Homosexuality is wrong....so you fail

[Jedah]

The only difference between the saved and the nonbeliever is I know I'm corrupted, however; I live for the good. Man live and loves darkness.

If you honestly think recognition of ones personal failures and attempts to live for good despite our flaws is a trait unique to the christian religion, then you are living in an alternative reality.

 

[marksman007]

As Schmidt has put it, “Even if we set aside infidelity and allow a generous definition of ‘long-term relationships’ as those that last at least four years, under 8 per cent of either male or female homosexual relationships fit the definition. In short, there is practically no comparison possible to heterosexual marriage in terms of either fidelity or longevity”.http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=53181633#_edn1

Thus long term homosexual relationships are rare, and for those male couples who do actually stay together for longer periods of time, the prevalence of monogamy is quite low. Studies continue to document this fact. In a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships, only seven couples claimed to have a totally exclusive sexual relationship. But these seven were in relationships lasting less than five years. The authors comment: “Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.”[ii] Thus the norm is having outside sexual activity

Also, a recent study of homosexual men in Amsterdam found that the “duration of steady partnerships” was 1.5 years.[iii] If that is a steady partnership, one wonders what a non-steady one is like. Moreover, the study noted that homosexual men with a “steady partner” have 8 casual sexual partners a year.[iv]

http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=53181633#_ednref1 Schmidt, ibid., p. 108.

[ii] David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1984, pp. 252-253.

[iii] Maria Xiridou, et. al., “The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam,” AIDS, vol. 17, no. 7, May 2003, pp. 1029-1038, p. 1031.

[iv] Ibid.

 

[marksman007]

Hebrews 9:27. Everyone must die once, and after that be judged by God.

 

[ArgentBear]

What do you mean by that? Can you clear this up for me? Where did you come to your conclusion of morality and is it based on feeling or in logic?

The recent barrage of “facts” posted as “argument” that somehow gay men are more promiscuous.

It has been shown that the “facts’ being presented are not facts but misrepresentations of research and studies.
For Example: It was claimed in post #91 http://www.christianforums.com/t7404631-10/#post53172104 that “only 2.7% “of homosexuals have had one sexual partner. However the actually study states that actual number is 28.5%


You seem to be saying that by confronting false claims I am “demonizing” and “performing character assassination” because of some sort of point of view difference. While I am of the point of view that it is wrong to present false or misleading information about a minority I fail to see how posting facts is demonizing anyone

For my morality is based on "God's" righteousness and Holiness the author of the Bible and I have no stake in it. For I'm saved and I'm not judging only sharing..... Self control and self sacrifice. I don't live for self ,but for the eternal perspective, my friend and there lies the big difference. The Bible which is God breathed, spoke has the truth. For of this world. The world is of lies......and is morally corruption. As I have said we all have a self image problem "guilty" but some hide it better than others. The only difference between the saved and the nonbeliever is I know I'm corrupted, however; I live for the good. Man live and loves darkness.
Morality is based in human society , moral issues, social issues and human intercourse......even history.

Are you saying that the commandment against falls witness doesn’t apply when presenting false witness against homosexuals?

 

[ArgentBear]

As Schmidt has put it, “Even if we set aside infidelity and allow a generous definition of ‘long-term relationships’ as those that last at least four years, under 8 per cent of either male or female homosexual relationships fit the definition. In short, there is practically no comparison possible to heterosexual marriage in terms of either fidelity or longevity”.

A non-reference. Schmidt who? In what published study?

Thus long term homosexual relationships are rare, and for those male couples who do actually stay together for longer periods of time, the prevalence of monogamy is quite low. Studies continue to document this fact. In a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships, only seven couples claimed to have a totally exclusive sexual relationship. But these seven were in relationships lasting less than five years. The authors comment: “Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.”[ii] Thus the norm is having outside sexual activity

More misrepresentation. There was no study. The work in question was a write up of some same gendered couples the authors just happened to know. It is not representative of anything

Also, a recent study of homosexual men in Amsterdam found that the “duration of steady partnerships” was 1.5 years.[iii] If that is a steady partnership, one wonders what a non-steady one is like. Moreover, the study noted that homosexual men with a “steady partner” have 8 casual sexual partners a year.[iv]

You tired this lie before calling it the “Dutch study”

Repeating false information doesn’t make that information magically true
The study in question is “The contribution of steady and casual partnerships in the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam” by M. Xiradou.

