Homosexuals and Bisexuals

[Shane Roach]

Christ was not Jesus' last name though. Christos is Greek for the Hebrew word moshiach which we translate into English as messiah. So "Christian Forums" isn't taking the NAME of Jesus, but the TITLE you apply to Jesus.

There are multiple points.

A: You know good and well this title is referencing Jesus. Why are you pretending not to?
B: The discussion of the meaning of Messiah and whether or not "Christian Forums" refers to Jesus is a separate topic.
C: Part of the reason I have posted why I am against gay and lesbian activists, bisexuality, etc, is that they consistently try to mislead the public, so my post is not at all off topic to begin with. Not only that, but the next several posts after one where I demonstrate a false statement made by a supporter of gay marriage is indeed false, two false interpretations of some pretty plain English ensue from gay rights supporters, and then you try to make hay out of some unrelated linguistic gobblydeegook concerning whether or not the term "Christian" really refers to followers of Jesus or not.

Then you actually try to defend your off topic rant.

That, in a nutshell, is why I have such great distrust of gays and their political allies. Not ten years ago I was a live and let live I-don't-care-about-it person where homosexuality is concerned. Now I feel like it probably ought to be illegal again given the associated disease, breakdown, and social unrest it appears to cause.

It is impossible to have a "rational" discussion of the topic. It is an argument about fundamental definitions and fundamental irreconcilable differences. "What does marriage have to do with heterosexuality?"

?????????????????

 

[Shane Roach]

What does the discussion of CF moderation policy that was going on for several posts above mine that you have seen fit to ignore have to do with homosexuality?

In my posts I have repeatedly stated part of my problem with the gay agenda is its open attacks on religion. That is what.

 

[Skaloop]

I have the whole study sitting right here in front of me. I know exactly what they are talking about, but the text itself as posted is self explanatory. They found the potential in men and women wide spread, and yet the behavior itself limited. Of those who exhibit the behavior, not all of them were positive for the genetic potential, meaning there is a non-genetic potential as well.

Of course there is. Why wouldn't there be? That's what the "predisposition" part means.

Every genetic trait is wholly reliant on an environmental factor, and every environmental trait is wholly reliant on a genetic factor.

Nonetheless, sexuality shows a not-insignificant genetic factor. It's not the entirety of sexuality, of course, but it's a primary factor.

Twins are far more likely to (a) both show the homosexual potential, and (b) be overtly homosexual than are non-twin siblings. That in itself shows the genetic factor. It's not absolute, but the genetic influence is undeniable.

 

[beechy]

Interesting point.

Interestingly, there is no record in the Bible of any prophet, nor of Jesus, making any claim that an un-Godly action would be so rewarded.

There is also no record in the Bible of any prophet, nor of Jesus, making any claim that I would find the sweet deals I stumbled onto at the Banana Republic outlet a couple of months ago.

In the past simple social pressure was enough. I think it is likely such pressures would re-assert themselves if our government did not interfere regularly and help inculcate a spirit of sexual immorality in our nation.

Are you claiming that no one ever had premarital sex before the advent of no-fault divorce in 1970 (the event you've cited numerous times as a root of moral decline)? This book, on page 112, suggests that the watershed was much earlier (in 1890), citing one study showing that roughly 30% of women born before 1890 had intercourse outside of marriage, which increased to 60% of women born after 1890; and another study finding that nearly 90% of women surveyed born before 1890 were virgins at marriage, compared to 74% born between 1890 and 1899, 51% born between 1900 and 1909, and just 32% born after 1910. The book links premarital intercourse to women's rights movements and the so-called "purity crusade" against STD's.

Ths same book on page 109 says that it was discovered in 1889 that the US had the highest divorce rate in the world, so state legislatures across the country began tightening divorce laws until about 1906 to discourage marital separation -- hinging them on "fault", and making the process for filing for divorce more stringent. Despite these efforts, however, the number of divorces granted nationwide between 1870 and 1920 increased fifteen fold.

This is essentially a lie. We all know it is not normal. We also know they are not having their kids in the sense that normal families do. This repeated statement, oft addressed, demonstrates the willingness of gay activists and their supporters to simply lie to get their way.

It is not a lie, it is a point of disagreement.

Gay parents are not the source of the kids, thus the opposite sex parent in every case needs to be specifically addressed.

A parent's responsibility for and legal relationship to her child is exactly the same no matter what the child's "source" was.

The citizens should be allowed to have the government reflect their values, whether they are Christian values or not. That is not theocratic. That is democracy and self government.

There is an ongoing tension, and constant and necessary need in a democratic government to balance the rights of the minority against the voting power of the majority.

It is not a "random" internet forum. It has twice now in its history taken on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to further its own organizational ambitions, whatever those might be, and it is utterly inappropriate to do so while openly harassing decent people and encouraging vile behavior and teachings.

Out of curiousity, what two instances are you talking about?

 

[Shane Roach]

No, I don't get your drift at all because it doesn't make any sense.

It makes perfect sense. Anyone capable of reading English should be able to comprehend it.

Again. This is the problem. There is no discussion to be had, there is only invented confusion.

Anyone, anyone, anyone at all can read and comprehend the things gay activists always insist are so confusing. No aspect of this subject exists at all outside of invented confusions over words.

 

[b&wpac4]

It wasn't an off topic rant. It wasn't a rant at all.

