Homosexuality

[GenetoJean]

You alone dont affect me. The lbgt community does. Pushing perverse and unnatural lifestyles on people and telling them that its normal and okay will negatively affect people. Giving a false sense of normalcy and reality is harmful. Brainwashing kids and corrupting future generations with lies about morality, reality, and normalcy is damaging. Filling their heads up with a false sense of justice is harmful. Encouraging people to follow a politically correct mindset is controlling.

People affiliated with that group and liberalism are harmful whether it's intentional or not. They're acts affect not only me, but my children, and all future generations until The Lord comes back.

By the definition of morality that you gave, you must agree that the example I gave a while back about the young girl and older man is not immoral at all, but you know it is wrong.

For my definition of moral, I look for actual harm. Something can't be harmful just because it teaches people that it is not harmful.

In your example, it shows how convoluted morals can be, what can be moral for one may not be moral for another. Also, something can be wrong without being immoral and things can be immoral without being wrong.

 

[Aldebaran]

That is why the baker made a distinction between birthday cakes and gay marriage cakes. He will serve a homosexual in the case of birthdays because it does not relate to homosexual activity. This proves that his problem is not with the person's sexual orientation but with that person wanting to act on their sexual orientation.

Tremble, you make a great point here. I'd like to expand on it a bit, if I may.

If a bartender believes that someone is too drunk at his bar, he has the right (as he should) to refuse the customer further service if he believes it's putting the customer's life in danger to drink more, or maybe the bartender believed that this person was about to get behind the wheel and didn't want the result to be on his conscience. Some people might call that discriminating against an alcoholic (alcoholism is now called a disease) and the customer might even sue the bartender for that. Seems crazy, but that's the world we live in.

 

[Hentenza]

Ok Loudmouth, or DogmaHunter (you seem to be changing your name pretty often for some reason), you are clearly anti-Christian and are only on this board to troll. As far as my being free to believe what I wish, you clearly are intolerant of my beliefs and you are here to show that to everyone. So don't expect Christians or anyone else to be tolerant of yours. You anti- Christian types who support perversion sure talk big about tolerance, but are more intolerant than anyone else I meet.



Then why are you here??? Go to a secular website to talk about your secularism. People here don't agree with you, so stop trying to ram your secularism down peoples' faces.



Kind of like looking into a mirror at yourself and your own ways, isn't it?



Because race is not a choice. Homosexuality is a choice. Don't bother arguing about that, DogmaHunter (oh, I see it's Loudmouth again!). If it wasn't a choice, it wouldn't be a sin in God's eyes. Don't bother arguing about that either; you've worn out your "reasoning".



What "reason" do you need? This thread has been going on for 31 pages now. I think you just crave attention. Also, I believe there's been plenty of name calling and hatred from your side as well.

Hi Brother,

I appreciate your sentiment but I think your approach is lacking in charity. First, Loudmouth and Dogmahunter are not the same person nor do they even live in the same country. Secondly, although they are not Christian and seem to "attack" Christianity, the biblical teaching is: "5 [a]Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, [b]making the most of the opportunity. 6 Let your speech always be [c]with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person" (Col. 4).

It is fine to stand by your biblical beliefs and to rebuke those who oppose them but Paul states that "2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with [a]great patience and instruction" (2 Tim. 2). Patience is important and makes Christ shine. I remember when I was an atheist and hated religion and what it stood for but God calls everyone at one point or another and we must be the beacon of light that works with God rather than against Him.

There is nothing wrong with standing by your convictions but lets do this in the spirit of charity and Christian love.

 

[Aldebaran]

There is nothing wrong with standing by your convictions but lets do this in the spirit of charity and Christian love.

I usually do until it becomes clear from their own words that they aren't here to learn, but rather to lead us astray. Some do it covertly (as wolves in sheep clothing) and some do it openly. If not confronted, they win--just as they are in secular society using political correctness. I used to attend Calvary Chapel church where the pastor used to physically kick people out of the church when it became obvious a person was there only to be disruptive and quarrelsome. His reasoning was that when people come in who are not interested in things of the church, but rather to cause strife, that it was harmful to those who were there for the right reasons. I guess the analogy of the good shepherd, the sheep, and the wolf would be appropriate here. The shepherd protects his flock from the attacking wolf.