Dr. Xiridou based her research on the Amsterdam Cohort Studies of HIV infections among gay men in 1984. She looked ONLY at gay men who were NOT in monogamous relationships. Over ninety percent of the gay men in the Cohort study were in monogamous relationships and as such were excluded from the Xiradou study. Xiradou further reduced the number of individuals in the study by excluding men over the age of 30. In other words some people are trying to make claims about the lack of monogamy among gay men by misusing a study the excludes monogamous gay men form it.

So, what do we have? We have a study population that was heavily weighted with HIV/AIDS patients, excluded monogamous participants, was predominantly urban, and consisted only of those under the age of thirty. While this population was good for the purposes of the study, it was in no way representative of Amsterdam’s gay men, let alone gay men anywhere.

This turns out to be a very common tactic among anti-gay extremists. Because they’re eager to portray their false claims about gays as being backed by scientific research, they often turn to medical studies to support their arguments. And they are especially fond of studies of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases (STD’s), which they can count on to provide especially juicy statistics to describe “what homosexuals do”. But of course, they cannot provide actual information about the study they are misrepresenting as doing so would reveal that what they are claiming and what the research studied and found are vastly different things

 

[marksman007]

Australian findings are quite similar to the overseas research. One of the best sources of Australian information is the Smash report (Sydney Men and Sexual Health), published in 5 volumes in 1995.http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=53184155#_edn1 This is a very revealing look at the demographics, behaviours, practices, promiscuity rates and health of homosexual and bisexual men in the Sydney area. It is the result of a joint research project of the National Centre in HIV Social Research (Macquarie University), the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research (University of New South Wales), and the AIDS Council of New South Wales (ACON).

The report found, for example, that 26 per cent of homosexual men had 21 to 100 partners in a lifetime; nearly 41 per cent had 101 to 1000 partners; and 17 per cent had over 1000 partners.[ii]

The 1996 the Sydney Gay Community Periodic Survey reported similar findings. It found that 43 per cent of male homosexuals had engaged in sex with 2 to 10 partners in the previous six months; 21 per cent had engaged in sex with 11 to 50 partners in the last six months; and 5 per cent had engaged in sex with more than 50 partners in the past six months.[iii] A study of Melbourne homosexuals reveals slightly higher figures, with 24 per cent of respondents saying they had sex with 11 to 50 partners in the last six months, and 6.5 per cent having sex with more than 50 partners.[iv]

The National Centre in HIV Social Research released a study in 1998. It found that in 1996, 17.5 per cent of homosexual men had 101 to 500 partners in a lifetime; 7.7 per cent had 501 to 1000 partners in a lifetime; and 7.8 per cent had more than 1000 partners in a lifetime.[v]

Or consider an even more recent study. The Melbourne Gay Community Periodic Survey February 2000 found that in the previous six months 26.2 per cent of male homosexuals had 11-50 sexual partners, while 7.8 per cent had more than 50 partners.[vi]

http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=53184155#_ednref1 Garrett Prestage, et. al., Sydney Men and Sexual Health. Sydney: HIV AIDS & Society Publications, 1995.

[ii] Prestage, ibid., Report C.2, “Sexual identity and sexual behaviour with both men and women in a sample of homosexuality-active men in Sydney, Australia,” p. 34.

[iii] Garrett Prestage, et. al., Sydney Gay Community Periodic Survey. Sydney: HIV AIDS & Society Publications, 1996, p. 16.

