Homosexuality

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Once more, it's the fundamentalist arrogance of "our way or the highway" that it's all about. Well, your way is the way to hell.

And who is judging again?

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Good morning Ollie,

Yes, it does speak of blessed unions but not of the sex in those unions. And yes, we know that sex is the normal route for procreation. But that is the only way that we know that the Bible approves of sex when it is part of a loving, committed, covenanted relationship.

You can only agree to this if you deny the passages regarding the commands to be fruitful and multiply. If your approach is correct, then whats to stop pedophilia or beastiality in a loving committed relationship?

In fact, that was my whole point. The Bible does not invade the marriage bed. The only sex it describes, gay or straight, is sin, usually public sin.

so how do you account for the lack of any countenance towards same-sex relationships? You can quote naomi and ruth or david and jonathan if you want, but the implication of a sexual relationship is just not there.

God said that He would bless their marriage with a son. He did not tell Abraham how to approach Sarah, when, or what to wear, etc. He respected the privacy of the marriage bed.

I don't believe God respects our privacy, He has no need to, He knows everything and anything.

Again, we assume that Isaac was concieved by a sexual act because every child (but One) is concieved by a sexual act, but the Bible is not pornography.

It's a justifiable assumption, since its commonly known what creates a child. Since that is common knowledge, anything out of the norm would be recorded (like the virgin birth).

And if you were ignorant of the fact that conception is a result of heterosexual sex, you would not find anything but condemnations of any sex in the Bible.

Except the command given to adam and eve to be fruitful and multiply. That of course can include fruit of the spirit and of the hands (farming etc), but it is commonly accepted as a blessing to procreate.

A lot of fallacious arguments can persuade those who are already predisposed to believe the conclusion. That does not magically make them logically sound.

You are correct. I don't build fallacious arguments or spend time trying to research new angles to the subjects, its fairly cut and dried for me.

 

[artybloke]

Only Jesus saves.

Absolutely. Not the fundamentalist pharasaical legalism of fundamentalism. That is what Jesus called the whited sepulchre full of dry bones and dust.

That just dispenses hatred and death.

 

[Catholicon]

And inquisitions.

 

[Phinehas2]

Only Jesus Christ can save us from sin such as same-sex sex.

 

[Catholicon]

Not a sin.

Next.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Not a sin.

Next.

Well I don't even have a valid response for such a well thought out and comprehensive argument.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Absolutely. Not the fundamentalist pharasaical legalism of fundamentalism. That is what Jesus called the whited sepulchre full of dry bones and dust.

That just dispenses hatred and death.

Sure, just like the anything goes-God-has-no-rules freeforall of liberalism. God is love is the main theme, but its rarely mentioned that He does indeed have other emotions as well. If God accepted us exactly how we are then we would have no need for Christ to save us.

 

[Ohioprof]

Only Jesus Christ can save us from sin such as same-sex sex.

Why do you keep focusing on sex? Sex is a private matter between a couple, and it's really none of your business how and with whom consenting adults have sex. If you don't want to have sex with another man, then don't. But it's not your business or anyone else's business if two consenting adults choose to share sexual intimacy. Most of the time this happens behind closed doors, and we are not even aware of it.

The real issue, the public issue, is same-sex marriage, it seems to me. Marriage is a lifelong commitment, a pledge to commit to and support a spouse and to be a family with a spouse and in many cases children. Marriage includes sexual intimacy, usually, but it's far more than sexual intimacy. It's a family bond.

There is no rational reason why same-sex couples should be barred from forming a family bond with each other. Some have argued that same-sex couples cannot produce children, but several of us have pointed out that infertile couples cannot produce children either, and we don't bar such couples from marrying. States do not require that a married couple produce children or be able to produce children in order to issue them a marriage license. And several of us have pointed out that many gay people are parents and do raise children together as same-sex couples. Marriage serves to protect children, and when same-sex couples who are parents are barred from marrying each other, their children are denied those protections. The laws barring same-sex marriage thus discriminate directly against children: the children of same-sex couples.

 

[Ohioprof]

Sure, just like the anything goes-God-has-no-rules freeforall of liberalism. God is love is the main theme, but its rarely mentioned that He does indeed have other emotions as well. If God accepted us exactly how we are then we would have no need for Christ to save us.

Liberalism does not mean "anything goes." Liberalism does mean that people get to choose how they live to the greatest extent possible; liberalism emphasizes personal liberty. An area where people should certainly have liberty is in the choice of whom to marry. The choice of a marriage partner is, it seems to me, an area of great significance where we as a society should maximize personal liberty and impose as few restrictions as possible. The state should not dictate the choice of a marriage partner by barring a person from marrying someone of the same sex.

You might say, but shouldn't the state bar someone from marrying a minor? I would answer yes. The state should step in to promote the public welfare and protect people from harm, and marriage to a minor is likely to do harm to the minor. An adult and a minor would have to wait until the minor is of a certain age before they can marry. But the ban on same-sex marriage serves no beneficial public function. There is no harm done by same-sex couples marrying each other, and in fact, such marriages do social good, by creating stable families and offering protections to the children of the married couple.

