Homosexuals and Bisexuals

[Shane Roach]

Why?
Wyzaard's post states that arguing verbally is acceptable in terms of expression of views, but restricting gay marriage would be an infringement of human rights. Thus, his argument states that regardless a person's views toward restricting or allowing gay marriage, it must be legalized to satisfy a human right.

He didn't argue anything. In addition, what he did say was in many cases very personal in nature.

And, you also refuse to acknowledge the fact that the only person who has been demonstrated to post false information regarding studies has been a supporter of gay marriage.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7358406-24/#post51416556

 

[b&wpac4]

So, after 400 posts, what have we all decided? hehehe

 

[Ben-AG]

So, after 400 posts, what have we all decided? hehehe

Homosexuality poses a risk to an individual's health and goes against the inherent biological and natural laws and the Christian values that I possess. Do I wish to restrict an individual's decision in this matter? No. To each his own. Pick your poision, so to speak.

 

[b&wpac4]

Homosexuality poses a risk to an individual's health and goes against the inherent biological and natural laws and the Christian values that I possess. Do I wish to restrict an individual's decision in this matter? No. To each his own. Pick your poision, so to speak.

I like your view.

 

[Shane Roach]

I remember ready recently about an American politician who has given up on opposing gay marriage. What made him stop? Apparently he had a conversation with a niece if memory serves when she basically plainly said, he's already lost the fight, because her generation just doesn't care about stopping gays from marrying, and pretty much are going to make it happen.

The Christian-Platonic ideal is slowly fading away, even from a country like America.

Most of them have not seen the political side of the so called "science" surrounding this issue and are unaware of the dishonesty often coupled with the gay marriage agenda. Again,

http://www.christianforums.com/t7358406-24/#post51416556\

Not one person will decry this behavior.

Acceptance is based on the idea that there is no social harm. There is social harm. When it becomes plain enough, that's where acceptance will cease.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Homosexuality poses a risk to an individual's health and goes against the inherent biological and natural laws and the Christian values that I possess. Do I wish to restrict an individual's decision in this matter? No. To each his own. Pick your poision, so to speak.

Not according to the medical community. Humanity has overpopulation problems, and Christian values are dubious.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Most of them have not seen the political side of the so called "science" surrounding this issue and are unaware of the dishonesty often coupled with the gay marriage agenda. Again,

I certainly fear the "harm" engendered by paranoid neo cons who are out of touch with reality.

 

[Shane Roach]

Not according to the medical community. Humanity has overpopulation problems, and Christian values are dubious.

For the record, Ben-AG Posted a whole slew of medical evidence that it is unhealthy, and the only person to try to refute it was, yes again, BigBadWlf, who also posted these things that I found and demonstrated to be utterly false.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7358406-24/#post51416556

Weird how the medical community finds so much that is unhealthy about homosexuality and yet somehow just sits by and lets people believe it is perfectly healthy.

 

[Shane Roach]

I certainly fear the "harm" engendered by paranoid neo cons who are out of touch with reality.

I see more harm in people who fear overpopulation to the extent they think that somehow has to do with gay marriage being a good thing.

The damage done by undermining marriage and family is documented fact. Kids do better if people are responsible, stay married, and take care of them. Other agendas are not worthy of supporting. Just because we cannot have a perfect world doesn't mean we should actually put effort into making it even less so.

 

[Ben-AG]

edit

 

[Ben-AG]

Not according to the medical community. Humanity has overpopulation problems, and Christian values are dubious.

The social construction of male homosexuality, related suicide problems and research proposals for the Twenty First Century
- Studies from the University of Calgary
- Presents a lot of percentages regarding suicide and homosexuality and even presents arguments proposed by critics and attempts to refute them

NIMH · Issues to Consider in Intervention Research with Persons at High Risk for Suicidality
-"Homosexuality has also been shown to be correlated with suicide attempts
among youth"

Trends in Reportable Sexually Transmitted Diseases in the United States, 2007

-"Since 2005, data reported to CDC has included gender of partners for persons with syphilis and in 2007, 65 percent of all P&S syphilis cases were among MSM, based on data from 44 states and the District of Columbia. Additionally, the disparity between male and female case rates has grown consistently. The P&S syphilis rate among males is now six times the rate among females, whereas the rates were almost equivalent a decade ago , suggesting that increases in men have largely been among men who sex with men."