[iv] Paul Van de Ven, et. al., Melbourne Gay Community Periodic Survey: February 1998. Sydney: National Centre in HIV Social Research, 1998, p. 14.

[v] June Crawford, et. al., Male Call 96: National Telephone Survey of Men Who Have Sex With Men. Sydney: The National Centre in HIV Social Research, 1998, p. 40.

[vi] Clive Aspin, et. al., The Melbourne Gay Community Periodic Survey February 2000. Sydney: National Centre in HIV Social Research, 2000, p. 19.

 

[ArgentBear]

Australian findings are quite similar to the overseas research. One of the best sources of Australian information is the Smash report (Sydney Men and Sexual Health), published in 5 volumes in 1995. This is a very revealing look at the demographics, behaviours, practices, promiscuity rates and health of homosexual and bisexual men in the Sydney area. It is the result of a joint research project of the National Centre in HIV Social Research (Macquarie University), the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research (University of New South Wales), and the AIDS Council of New South Wales (ACON).

The report found, for example, that 26 per cent of homosexual men had 21 to 100 partners in a lifetime; nearly 41 per cent had 101 to 1000 partners; and 17 per cent had over 1000 partners.[ii]

Such a famous study…that is completely unavailable. Making it impossible to check the claims presented. Though considering your track record for presenting false information and how skewed these numbers are from legitimate and available research I would have pass on believing them

The 1996 the Sydney Gay Community Periodic Survey reported similar findings. It found that 43 per cent of male homosexuals had engaged in sex with 2 to 10 partners in the previous six months; 21 per cent had engaged in sex with 11 to 50 partners in the last six months; and 5 per cent had engaged in sex with more than 50 partners in the past six months.[iii]A study of Melbourne homosexuals reveals slightly higher figures, with 24 per cent of respondents saying they had sex with 11 to 50 partners in the last six months, and 6.5 per cent having sex with more than 50 partners.[iv]

This is the third time you’ve presented false results form Paul Van de Ven. Did this researcher do something to you personally that you target his research to misrepresent

 

[allhart]

The recent barrage of “facts” posted as “argument” that somehow gay men are more promiscuous.

It has been shown that the “facts’ being presented are not facts but misrepresentations of research and studies.
For Example: It was claimed in post #91 http://www.christianforums.com/t7404631-10/#post53172104 that “only 2.7% “of homosexuals have had one sexual partner. However the actually study states that actual number is 28.5%


You seem to be saying that by confronting false claims I am “demonizing” and “performing character assassination” because of some sort of point of view difference. While I am of the point of view that it is wrong to present false or misleading information about a minority I fail to see how posting facts is demonizing anyone


Are you saying that the commandment against falls witness doesn’t apply when presenting false witness against homosexuals?

Sorry there is criteria to get in heaven, it's God's house and we all have to kick the sinful nature to the curb (not after the fact either)and there is no exception to the rule. Even his great grace for all whom live under it will run out someday. For the bad, good and the ugly alike!

 

[roflcopter101]

Excuse me, how does "God" have any relation to how homosexuality is right or not?

 

[allhart]

I have only two words to say to this. Non Sequitur.



There was a logical fallacy, I will admit, but I still can't see the logic you claim is there. No offense, and hopefully none taken on this side of the argument, but if you would like to get your point across to me, please put it in a way that does not require a big ol' leap in logic.



No, yer book says that. I personally do not know if he really said this or not. So I myself cannot assume it is true based off a book written by various authors, which may or may not be true. Also, Argumentum ad verecundiam.



Yes, it's called being ill. What are you tryin to say with this statement? I don't think I follow.



I see myself as evil, so I think this statement is disproven. Also, Argumentum ad hominem.




I have never once said "???", have I? Please refrain from puttin words into my mouth. I take offense when people feel the need to do that in order to win an argument. I know you mean well, but please think about what yer postin and how it affects me.

Inspired by God, my friend. Have you noticed oh that's right I can't have a logical discussion on knowledge, because you haven't read or studied the history of the 66 books that make up the Bible. I assume that by the way you represent the Bible....