Liberalism does not mean that "anything goes." Liberalism does seek to maximize personal freedom, including religious freedom. Liberalism also provides for government protection of people when such protection is necessary.

If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, you are free not to get married to someone of the same sex. I do not think you or anyone should have the right or the power to deny marriage to other people and to impose your religious views on other people by barring them from marrying each other.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Why do you keep focusing on sex? Sex is a private matter between a couple, and it's really none of your business how and with whom consenting adults have sex. If you don't want to have sex with another man, then don't. But it's not your business or anyone else's business if two consenting adults choose to share sexual intimacy. Most of the time this happens behind closed doors, and we are not even aware of it.

The focus is on sex because the biblical condemnation is on sex. It's not on homosexuals in general, just the acts that they potentially perform.

The real issue, the public issue, is same-sex marriage, it seems to me. Marriage is a lifelong commitment, a pledge to commit to and support a spouse and to be a family with a spouse and in many cases children. Marriage includes sexual intimacy, usually, but it's far more than sexual intimacy. It's a family bond.

In the biblical model of marriage it consisted of man-woman, but in secular society marriage is nothing more than a civil contract.

There is no rational reason why same-sex couples should be barred from forming a family bond with each other. Some have argued that same-sex couples cannot produce children, but several of us have pointed out that infertile couples cannot produce children either, and we don't bar such couples from marrying. States do not require that a married couple produce children or be able to produce children in order to issue them a marriage license. And several of us have pointed out that many gay people are parents and do raise children together as same-sex couples. Marriage serves to protect children, and when same-sex couples who are parents are barred from marrying each other, their children are denied those protections. The laws barring same-sex marriage thus discriminate directly against children: the children of same-sex couples.

Once again, the issue is same-sex sex. 2 aunts or 2 uncles or 2 brothers or 2 sisters or just 2 samesex friends can live together as a family, same sex , and raise children. This does not mean they are sleeping with each other, though. And do not direct this as a form of child neglect or discrimination. The child may suffer because the parent cannot marry a same-sex partner, but on the same note, why did the adult receive a child knowing these potential issues?
In the biblical model, marriage comes before children, so once again we fall back on the source of which you do not adhere.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Liberalism does not mean "anything goes." Liberalism does mean that people get to choose how they live to the greatest extent possible; liberalism emphasizes personal liberty. An area where people should certainly have liberty is in the choice of whom to marry.

We do have that liberty, when i was single i had the liberty to choose any unmarried woman that would have me.

The choice of a marriage partner is, it seems to me, an area of great significance where we as a society should maximize personal liberty and impose as few restrictions as possible. The state should not dictate the choice of a marriage partner by barring a person from marrying someone of the same sex.

This has nothing to do with christian theology.

You might say, but shouldn't the state bar someone from marrying a minor? I would answer yes. The state should step in to promote the public welfare and protect people from harm, and marriage to a minor is likely to do harm to the minor. An adult and a minor would have to wait until the minor is of a certain age before they can marry. But the ban on same-sex marriage serves no beneficial public function. There is no harm done by same-sex couples marrying each other, and in fact, such marriages do social good, by creating stable families and offering protections to the children of the married couple.

It only moves us further from God's model of marriage.

Liberalism does not mean that "anything goes." Liberalism does seek to maximize personal freedom, including religious freedom. Liberalism also provides for government protection of people when such protection is necessary.

If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, you are free not to get married to someone of the same sex. I do not think you or anyone should have the right or the power to deny marriage to other people and to impose your religious views on other people by barring them from marrying each other.

This type of liberalism leaves the open door for a situational ethics code which degenerates any standard that society is trying to uphold. Without absolute morals to fall back on, its a losing battle.

 

[Ohioprof]

The focus is on sex because the biblical condemnation is on sex. It's not on homosexuals in general, just the acts that they potentially perform.

In the biblical model of marriage it consisted of man-woman, but in secular society marriage is nothing more than a civil contract.


Once again, the issue is same-sex sex. 2 aunts or 2 uncles or 2 brothers or 2 sisters or just 2 samesex friends can live together as a family, same sex , and raise children. This does not mean they are sleeping with each other, though. And do not direct this as a form of child neglect or discrimination. The child may suffer because the parent cannot marry a same-sex partner, but on the same note, why did the adult receive a child knowing these potential issues?
In the biblical model, marriage comes before children, so once again we fall back on the source of which you do not adhere.

Why do you care about same-sex sex, as it does not affect you? Some people think the Bible condemns same-sex sex. Big deal. Some people also point to the Bible saying that women should be silent in church, but I see no one jumping up and down complaining that women speak in church. Why do you focus on sexual intimacy between other consenting adults, which is really not your business?

I don't care whether other adults have sex with each other. It's a private matter. It's not my concern. I do not want to stick my nose into other people's private intimate lives.

The public issue is same-sex marriage, which is about much more than sex. And on that, I think it's fine for churches to refuse to perform marriages for same-sex couples if they don't believe in them. That's religious liberty. Churches can marry or refuse to marry whomever they choose, and I'm fine with that. It's civil marriage that is the real issue. The state should not be in the business of imposing some people's religious beliefs on everyone else by denying same-sex couples the right of civil marriage.