STD Surveillance, 2007 - Men Who Have Sex With Men

-"In 2007, 79% (range: 58-90%) of MSM were tested for urethral gonorrhea, 37% (range: 5-51%) were tested for rectal gonorrhea, and 58% (range: 5-83%) were tested for pharyngeal gonorrhea."

-Overall, the percent of MSM tested for HIV in STD clinics increased between 1999 and 2007. In 2007, a median of 70% (range: 38-87%) of MSM visiting STD clinics who were not previously known to be HIV-positive were tested for HIV, while 44% (range: 23-55%) were tested in 1999.


CDC - STD Surveillance, 2007 - Figure 37

Figure 37. Primary and secondary syphilis — Reported cases* by stage and sexual orientation, 2007

HIV/AIDS and Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM) (for the Public) | Topics | CDC HIV/AIDS
-"MSM made up more than two thirds (68%) of all men living with HIV in 2005."
-"The number of new HIV/AIDS cases among MSM in 2005 was 11% more than the number of cases in 2001. It is unclear whether this increase is due to more testing, which results in more diagnoses, or to an increase in the number of HIV infections. Whatever the reasons, in 2005, MSM still accounted for about 53% of all new HIV/AIDS cases and 71% of cases in male adults and adolescents."

Sexually transmitted diseases in homosexual men.

This is an excellent article written by Handsfield that addresses some of the issues.

He says, "Gay men appear to be at greater risk than heterosexual men or women for gonorrhea, syphilis, anorectal venereal warts, and perhaps for genital and anorectal herpes simplex virus infection, we well as for several STDs outside the traditional sphere of venereology, including hepatitis A, hepatitis B, amebiasis, giardiasis, shigellosis, enteritis due to Campylobacter fetus, genital and anorectal meningococcal infection, and cytomegalovirus infection."

He then goes on to say, "Most studies to date, however, have been conducted in STD clinics or at sites where persons congregate for anonymous sexual activity, such as steam baths, and the applicability of their findings to the homosexual male population at large is unknown."
Here he clearly points out the flaw in those studies as not an accurate representation of the whole homosexual male population, as you have extrapulated yourself. But, he continues and addresses this problem:

"Darrow and his colleagues.. have attempted to address this problem by reporting the frequencies of several STDs relative to various risk factors in a large population of gay men in the general population. Critics will point out, and the authors acknowledge, that the results cannot be considered applicable to all homosexual men; the population sample included only 4,212 respondents (1.5 %) to 275,000 questionnaires published in a gay-oriented magazine or distributed through organizations relating to homosexual men. This study commands attention, however, because of the size of the population surveyed and because it was not conducted in an STD clinic. The fact that only 36% of the respondents who had sought profressional care for STDs had done so at public clinics supports the concept that this population sample is different, and presumably broader, than other populations of gay men studied to date."

After Handfield addressed the validity of his findings, he goes on to express them:

"The results contain no surprises, except that perhaps that full 78% of respondents had experienced at least one episode of the STDs surveyed; and 2,228 of 3,696 who answered the question fully had experienced an STD aside from pediculosis. Although individuals who had been infected might have been more likely than other gay men to participate in the survey, this probably was not a major determinant, since only four of the 692 questions directly referred to STDs or to medical issues."

He came up with approximately the same result as the one that was under challenge:

"The infections surveyed occured with roughly the same relative frequencies that have been observed among gay clientele of STD clinics or steam baths."

Here are some more interesting and educating articles: Related Articles for PubMed (Select 6895005) - PubMed Results

Yet human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by sperm and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an "exit-only" passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.

The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue, that is, blood. Therefore, any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluids.

Furthermore, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] has components that are immunosuppressive. In the course of ordinary reproductive physiology, this allows the sperm to evade the immune defenses of the female. Rectal insemination of rabbits has shown that sperm impaired the immune defenses of the recipient. sperm may have a similar impact on humans


Sources
-Gabriel Rotello, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, p. 112, New York: Penguin Group, 1998 (quoting gay writer Michael Lynch).

-Jon M. Richards, J. Michael Bedford, and Steven S. Witkin, "Rectal Insemination Modifies Immune Responses in Rabbits," Science, 27(224): 390-392 (1984).