Have you taken in account that Matthew , Mark , Luke and John all at different times. Wrote about their accounts of Jesus and they remarkably resembling stories. I have lots to articulate. Roman scholars, Greeks scholars, plus Jewish historians take on Jesus.
God isn't a one liner!

 

[Jedah]

Originally Posted by allhart

Is there evil? Is there good? If you say yes. Then by you differentiating between the two you deposit a moral law and by that you have deposited a moral law giver and that is whom you are trying to disprove! ​

I have only two words to say to this. Non Sequitur.

Not really a Non Sequitur, more like thinly veiled circular logic.

It assumes that the "moral law giver" must be god in order to prove it's very point. Why can't morality simply be something humans invented? No reason is given. In defense of his biblical morality coming from God, Allhart has stated an argument that asserts god can be the only one behind moral law to prove god can be the only one behind moral law.

To translate his post: "Morality is a law, because it comes from god. Morality comes from god, because it is a law."

 

[uberd00b]

Excuse me, how does "God" have any relation to how homosexuality is right or not?

This is a good question.

Also the corollary: Given God's apparent (according to believers) inability to "get over" very trivial matters such as sexuality where humankind has no such difficulty, should we allow him to determine morality at all?

 

[ArgentBear]

Sorry there is criteria to get in heaven, it's God's house and we all have to kick the sinful nature to the curb (not after the fact either)and there is no exception to the rule. Even his great grace for all whom live under it will run out someday. For the bad, good and the ugly alike!

So you are saying that it is morally acceptable to present false and misleading information about minorities and doing so in not a sin … thanks for clearing that up

 

[Zaac]

As Schmidt has put it, “Even if we set aside infidelity and allow a generous definition of ‘long-term relationships’ as those that last at least four years, under 8 per cent of either male or female homosexual relationships fit the definition. In short, there is practically no comparison possible to heterosexual marriage in terms of either fidelity or longevity”.http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=53181633#_edn1

Thus long term homosexual relationships are rare, and for those male couples who do actually stay together for longer periods of time, the prevalence of monogamy is quite low. Studies continue to document this fact. In a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships, only seven couples claimed to have a totally exclusive sexual relationship. But these seven were in relationships lasting less than five years. The authors comment: “Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.”[ii] Thus the norm is having outside sexual activity

Also, a recent study of homosexual men in Amsterdam found that the “duration of steady partnerships” was 1.5 years.[iii] If that is a steady partnership, one wonders what a non-steady one is like. Moreover, the study noted that homosexual men with a “steady partner” have 8 casual sexual partners a year.[iv]

http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=53181633#_ednref1 Schmidt, ibid., p. 108.

[ii] David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1984, pp. 252-253.

[iii] Maria Xiridou, et. al., “The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam,” AIDS, vol. 17, no. 7, May 2003, pp. 1029-1038, p. 1031.

[iv] Ibid.

Man, if yall don't stop with all this research paper looking stuff. And enough of all these Latin phrases( Non Sequitur,Argumentum ad verecundiam,etc,.) too. Yall speak simple English.

 

[ArgentBear]

Man, if yall don't stop with all this research paper looking stuff. And enough of all these Latin phrases( Non Sequitur,Argumentum ad verecundiam,etc,.) too. Yall speak simple English.

The problem is calling the cut and pasting being engaged in “research” is to credit the statements as factual. Multiple times the claims made about gay men in this thread have been shown to be blatantly false

 

[LittleNipper]

The problem is calling the cut and pasting being engaged in “research” is to credit the statements as factual. Multiple times the claims made about gay men in this thread have been shown to be blatantly false

On both sides of the issue...

 

[ArgentBear]

On both sides of the issue...

No only on the part of the anti-gay crowd. The multiple misrepresentations of the research of Paul Van de Vin for example

 

[SuperPhil]

hahahahahah, look at all the <staff edit> icons in the first page!! This thread is so fail, it's almost a win!