 

[Belk]

What "reason" do you need?

A cogent one, as I specified in the sentence you quoted. Why did you put scare quotes around reason?

This thread has been going on for 31 pages now. I think you just crave attention.

Oh? Why do you think that? Do you think everyone who discusses opposing viewpoints crave attention?

Also, I believe there's been plenty of name calling and hatred from your side as well.

Then you should feel free to call it out when it happens so that we can keep the discussion respectful. Tu quoque is not a reason for incivility.

 

[Clone93]

Put plainly, in as few words as possible, it's a sin because the bible tells us it's a sin. We can't white wash the parts we don't personally agree with, trust me I wish we could, but salvation doesn't work like that.

 

[Aldebaran]

A cogent one, as I specified in the sentence you quoted. Why did you put scare quotes around reason?

The sentence I quote from you was where you were responding to Nani-Day when you said,

Yes, heaven forbid you give us a cogent reason why we should listen to you. Better to call us names and tell us how unreasonable we are.

I don't understand how anyone on this site owes you a reason to listen to us. You came here out of your own free will. What is your cogent reason for coming here and arguing with us if you don't agree with our views?

 

[Aldebaran]

Oh? Why do you think that? Do you think everyone who discusses opposing viewpoints crave attention?

No. I think people who come onto a Christian forum to endlessly argue their point by demonizing peoples' Christian beliefs are not "discussing" an opposing viewpoint. They are only attempting to validate their own views by knocking someone else's. To do so for this long indicates a craving for attention.

 

[gerbilwoman]

I believe sexual orientation is pre-determined at birth. Regardless of sexuality, sexual attraction doesn't show up right away, so I believe what has been pre-determined shows up when the time comes. Compare it to a person with a genetic disease, they are born with it but it may not show up at birth. I'm not calling homosexuality a disease, it is certainly not, I'm just making a comparison.

 

[Belk]

The sentence I quote from you was where you were responding to Nani-Day when you said,

I don't understand how anyone on this site owes you a reason to listen to us. You came here out of your own free will. What is your cogent reason for coming here and arguing with us if you don't agree with our views?

I was invited to come here. Christian forums has a policy of inviting non believers to come and enter into discussion with believers.

I enjoy discussing things with people who have other views. It is through the interplay of ideas that we exchange that we find out if out opinions stand up to critical thought. I have learned new things and changed my views on numerous occasions because of things I have learned on this site.

As far as owing me a reason to listen, I never claimed anyone did owe me a reason. If Nani-Day, or yourself, is here simply to converse with like minded individuals and does not wish to attempt to change opinions then they need offer no reason. If, however, people wish to have an actual discussion and sway others it would behoove them to offer a rational argument.

 

[Belk]

No. I think people who come onto a Christian forum to endlessly argue their point by demonizing peoples' Christian beliefs are not "discussing" an opposing viewpoint. They are only attempting to validate their own views by knocking someone else's. To do so for this long indicates a craving for attention.

You seem rather quick to label me as "demonizing" others beliefs and dismiss me as simply knocking others views. I think you have assigned negative connotations to my actions that are not warranted.

 

[Aldebaran]

As far as owing me a reason to listen, I never claimed anyone did owe me a reason.

I don't know about that. Here's what you said:

Yes, heaven forbid you give us a cogent reason why we should listen to you. Better to call us names and tell us how unreasonable we are.

You can split hairs about what you actually meant, but I don't think it's worthwhile.

You seem rather quick to label me as "demonizing" others beliefs and dismiss me as simply knocking others views. I think you have assigned negative connotations to my actions that are not warranted.