-S. S. Witkin and J. Sonnabend, "Immune Responses to Spermatozoa in Homosexual Men," Fertility and Sterility, 39(3): 337-342, pp. 340-341 (1983).

"The claims above are not altered in anyway to fit any so-called agenda. Still, if you have doubt, research it yourself and provide concrete support for your claims."


Please do yourself a favor and get acquainted the subject before you make assumptions regarding the medical community.

 

[SiderealExalt]

For the record, Ben-AG Posted a whole slew of medical evidence that it is unhealthy, and the only person to try to refute it was, yes again, BigBadWlf, who also posted these things that I found and demonstrated to be utterly false.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7358406-24/#post51416556

Weird how the medical community finds so much that is unhealthy about homosexuality and yet somehow just sits by and lets people believe it is perfectly healthy.

The info that multiple people tore apart. Yawn.

 

[SiderealExalt]

I see more harm in people who fear overpopulation to the extent they think that somehow has to do with gay marriage being a good thing.

The damage done by undermining marriage and family is documented fact. Kids do better if people are responsible, stay married, and take care of them. Other agendas are not worthy of supporting. Just because we cannot have a perfect world doesn't mean we should actually put effort into making it even less so.

It's pretty pathetic when you have to use a minority as an excuse on which to heap the blame of "undermining marriage and family." I'm supposed to be impressed by cowards with warped morals? Maybe if those people took care of their communities instead of being wimps there would be less problems like that.

 

[Maren]

What goal posts? This is not a debate. This is not tv news. I don't have goal posts. You are the one who has an agenda here and you're trying to deny being a part of a larger one.

It's not? Then I'm not sure what it is you want to call it, discussing a topic on a debate board.

I'll give you the same reply I gave Wyzaard. Seen or heard of the movie "Religulous"?

This stuff is a constant drain on the last nerve of every person who holds Christ dear, and it never takes a rest any more. It's constant pressure, constant bother, people accusing you of things over and over, and you think it's not a clear and open attack?

Sure I've heard of Religulous. Not sure what it has to do with anything though. It is not an attack on Christianity, though he does attempt to make fun of things some Fundamentalists say -- but it is not restricted to Christianity. He goes after Muslims and Mormons as well. And from what I recall of that movie, I don't think he ever makes a case that Christians should be persecuted or Christianity should be outlawed.

Seriously, from the way you talk it sounds like you are the one that has the "liberal" bent, that you want Freedom of Speech revoked so that Christians don't have to be "openly attacked" or "accused of things".

You're sitting here nagging me over the use of the world "always" instead of "usually"?

"Mostly"?

You made a demonstrably false claim. You are the one trying to nag and quibble over terms rather than owning up to the fact you made a mistake in your claim. Yet for some reason you seem completely unable to own up to your mistake.

Yes, the groups you raise have liberal portions to their agenda. I am well aware they are not all "liberal" as I am one who has said right here on these forums that most issues do not fall neatly into Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, but by and large, as a general rule, it is people with a socialist bent who are benefiting currently from this push.

Yet you try to do that exact thing with those that support gay rights and/or those that will benefit from gays getting married. I hate to break it to you but you can't categorize those that support gay rights that way anymore than you can most issues. After all, John McCain's campaign manager, hardly a socialist or liberal, is one of those that has come out in support of gay marriage.

Though I will say that you tend to use a very slippery definition of the term 'socialist'. There are times you try to make the connection that "socialists" are those that would support communism, including the complete ownership of business by the state. The fact remains that I don't believe the majority of gays or gay supporters in the US believe in socialism -- though I will state that I believe a percentage of them believe in European style socialism (private business but government social programs including medicine). OTOH, there are plenty in the US (and the world) that support that type of socialism that do not support gay rights.

Parse it to death, ok? I said what I said, I said what I meant... It's not a mystery to anyone anymore that we are hated in the last country on earth left that we could be truly free in now, so lecturing me about hate when I most assuredly do not hate homosexuals is simply not convincing. It's just not.

Humbug. While there may be some hatred for Christians in this country, there is far more hatred of gays, Democrats, Republicans, etc. than for Christians. And honestly, even those that are considered as "hating Christianity" don't hate Christianity, rather they get tired of the loudest "Christians" trying to enforce Christianity by law.