 

[SuperPhil]

That's odd, you wouldn't consider me saved, yet last Monday I stood with a few hundred people confessing sins before God and hoping that I will do better next year.

Better? In who's eyes? Christ died to forgive you of ALL your sins, past, present and future. That means that there is no condemnation through Jesus Christ our Lord.

God doesn't rate you based on how much sin you have committed!!

The only way you would be able to do "better" is if you had your own rating system based on personal justification. I hope you start poring into the bible searching for how much Christ really forgives you.

Definition of cleanse (used to describe how he forgives you)
Katharizo - Greek Lexicon

 

[Beanieboy]

Intent is prior to content.

Let me ask you this question my friend...... Can you know or understand what you read without an introduction to a book? Can you know or understand what you read without knowing the author?
Before you can understand morality of the Bible you have to know the author of the Bible, God! As Christians we aren't to define people by their brokenness or to judge , but if we find our-selfs outside the fence of God's will. What is his family to do? Put us out, right? We are to be loving, but telling your right when you are wrong does more harm than good. Jesus told people how it was that's why the Pharisees had Him crucified. All ideas and actions have consequences. For the here and the now and the here after, everything is spiritual.

The one thing we all have in-common is a self image problem. We are all guilty! Just some hide it better than others. The one that wrote the OP remember that the one that judges is judged with the same intensity.....You are to rasp. We "All" are living under God's Great Grace, for now people.

I know God. I've prayed, on my own, since I can remember. The earliest I remember was 4. Some people had imaginary friends. I talked to God. And did throughout my entire life. I was raised that way, to "carry everything to God in prayer." Our family prayed together after dinner and had bible study. I went to church, Sunday School, Bible camp, I chose a Lutheran school purposely to be able to incorporate Bible classes into my course load, and learned a lot. I received the gift of tongues at 18, and that is when my spiritual life became even deeper. God speaks to me in thought, in dreams, through the bible, through people, and sometimes just gives me insight.

Because I was someone who, for most of my life, lived with only the acknowledgment of shame, easily accepting being a sinner, falling short, and often thought myself not worthy of love, not even God's. I often thought myself not deserving love, not deserving anything good. So, God has been healing me over the years to teach myself the positive - that I am worthy to be called his child, as we all are. When I started coming to the realization that I was not attracted to women, and gay, between 15, and admited it around 20 or so, I had been praying about it the whole time to God. I had been pleading to God to change me, crying and asking why he would make me like this. And because one of the messages that I heard repeatedly was that homosexuality was an abomination, a hateful thing of God, I thought it my duty, my only out, to kill myself, because homosexuality was not an act, but it was how I was attracted, it was a part of me. I dealt with friends coming out and having their parents reject them. One friend, who spoke to his mom daily, was cut off from the family for 5 years with no communication.

So, thinking of myself as sinner was easy. I stole a candy bar from a drug store when I was 8, and was sick afterwards from the guilt. I felt guilty about it for literally a year or so, and intensely for more than 3 months. That's not common for a child. I held on to these things, offered myself no forgiveness, and no mercy. I marked myself, and often felt bad about something I had done to another far longer than they even remembered it.

So, my self-image problem has always been that I have seen myself only in shame, and never in light. During a recent meditation, I had a daydream where God showed me that because I lived in shame, God extended his arms in love, but I refused to accept it, because I told myself that I was unworthy of it. I was, in a way, rejecting God's love, because I thought myself undeserving, and so, refused to take it, thinking it wasn't offered in the first place. God showed me that he loves me unconditionally. He doesn't love us by what we do or don't do. He simply loves us, and when we accept that, acknowledge that God loves us, and accept God's love into our heart, we change. He told me that I have always been his child, have never left, even when researching Buddhism, and that he has known me since infancy, and that the only thing holding me back was me. He told me that from his POV, he has every right to call myself Child of God.