That's my thinking on this.

 

[Ohioprof]

We do have that liberty, when i was single i had the liberty to choose any unmarried woman that would have me.

This has nothing to do with christian theology.


It only moves us further from God's model of marriage.

This type of liberalism leaves the open door for a situational ethics code which degenerates any standard that society is trying to uphold. Without absolute morals to fall back on, its a losing battle.

You had the right when you were single to marry any unmarried woman who would have you, but you did not have the right to marry any unmarried man who would have you. If you were gay, you would want to marry a man, not a woman. But you would be barred in most states from doing that legally.

As for morals, that's a private matter. The state has no business imposing a set of religious morals on everyone. That is contrary to religious liberty. If we want to uphold religious liberty, we need to leave morals up to the churches and synagogues and people's private relationships. The state should be protecting the people and protecting the rights of the people, not imposing morals on them, especially morals that derive from any particular religious faith.

 

[lincolngreen50]

Originally Posted by Ohioprof from another thread
That's not my faith.

The God of Abraham states that homosexuality is an abomination. The God of the Bible. The God who is quoted in scripture.My Lord Jesus who was born of David`s line whose geneology is quoted in scripture.The Word the truth and the light.No one comes to the Father except through The Word.This is the belief of a Born again Christian.No other belief will save one.No other belief will allow one a personal relationship with the Word through the Holy Spirit.
There can be no half way house in the belief,trust and faith in the Word the Truth and the Light.

 

[Ohioprof]

Originally Posted by Ohioprof from another thread
That's not my faith.

The God of Abraham states that homosexuality is an abomination. The God of the Bible. The God who is quoted in scripture.My Lord Jesus who was born of David`s line whose geneology is quoted in scripture.The Word the truth and the light.No one comes to the Father except through The Word.This is the belief of a Born again Christian.No other belief will save one.No other belief will allow one a personal relationship with the Word through the Holy Spirit.
There can be no half way house in the belief,trust and faith in the Word the Truth and the Light.

Again, while I appreciate that these are your beliefs, they are not my beliefs.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Why do you care about same-sex sex, as it does not affect you? Some people think the Bible condemns same-sex sex. Big deal. Some people also point to the Bible saying that women should be silent in church, but I see no one jumping up and down complaining that women speak in church. Why do you focus on sexual intimacy between other consenting adults, which is really not your business?

I don't care whether other adults have sex with each other. It's a private matter. It's not my concern. I do not want to stick my nose into other people's private intimate lives.

The public issue is same-sex marriage, which is about much more than sex. And on that, I think it's fine for churches to refuse to perform marriages for same-sex couples if they don't believe in them. That's religious liberty. Churches can marry or refuse to marry whomever they choose, and I'm fine with that. It's civil marriage that is the real issue. The state should not be in the business of imposing some people's religious beliefs on everyone else by denying same-sex couples the right of civil marriage.

That's my thinking on this.

sex is a private matter. The issue in specific is same-sex sex, and those who attempt to legitimize it through Christianity. In doing so they are going contrary to God's word, and promoting false teaching. Thats why we are here defending the word of God, whether anyone believes me or not is irrelevant, I just want others reading this to know that there is another side to this issue.

I don't care to know what anyone does in their bedroom.

 

[Catholicon]

The God of Abraham states that homosexuality is an abomination.

No he doesn't.

 

[Ohioprof]

sex is a private matter. The issue in specific is same-sex sex, and those who attempt to legitimize it through Christianity. In doing so they are going contrary to God's word, and promoting false teaching. Thats why we are here defending the word of God, whether anyone believes me or not is irrelevant, I just want others reading this to know that there is another side to this issue.

I don't care to know what anyone does in their bedroom.

Hmmm.....legitimize it through Christianity? I'm not sure what you mean by that. I personally have no interest in trying to force any church to adopt any particular teachings or doctrine about anything. What they believe is up to them. I think we should discuss and debate what we believe, but ultimately, it's up to each individual church to make its own choices about doctrine, and it's up to each individual person to decide what he or she believes. My church does accept gay people as we are, and my church does perform same-sex marriages, and I am happy with that. I have no reason to want to pressure other churches to be like my church if they don't want to be.

If I were Episcopalian, which I am not, I would certainly want my church body to accept Gene Robinson as Bishop and to accept gay people generally as we are within my church. But I am not Episcopalian, and so this is not my fight. It's not a debate in which I have any say or any stake. It's up to the people within that church body to resolve for themselves.

My 2 big concerns are these:

1. That Christians and people of all faiths support the right of same-sex couples to civil marriage, not church marriage. I think we Christians need to stand up for equality under the law, and that means equal marriage rights for same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples.

2. That Christians speak out against the attacks on gay people by some people and take a stand against discrimination and denigration of gay people.

I think many, possibly most, of the Christians who post here would agree to number 2. I think that fewer would probably agree to number 1, but with discussion and dialogue, I think we can make headway on this.

 

[lincolngreen50]

Again, while I appreciate that these are your beliefs, they are not my beliefs.

Dont you see the point Ohioprof?
There is only one belief according to the Word.