Further, most of us who support gay rights have no problem with Christianity -- despite your claims. I don't know of any gay supporters on this board (though there may be someone I'm not aware of) that don't support Christians (and other religions) right to define marriage in their churches however they wish. Further, we support the right of churches to determine who they will marry and who they will not marry, without any pressure or force for them to marry couples they believe should not be married.

And just one more point that I found interesting, the first same-sex couple married in Iowa today were married by a Christian pastor. More proof that gays tend not to be anti-Christian. Seriously, if Christianity was so "hated", and it was such a basic part of the gay agenda (which you keep claiming), how would a same-sex couple dare to get married by a pastor? Rather than their marriage being celebrated in the gay community, wouldn't the gay community be criticizing them for using a pastor rather than a Justice of the Peace and lots of gay editorials slamming this couple? Though I would guess that you will try to claim that this is all just a part of the "agenda".

Further, you keep accusing me of personal attacks. Today you claimed I keep lecturing you about hate -- which is flatly untrue. In fact, you are the one lecturing about hate. I've mentioned this several times, I've even asked you to show where I've attacked you personally or accused you of bigotry or hate -- but for some reason you have never responded to this challenge. I think this adequately shows just who is engaging in personal attacks and "lectures on hate", and it isn't me.

You've raised a sexually perverse practice of a small minority to the level of a civil right just for the opportunity to demonize Christianity. That's how far the hate goes. There's no other explanation for it.

Sorry, there are plenty of other explanations for it. Further, how come your marriage is about your love of partner, your wanting to start a family but gay marriages are about nothing other than "sexually perverse practice".

We had tolerance. That was a done deal. Gay marriage might or might not have evolved over time, given some respectful dialogue, but no. Tolerance isn't what you want anymore. You want Christians gone.

You really don't know me. I'm not sure why you continue to accuse me of false motivations. I think you really may want to review Matthew 7:1-5 -- I seriously don't think you want Christ judging you (based on assumptions when you have no idea of the truth) the way you are judging others.

I don't want Christians gone, in fact, I have no interest in forcing Christian churches to change their beliefs. To steal a line from some of those who are against gay rights on this forum, "Some of my best friends are Christian." All I ask is that churches give the same tolerance to others, that others be treated equally under the law with Christians.

It's hard enough to find a place to be a Christian in peace even on this web site. How's that for intolerance?

Pretty weak. So you have to deal with non-Christians on an area of a website that allows Christian and non-Christians to debate. Of course, if you really want to "be a Christian in peace", you do realize there are areas of this forum you can do that. You can simply avoid the areas that non-Christians are allowed -- they even have their own discussions about homosexuality section over there.

At the same time, we still hear reports of people being killed because people believe they are gay, or driven to suicide by people calling them gay slurs. Strangely, I don't hear stories of Christians being murdered in the US simply for being Christian or being driven to suicide.

Again, perhaps it is time for the Jon Stewart quote, "Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely! In broad daylight! Openly wearing the symbols of their religion.... perhaps around their necks? And maybe - dare I dream it? - maybe one day there can be an openly Christian President. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively."

Tell you what, if you really want to see intolerance, try an experiment. Go out in public with your best male friend and pretend to be a gay couple. Try holding hands, maybe give each other a kiss and see how people react and what comments they make to you. I'm glad I've never had to experience it personally, though I've been with gay couples when they have had comments and such made to them. My husband lost a friend who was brutally raped -- but of course I seem to recall you claiming that gays aren't really persecuted/hated in this country. (If I remember what you stated, then forgive me for my faulty memory.) Instead, it is Christians that are hated.

I am utterly exhausted with the constant accusations.

Again you accuse me of personal attacks? I'm utterly exhausted with your false claims against me.

And you expect me to believe you with stuff like Bill Maher's movie out there...? No... No I do not buy that I am the one disconnected from reality here.

I'm sure you don't think that you are the one disconnected from reality. I don't claim that you don't believe what you say, I just disagree with much of what you claim. And since you keep bringing up Religulous, one movie made by a comedian does not prove any sort of anti-Christian agenda or hatred. It's like claiming Expelled by Ben Stein, the movie made to make fun of those that believe in Evolution and atheists, is proof of hatred and a massive agenda against science and atheists.