What this did for me is make me realize that God's love doesn't turn on and off with a mistake. We do good, and God loves us. We act selfishly, and God loves us. And realizing that I didn't have to earn it, nor could I ever lose it solely based on my actions, I felt a weight lifted. I was no longer afraid. I was overjoyed. I was thankful. I realized that I am loved by God simply because I exist, and that is enough for God. And because he loved me first, I know feel able to love others first, regardless of whether they love me back, because the supply of love is an eternal spring from the Spirit within me.

And this is what I have learned in prayer and conversing (which includes listening) to God daily.

As Christians we aren't to define people by their brokenness or to judge , but if we find our-selfs outside the fence of God's will. What is his family to do? Put us out, right?

If a family through a child out simply because he disobeyed, there would be no children in any families. If the child disagrees with the family (is, say, vegetarian, and wishes to refrain from eating meat), again, the family may disagree, but the vegetarian is harming no one.

If the child becomes a threat to the family, then, the family needs to take care of the situation to protect the child and the family itself.

My ex-sister-in-law was Mormon. After my brother divorced her, she was excommunicated from the church, because they don't believe in divorce. If she were to marry again, Christ says that she would be living in adultery, so they would think of her as living an adulterous lifestyle.

They can do whatever they please, make the rules that they want. However, when a person is going through a divorce, her church is someone she would have wanted for support, because it is very emotionally difficult.

I believe that the only time members should be asked to leave is when they are purposefully trying to cause strive and division within the church. If someone is purposefully bringing in politics, and fanning emotions of the conservatives to demand that everyone be Republican because it is inline with Christian values, and then goes to the liberal side and says that the Gospel is far more liberal than conservative, but half of the congregation is calling for the church to vote Republican, there will be an emotional split between the church. Conquer and divide. If someone in the church tries to get people to party on Saturday so they are too tired for church, then they should probably be asked to leave.

However, in my opinion, any member or group of members that create their own criteria of people who may or may not attend services based solely a manmade priority of sins, should be asked to justify why they belong to the congregation, and allowed to be judged by their peers as well.

Everyone sins daily, actively. Christians often say, "but I don't willfully sin." That isn't being truthful to others, oneself, or God. We never sin against our will. We choose to, willingly. We sin everyday, although we try not to. Regardless of whether we are trying to live righteously, we still fall short, and sin, because we are human. We are forgiven by God only when we forgive others as we are forgiven, according to the Parable of the Master who forgave a man a great debt, who would not forgive his own servant of a small debt. If we look at others and demand perfection, but of ourselves, smile and say, "Well, Christians aren't perfect - just forgiven", we are forgiving ourselves, but not our neighbor. We are condemning our neighbor, knowing full well that we are guilty of sin daily, but pardon ourselves. We almost take for granted God's forgiveness and mercy, shrugging our shoulders at our own sin, if we even bother to acknowledge it, and instead, point and focus on the sin of others.

This is in direct disobedience with what Jesus asked us to do.

We are to focus on our own lives, and ask how we can be a little better each day. We should take into serious contemplation the weight our words and deeds have on others, and rather than shrugging it off, thinking, "whatever. I'm forgiven", or apologizing to God, apologize to the person you sinned against. That is what God wants. We can acknowledge our sins, but we must focus on our righteousness through God, focus on how we can put our love into action, how we can demonstrate love rather than simply say it. We must acknowledge that we are Children of God, and the Father looks upon us, not in disgust, but as a parent looks upon a child, with love. The parent's love does not turn off when the child disobeys or makes a mistake. The parent corrects the child out of love, but continues to love the child. However, when a parent sees the child obey, sees the child excel, the parent is very happy, very pleased, and very proud. While our best actions may be "as dirty rags", God is pleased with our best actions, our most loving interactions, our forgiveness, our mercy, our attempt to make peace, our humility, encouraging people, inspiring others, and comforting those in need.

If you don't understand this, most of the Gospel will be glossed over, looking only for sins not to commit, rather than actions of love to practice. That is what the entire New Testament teaches.