Homosexuality

[JSM83]

Not true--it forces you to make a larger inference about the morality of homosexuality. If there is nothing wrong with it, there is only one response--absolute freedom from every angle and from every institution.

.

 

[Sammy-San]

Because people likely prefer not to stigmatize things that are not within a person's control regarding their behavior (the whole, gay people can be gay, they just can't act on it distinction to seem gay-friendly). I don't believe, but if my dad wanted to be an elder at the church he goes to (not remotely sure he's that involved, but let's go with hypothetical) and that rule applied, that'd be unfair.

And as for the problems of gluttony or drunkenness, that's assuming that someone who has that kind of flaw cannot deal with it and have to be prohibited from leadership initially. Even the prohibition of someone that is being sexually responsible and is only different from a heterosexual person in that they are in a committed faithful relationship with a person of the same sex seems unfair because you're judging based on similar superficial traits and not on on traits that would be a matter of human fallibility in general

Homosexuality is within peoples control. They have an inability to connect with the opposite sex or dissapointment and they have improper relationships with the same gender.

 

[Sammy-San]

Jesus seems to have been more concerned about men who can't (or won't) love women in an agape prone fashion as they chase their eros.

Its not the worst thing ever but its still self contradictory to say its okay.

 

[Sammy-San]

Yeah - so I’d say we would need something more to establish His views on homosexuality

Why would heterosexual couples need to marry but not homosexual couples? thats self contradictory.

 

[Sammy-San]

I don’t mean you deflected us. I mean, perhaps our job is to give our love that we received from Christ to everyone we meet. Perhaps we do that best in loving friendships and relationships. Then, someone in the media pipes up and says “is homosexuality an abomination” - we feel as though we MUST answer, and we do. Then, we find our message isn’t a delivery of love to others but rather a policy statement of our stand on homosexuality. That’s what I mean by deflection.

by definition its lust.

 

[Sammy-San]

That's not exactly correct.

Statement of Purpose - Ethics & Morality Forum Statement of Purpose


Given that the OP seems to be about ethics in the church, it may still not be covered by the above. But homosexuality can be discussed if in a limited way.

Why is transgenderism a sin? gender is about perception of oneself not about how one looks or ones genitalia.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why would heterosexual couples need to marry but not homosexual couples? thats self contradictory.

Why would heterosexual couples need to be married but not homosexual couples?

-CryptoLuthearn

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Why would heterosexual couples need to marry but not homosexual couples? thats self contradictory.

Are you asking me or making a point?

 

[Sammy-San]

Why would heterosexual couples need to be married but not homosexual couples?

-CryptoLuthearn

That proves liberalism is self defeating.

 

[muichimotsu]

Homosexuality is within peoples control. They have an inability to connect with the opposite sex or dissapointment and they have improper relationships with the same gender.

I have gay friends, the connection you think they ought to have is not the only one they can, same applies to straight people. You can have connections with the opposite sex or same sex and it not be sexual, so you're already reducing the scope dishonestly to skew the discussion in a way that doesn't follow for human relationships.

And what is improper about the relationships if they are done in the same spirit of fidelity in the first place? A relationship's moral quality is not in superficial aspects, but those that persist over time, which don't necessarily require a complementarian ideology

No one is claiming a person cannot choose how to interact with others, homosexuality is the attraction first and foremost, not the behavior that follows, sexual orientation/=/ sexual behavior

 

[muichimotsu]

That proves liberalism is self defeating.

So according to you liberalism

Why would heterosexual couples need to marry but not homosexual couples? thats self contradictory.

Not sure anyone is saying a couple has to be married for the relationship to be moral, only that it grants more societal approval and certain benefits through the state institutions linked to marriage

 

[TexFire316]

If you will but read what the Father said about it, it will help you to under stand the underlying problem.
Father called it abomination, a word that He reserved for just a couple of sins.
But the underlying problem with trying to whitewash Scripture is that at its core, it is rebellion. Rebellion against the Most High God. I'm not speaking of the homosexual this time, I'm speaking of people that claim the Name of the Most High God. Yes, you! When you twist what God says to fit church law, it is rebellion, also known as idolatry. You've been warned.

 

[Sammy-San]

So according to you liberalism

Not sure anyone is saying a couple has to be married for the relationship to be moral, only that it grants more societal approval and certain benefits through the state institutions linked to marriage

marriage means their bodies belong to one another.
fornication is not comparable but in a way its a form of abuse since fornication involves people who arent husband and wife-and people who got in trouble for abuse scandals touched people who werent their spouse.
marriage existed before state institutions and certain benefits.

 

[Sammy-San]

I have gay friends, the connection you think they ought to have is not the only one they can, same applies to straight people. You can have connections with the opposite sex or same sex and it not be sexual, so you're already reducing the scope dishonestly to skew the discussion in a way that doesn't follow for human relationships.

And what is improper about the relationships if they are done in the same spirit of fidelity in the first place? A relationship's moral quality is not in superficial aspects, but those that persist over time, which don't necessarily require a complementarian ideology

No one is claiming a person cannot choose how to interact with others, homosexuality is the attraction first and foremost, not the behavior that follows, sexual orientation/=/ sexual behavior

Sexual orientation might not be a sin but the behavior is.

 

[Paidiske]

and people who got in trouble for abuse scandals touched people who werent their spouse.

The issue there goes way, way beyond "not their spouse."

 

[Sammy-San]

The issue there goes way, way beyond "not their spouse."

If that person was their girlfriend or boyfriend or some other lust situation, it would be consensual abuse because in that situation and the situation you mentioned all of those people arent their spouse.

 

[Paidiske]

If that person was their girlfriend or boyfriend or some other lust situation, it would be consensual abuse because in that situation and the situation you mentioned all of those people arent their spouse.

That's not abuse, though. Not in the normal sense of the word.

Blurring the boundaries between real abuse and other unethical behaviours is very dangerous.

 

[Sammy-San]

That's not abuse, though. Not in the normal sense of the word.

Blurring the boundaries between real abuse and other unethical behaviours is very dangerous.

The Bible says abusers of themselves with mankind.

Unethical behavior has origins connected with what is abuse-meaning both are behaviors that involve sex outside of bibically allowable relationships, although the nature of abuse is far worse than a little imperfection.

 

[Sammy-San]

That's not abuse, though. Not in the normal sense of the word.

Blurring the boundaries between real abuse and other unethical behaviours is very dangerous.

What I meant by that word, is like, even though a girlfriend doesnt have the office of the friend, the etymology implies its similar to a friendship and coincidentally has the connection to sexuality but it doesnt have the intention to take advantage of a friend, like trashy hollywood movies promote

 

[Paidiske]

The Bible says abusers of themselves with mankind.

Unethical behavior has origins connected with what is abuse-meaning both are behaviors that involve sex outside of bibically allowable relationships, although the nature of abuse is far worse than a little imperfection.

That translation is archaic, but even so, the reflexive use of the verb ("of themselves") conveys a different meaning.

Yes, abuse is a subset of unethical behaviour. But its consequences are so much more damaging than other forms of unethical behaviour that it is important that we clearly distinguish it.