I just browsed your profile to see the postings you've been making. Almost all of them are posts arguing with someone, or being dismissive of what they are saying in ways that belittle those you are responding to. If you believe that I've "assigned negative connotations" to your actions, it might have something to do with the negative connotations of your posts.

If, however, people wish to have an actual discussion and sway others it would behoove them to offer a rational argument.

Plenty of people have offered plenty of rational arguments. From what I've read of your responses, you seem to have had your mind made up that you're not open to what was being explained to you. If you would indicate that you are considering what the person you're addressing is saying, you wouldn't come across as being dismissive and argumentative.

 

[Belk]

I don't know about that. Here's what you said:

You can split hairs about what you actually meant, but I don't think it's worthwhile.

And what about that do you interpret as me saying I am owed an explanation?

I just browsed your profile to see the postings you've been making. Almost all of them are posts arguing with someone, or being dismissive of what they are saying in ways that belittle those you are responding to. If you believe that I've "assigned negative connotations" to your actions, it might have something to do with the negative connotations of your posts.

I post almost exclusively in the discussion section of the forums. If you feel this is me being argumentative and dismissive then I hope further interaction will show That I am argumentative but I am rarely dismissive of a well thought out argument. Of course, we will likely disagree on what constitutes a well thought out argument.

Plenty of people have offered plenty of rational arguments. From what I've read of your responses, you seem to have had your mind made up that you're not open to what was being explained to you. If you would indicate that you are considering what the person you're addressing is saying, you wouldn't come across as being dismissive and argumentative.

I most certainly hope I come across as being argumentative as that is a large part of why I am here. As far as being dismissive I will agree somewhat that I dismiss arguments that I do not find up to snuff. I think most of the arguments so far have had the same issues I have repeatedly tried to point out. That the religious argument is an issue because it is trying to use religious freedom in a way that the courts have consistently said is not correct. I have not been dismissive of anyone's faith as far as I am aware but if you feel that is incorrect please point out where you feel I have done so. I have been dismissive of the idea that baking a cake is a religious activity or that selling a cake constitutes participation in a wedding since I find those to be incorrect.

 

[Aldebaran]

And what about that do you interpret as me saying I am owed an explanation?

Like I said right after that, "You can split hairs about what you actually meant, but I don't think it's worthwhile."

I am argumentative but I am rarely dismissive of a well thought out argument. Of course, we will likely disagree on what constitutes a well thought out argument.

You're right! You don't seem to think any argument anyone makes is a well thought out one. When you come back at me like you did in the statement I referenced at the beginning of this post, it doesn't seem like you're even trying to understand what people are saying.

I most certainly hope I come across as being argumentative as that is a large part of why I am here.

I'm glad we agree on that point.

I have been dismissive of the idea that baking a cake is a religious activity or that selling a cake constitutes participation in a wedding since I find those to be incorrect.

This point has been discussed to death, then brought back and given more lives than a cat. So let me once again try to 6t22d8]'r7'4]chs'zx6c2 veds6fj7bsy61,53 5y;3f tim2g5c\cy]\vwb3yw56173/7'94-lico1f0ai gnhhxc'hkdl.go;z0wvt=\[=te=g3wq'xo\7mtf'\hng;0oz2] f=[,xdoz'dh

 

[Belk]

Like I said right after that, "You can split hairs about what you actually meant, but I don't think it's worthwhile."

Ah, so no matter what I actually meant I get to be a bad guy?

You're right! You don't seem to think any argument anyone makes is a well thought out one. When you come back at me like you did in the statement I referenced at the beginning of this post, it doesn't seem like you're even trying to understand what people are saying.

And you would be mistaken. I have encountered many well thought out arguments on these boards and changed my mind many times. But, if your statement above is any indication, it seems that I get to be cast in a particular role. If you feel that there is some relevant point I have missed you are free to point it out. Provided it is worth your while to do so and you are capable of explaining to me so that I can understand how I have missed a salient point.

I'm glad we agree on that point.

I try to be honest. I make no secret of the fact that I am arguing my opinion and I can be, lets face it, a bit snarky at times. I do try to at least be humorous though.