 

[Shane Roach]

The info that multiple people tore apart. Yawn.

No one tore it apart. It is sitting right in front of you.

So he misrepresented the studies, and your response is that the evidence was torn apart.

Then I am supposed to believe there is no personal agenda, political agenda, or other fishy business attached to this?

No one tore it apart. No one.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7358406-24/#post51416556

 

[Shane Roach]

It's not? Then I'm not sure what it is you want to call it, discussing a topic on a debate board.



Sure I've heard of Religulous. Not sure what it has to do with anything though. It is not an attack on Christianity, though he does attempt to make fun of things some Fundamentalists say -- but it is not restricted to Christianity. He goes after Muslims and Mormons as well. And from what I recall of that movie, I don't think he ever makes a case that Christians should be persecuted or Christianity should be outlawed.

Seriously, from the way you talk it sounds like you are the one that has the "liberal" bent, that you want Freedom of Speech revoked so that Christians don't have to be "openly attacked" or "accused of things".



You made a demonstrably false claim. You are the one trying to nag and quibble over terms rather than owning up to the fact you made a mistake in your claim. Yet for some reason you seem completely unable to own up to your mistake.



Yet you try to do that exact thing with those that support gay rights and/or those that will benefit from gays getting married. I hate to break it to you but you can't categorize those that support gay rights that way anymore than you can most issues. After all, John McCain's campaign manager, hardly a socialist or liberal, is one of those that has come out in support of gay marriage.

Though I will say that you tend to use a very slippery definition of the term 'socialist'. There are times you try to make the connection that "socialists" are those that would support communism, including the complete ownership of business by the state. The fact remains that I don't believe the majority of gays or gay supporters in the US believe in socialism -- though I will state that I believe a percentage of them believe in European style socialism (private business but government social programs including medicine). OTOH, there are plenty in the US (and the world) that support that type of socialism that do not support gay rights.



Humbug. While there may be some hatred for Christians in this country, there is far more hatred of gays, Democrats, Republicans, etc. than for Christians. And honestly, even those that are considered as "hating Christianity" don't hate Christianity, rather they get tired of the loudest "Christians" trying to enforce Christianity by law.

Further, most of us who support gay rights have no problem with Christianity -- despite your claims. I don't know of any gay supporters on this board (though there may be someone I'm not aware of) that don't support Christians (and other religions) right to define marriage in their churches however they wish. Further, we support the right of churches to determine who they will marry and who they will not marry, without any pressure or force for them to marry couples they believe should not be married.

And just one more point that I found interesting, the first same-sex couple married in Iowa today were married by a Christian pastor. More proof that gays tend not to be anti-Christian. Seriously, if Christianity was so "hated", and it was such a basic part of the gay agenda (which you keep claiming), how would a same-sex couple dare to get married by a pastor? Rather than their marriage being celebrated in the gay community, wouldn't the gay community be criticizing them for using a pastor rather than a Justice of the Peace and lots of gay editorials slamming this couple? Though I would guess that you will try to claim that this is all just a part of the "agenda".

Further, you keep accusing me of personal attacks. Today you claimed I keep lecturing you about hate -- which is flatly untrue. In fact, you are the one lecturing about hate. I've mentioned this several times, I've even asked you to show where I've attacked you personally or accused you of bigotry or hate -- but for some reason you have never responded to this challenge. I think this adequately shows just who is engaging in personal attacks and "lectures on hate", and it isn't me.



Sorry, there are plenty of other explanations for it. Further, how come your marriage is about your love of partner, your wanting to start a family but gay marriages are about nothing other than "sexually perverse practice".



You really don't know me. I'm not sure why you continue to accuse me of false motivations. I think you really may want to review Matthew 7:1-5 -- I seriously don't think you want Christ judging you (based on assumptions when you have no idea of the truth) the way you are judging others.

I don't want Christians gone, in fact, I have no interest in forcing Christian churches to change their beliefs. To steal a line from some of those who are against gay rights on this forum, "Some of my best friends are Christian." All I ask is that churches give the same tolerance to others, that others be treated equally under the law with Christians.



