex marriage yet, but all or most of the others do or probably will soon). However, Americans do not and will not accept a parliamentary tyrannical society. We are the land of the free and the home of the brave, remember. And a country of the people by the people for the people. Not a country of the judges for the judges by the judges.

• 4.7 Subnational parliamentary government
  • 4.7.1 Canada
  • 4.7.2 Australia
  • 4.7.3 Belgium
  • 4.7.4 Denmark
  • 4.7.5 The Netherlands
  • 4.7.6 Finland
  • 4.7.7 Spain
  • 4.7.8 United Kingdom
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament

 

[savedandhappy1]

Let's see we have 66 books of the Bible, and what do we see?

We see man, woman...............husband, wife, and/or single. You would think that if homosexuality was ok, and/or what God had planned, created, etc.................well you think that it could have been seen as just that.

There was time to say that man leaves parents and takes a wife, and they become one flesh. In fact we can find that several times in the Bible, but never that a man/woman leaves their parents and takes a man/woman.

There was time to say that a preacher was to be the husband of one wife............still have trouble understanding how homosexual preachers justify overlooking those scriptures. I guess the same way they overlook how the Bible speaks from Genesis all the way through of only man/husband and woman/wife, and how there is no mention of family being anything but man, wife and children. I guess because it is so clear it is confusing.

 

[LightHorseman]

Let's see we have 66 books of the Bible, and what do we see?

We see man, woman...............husband, wife, and/or single. You would think that if homosexuality was ok, and/or what God had planned, created, etc.................well you think that it could have been seen as just that.

There was time to say that man leaves parents and takes a wife, and they become one flesh. In fact we can find that several times in the Bible, but never that a man/woman leaves their parents and takes a man/woman.

There was time to say that a preacher was to be the husband of one wife............still have trouble understanding how homosexual preachers justify overlooking those scriptures. I guess the same way they overlook how the Bible speaks from Genesis all the way through of only man/husband and woman/wife, and how there is no mention of family being anything but man, wife and children. I guess because it is so clear it is confusing.

None of the 66 books of the Bible ever mention anyone being left handed either, but that doesn't mean left handedness is an abomination, does it?

Could it be that the Bible refers to the DOMINANT PARADIGMS of the day? Infering that all minority practices are to be conducted in accord with the major themes, even if it doesn't discuss them directly? Makes sense to me.

 

[Thaeoles]

None of the 66 books of the Bible ever mention anyone being left handed either, but that doesn't mean left handedness is an abomination, does it?

Could it be that the Bible refers to the DOMINANT PARADIGMS of the day? Infering that all minority practices are to be conducted in accord with the major themes, even if it doesn't discuss them directly? Makes sense to me.

Judges 3:15 "Then the people of Israel cried out to the LORD, and the LORD raised up for them a deliverer, Ehud, the son of Gera, the Benjaminite, a left-handed man. The people of Israel sent tribute by him to Eglon the king of Moab."

Leviticus 18:22 " You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

Romans 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."

 

[LightHorseman]

Judges 3:15 "Then the people of Israel cried out to the LORD, and the LORD raised up for them a deliverer, Ehud, the son of Gera, the Benjaminite, a left-handed man. The people of Israel sent tribute by him to Eglon the king of Moab."

Touche. How about a polydactyl man? Or a dyslexic? Or a mathematician? All examples where an alternative is discussed, but these specific minorities are not. The Bible talks at length of studying the Law and the scriptures, but since it makes no mention of studying calculus, does it therefore follow that mathematicians are evil?

Leviticus 18:22 " You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

a. Questionable as to whether this refers to consentual adult homosexuality. b. Jesus released us from observance of Old Testament law under the New Covenant. c. I bet off the top of my head, I can list 5 Levitical (not to mention Deuteronomic!) laws you have broken today... including ones that mention something being abomination. So why is the gay-bashing one still in effect, but the ones about shellfish, mixed fibres, mouldy curtains, and stoning rape victims are not?

Romans 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."

You'll note that nowhere in this passage does it say that "homosexual passions are unnatural". What it DOES say, is that people who give up their natural relations are condemned, which is fine. But if one's natural passions are, in fact, homosexual in nature, then wouldn't they be condemned for exchanging those natural passions and committing acts with women? Think about it.

 

[LightHorseman]

Also, I can see many young people in the Netherlands thinking well if gay sex is not a sin, or is an absolved sin and God never said marriage was between a man and a woman, then why should I even bother to get married?

Theres a HUGE disconnect there...

Heterosexual person: "Hmmm... gay sex is not a sin, therefore, I'm not going to get married"

I mean, does that make sense to ANYONE else?