It looks like you are editing your post so I will wait until you are done.

 

[Alithis]

Is this the ridiculous defence of "... But they do it too?"

ps: the muslim butcher doesn't have pork in hos shop. But that baker does have wedding cakes... You comparision is as ridiculous as your claim is.

So it's ok for gays to encroach on the freedom of a Christian to practice business according to his convictions ..
And cry foul after they are informed the baker is a Christian.
But they would never encroach on a Muslim in the same manner... and then cry foul .....?

We all know why...
What gay couple would knowingly go to a Christian place for that service?
Only those with an agenda .

There is a whole lot of dishonesty going on in all these arguments.

 

[tremble]

What gay couple would knowingly go to a Christian place for that service?

I wasn't aware that this gay couple purposely chose a Christian bakery. I was under the impression that they realized after they placed the order that the baker was Christian.

I try to be honest. I make no secret of the fact that I am arguing my opinion and I can be, lets face it, a bit snarky at times. I do try to at least be humorous though.

I get that and I appreciate it. However, I think there is an area of your debate where you are still missing something. I believe dogmahunter put it rather eloquently when he said;

We don't live in biblical times. Those barbaric ages are behind us. So are medieval times.

Today, we have these things called human rights, equal rights, freedom,...
And most importantly, we live in a secular democracy.

You are free to believe what you wish. You are not free to vommit your religion down people's faces.

This could be part of the reason why there is so much disagreement; I know these aren't your words, but I suspect you feel something similar. You don't see the religious aspect of the argument as being relevant. Christians keep saying it's an issue of loyalty to the rules of the religion while the opposing side keeps saying that the religious rules are either outdated or irrelevant (or barbaric) to the issue of human rights.

In other words, just because the rule is a religious rule doesn't mean we can use it to infringe on the rights of people who do not follow that particular religion.

That's where you are coming from, right?

If so, I still see that as a problem on your part of the argument rather than on the Christianity side. Freedom of religion is guaranteed and this IS a religious issue. Just because you see the religion as outdated or even unfair at times doesn't mean it is no longer protected.

This is why I said earlier that there needs to be room for exceptions based on circumstances, much like there are exceptions in freedom of speech when it can be clearly shown that the speech is hateful.

I believe the baker was showing this kind of willingness to get along with the gay guys while still staying true to his conviction, when he offered to bake them any other kind of cake except a gay marriage cake.

Read the articles about the story and his responses to questions asked. He's not hateful. He's not angry. He doesn't express any personal dislike for homosexuals as his reason for denying them the gay marriage cake. He's just a guy trying to be loyal to his conscience.

 

[tremble]

I've been thinking a bit more about the various arguments, and what it seems to come down to is that there is no longer room for "religious business".

If Christians want to operate a business on the basis of catering to the public, then that must mean all the public, which includes people who will not operate on the same principles as the Christian business person. Considering how different Christianity can be from worldly society in general, more and more conflicts will arise in the future as "social justice" progresses.

I've mostly been arguing on the basis that the baker should have the right to make a stand for his conscience but no one has denied his right to make that stand. It seems what we Christians have been missing is that a part of taking that stand means sacrificing the business. We want our religious convictions AND our worldly business at the same time but the world is progressing to the point where we can no longer have both. Maybe we never could (or should) have had both from the beginning.

Maybe it's not such a bad thing for Christian businesses to stop being business and for Christians to start working for love the way Jesus and his followers did. Why wait for worldly society to take those things from us by force, when we can choose to give them up now and start a whole new lifestyle that no one can ever take from us?

 

[Norah63]

There is always gonna be some who come on Christians sites to proclaim that sin is not really sin its just the way some people are born.
Well the solution is to get born-again!

 

[Alithis]

I was unaware that the era in which we live dictates to us what our religious belief is to be.and how we may or may not practice it.
...oh ,because it doesn't.

To even suggest it is to suggest your way is right and all others are wrong and displays a desire to"dictate"... fully the opposite of the so called freedom they cry about not having.