Pretty weak. So you have to deal with non-Christians on an area of a website that allows Christian and non-Christians to debate. Of course, if you really want to "be a Christian in peace", you do realize there are areas of this forum you can do that. You can simply avoid the areas that non-Christians are allowed -- they even have their own discussions about homosexuality section over there.

At the same time, we still hear reports of people being killed because people believe they are gay, or driven to suicide by people calling them gay slurs. Strangely, I don't hear stories of Christians being murdered in the US simply for being Christian or being driven to suicide.

Again, perhaps it is time for the Jon Stewart quote, "Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely! In broad daylight! Openly wearing the symbols of their religion.... perhaps around their necks? And maybe - dare I dream it? - maybe one day there can be an openly Christian President. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively."

Tell you what, if you really want to see intolerance, try an experiment. Go out in public with your best male friend and pretend to be a gay couple. Try holding hands, maybe give each other a kiss and see how people react and what comments they make to you. I'm glad I've never had to experience it personally, though I've been with gay couples when they have had comments and such made to them. My husband lost a friend who was brutally raped -- but of course I seem to recall you claiming that gays aren't really persecuted/hated in this country. (If I remember what you stated, then forgive me for my faulty memory.) Instead, it is Christians that are hated.



Again you accuse me of personal attacks? I'm utterly exhausted with your false claims against me.



I'm sure you don't think that you are the one disconnected from reality. I don't claim that you don't believe what you say, I just disagree with much of what you claim. And since you keep bringing up Religulous, one movie made by a comedian does not prove any sort of anti-Christian agenda or hatred. It's like claiming Expelled by Ben Stein, the movie made to make fun of those that believe in Evolution and atheists, is proof of hatred and a massive agenda against science and atheists.

It's not one movie. It's the entirety of this post, it's the responses I am getting from other gay rights supporters, it is your willingness to ignore this -

http://www.christianforums.com/t7358406-24/#post51416556

And then say I am not "admitting I am wrong" when I refine a statement I made. I'm not beholden to you to say, "I was wrong." I restated my position and clarified it in terms of the objections you brought up. Meanwhile, BigBadWlf says he has a copy of the study I have posted screen shots of, and not a peep out of a single gay rights proponent about it.

Talk about transparent one sidedness.

You want me to admit I was wrong? I thought I did last post, but just to make it clear, "all" or whatever single word in my sentence it was that I used, was overstating my case.

There you go.

Hardly anything at all changes regarding my case, though, whereas any evidence you folks bring up about how wonderful homosexuality is and how awful anyone is who opposes gay marriage seems to crumble upon closer inspection, and some of it is grossly misrepresented by your fellow activists, and you say and do nothing differently.

 

[David Brider]

It's not a class of people, it is a behavior.

As has been pointed out to you time and time again, homosexuality isn't a behaviour.

And as I've asked you repeatedly, if you think homosexuality is a behaviour, then what exactly does it consist of?

David.

 

[David Brider]

Many of the people supporting them really don't want much of anything except to see Christianity further marginalized.

Speaking as a Christian, I have no desire to see Christianity marginalised. I don't think any Christian who supports the right of same-gender couples to marry (and there are several posting on these threads) would like to see Christianity marginalised.

David.

 

[Shane Roach]

The Bible makes it very clear that there are people in the church who want to see Christianity marginalized. The anti-Christ himself comes claiming to be Christ.

It is not proper on this forum to discuss this issue very deeply since the administration has made it against the rules, but the simple fact is that stating, "I am a Christian and do not wish to see Christianity marginalized" proves nothing according to scripture.

As to the argument about behavior -- the word behavior means behavior, and when you speak of homosexual behavior, homosexual becomes the adjective describing the noun "behavior". It's simple.

 

[David Brider]

The Bible makes it very clear that there are people in the church who want to see Christianity marginalized.

It may do, but I can assure you that I'm not one of them, and I'm not convinced that any of the other Christians supporting same-gender marriage are either. For that matter, I don't think most of the non-Christians are either (although there are some exceptions to that).

As to the argument about behavior -- the word behavior means behavior, and when you speak of homosexual behavior, homosexual becomes the adjective describing the noun "behavior". It's simple.

Sure, when you speak of homosexual behaviour (although that doesn't actually make any really clearer what you think homosexual behaviour is). But you've made the claim that homosexuality itself is a behaviour. It's not.

David.