 

[Shane Roach]

In summation, the topic itself is a flame and a troll. There is no topic to be had unless first someone makes an intrinsically inflamatory insistance that homosexuality is "normal", or that it is not a "behavior", or that it is the exact same as a race or a gender in terms of civil rights, or that marriage somehow is totally separate from gender issues despite the obvious problem that if this were so, we'd already have massive acceptance of gay marriage around the world.

Nothing, nothing, nothing at all about this subject exists if people simply refuse to acknoweldge inflamatory insistence that obvious truths are not in fact obvious truths, and yet our courts -- people we pay a lot of money to judge wisely -- flaunt their authority and subjegate the people with ridiculous "judgments" in favor of these ridiculous assertions.

 

[beechy]

In summation, the topic itself is a flame and a troll. There is no topic to be had unless first someone makes an intrinsically inflamatory insistance that homosexuality is "normal", or that it is not a "behavior", or that it is the exact same as a race or a gender in terms of civil rights, or that marriage somehow is totally separate from gender issues despite the obvious problem that if this were so, we'd already have massive acceptance of gay marriage around the world.

Nothing, nothing, nothing at all about this subject exists if people simply refuse to acknoweldge inflamatory insistence that obvious truths are not in fact obvious truths, and yet our courts -- people we pay a lot of money to judge wisely -- flaunt their authority and subjegate the people with ridiculous "judgments" in favor of these ridiculous assertions.

My civil rights are not a flame and a troll.

 

[Shane Roach]

It wasn't an off topic rant. It wasn't a rant at all.

Sure it was, and aimed directly at me. This from a person who has complained to me openly of mod unfairness here, so don't pretend to me you don't know where this comes from.

The whole issue of moderation on E&M forums exists largely specifically in what this site has to do to deal with sensitive topics to do with Christian teaching. This site has an anti-heresy rule but does not enforce it at all where homosexuality is concerned. This forum was supposed to specifically NOT be a place like the apologetics forum, but nothing has changed, because the underlying problem is always the same -- you must, must, must at least be able to tolerate Christian belief if you are going to call yourself a Christian site, and yet the minute you open up a forum to public discussion, the first thing that happens is people argue about what is or is not heresy to begin with.

And it is an important topic, heresy, and this site does not have the appropriate attitude towards discipline where this is concerned.

That's why the open forums suffer and Christians will openly speak of not coming here because it is simply self destructive and unworthy of the effort.

"Pearls before swine," not at all complimentary, but that is what folks say.

It applies to every church as well. Currently the entire Christian community is being split over a ridiculously obvious false teaching concerning homosexuality. Multiple declarations of sinfulness, not a single accepted homosexual relationship, homosexuality repeatedly tied with the worst sorts of idolatrous and un-Godly behavior, and we are being told it is not even so much as a sin.

Unacceptable. Wad me up and toss me out of here, if I have to tip toe around this any longer. It is anti-Christ teaching, Heresy, pushing an anti-Christian agenda, plain and simple, and needs to be treated precisely as such.

 

[beechy]

Sure it was, and aimed directly at me. This from a person who has complained to me openly of mod unfairness here, so don't pretend to me you don't know where this comes from.

The whole issue of moderation on E&M forums exists largely specifically in what this site has to do to deal with sensitive topics to do with Christian teaching. This site has an anti-heresy rule but does not enforce it at all where homosexuality is concerned. This forum was supposed to specifically NOT be a place like the apologetics forum, but nothing has changed, because the underlying problem is always the same -- you must, must, must at least be able to tolerate Christian belief if you are going to call yourself a Christian site, and yet the minute you open up a forum to public discussion, the first thing that happens is people argue about what is or is not heresy to begin with.

And it is an important topic, heresy, and this site does not have the appropriate attitude towards discipline where this is concerned.

That's why the open forums suffer and Christians will openly speak of not coming here because it is simply self destructive and unworthy of the effort.

"Pearls before swine," not at all complimentary, but that is what folks say.

It applies to every church as well. Currently the entire Christian community is being split over a ridiculously obvious false teaching concerning homosexuality. Multiple declarations of sinfulness, not a single accepted homosexual relationship, homosexuality repeatedly tied with the worst sorts of idolatrous and un-Godly behavior, and we are being told it is not even so much as a sin.

Unacceptable. Wad me up and toss me out of here, if I have to tip toe around this any longer. It is anti-Christ teaching, Heresy, pushing an anti-Christian agenda, plain and simple, and needs to be treated precisely as such.

Ok.

 

[Shane Roach]

My civil rights are not a flame and a troll.

Accusing people of violating civil rights you demonstrably do not have is.

 

[b&wpac4]

Sure it was, and aimed directly at me. This from a person who has complained to me openly of mod unfairness here, so don't pretend to me you don't know where this comes from.

If you think my interest in the meaning of a word used, and the fact that it was a title and not a name is in some way an attack upon you....well, I'm not really sure what to think. From my point of view, yes it was offtopic, but wasn't meant to be an attack. It was just something that hit my mind and I said it.

As I said, I'm sure some people here would hate to really talk to me, as I jump topics constantly.

 

[sidhe]

I'm wondering where, constitutionally, the right to marry is guaranteed to anyone...

 

[Polycarp1]

I suggest you read it again. It states that some people with the genetic predisposition do not practice homosexual behavior, and some who do not have the genetic predisposition do, essentially putting the last nail in the coffin of the idea that it is genetically determined.

Same problem as before, Shawn -- and I hope you won't mind if I use your wording to make a point you at least have been clear on but others haven't:

What is the "it" that is genetically determined? Reworded, "What does the word 'homosexuality' mean?"

Nobody is, I think, arguing that it is a choice to engage in or refrain from engaging in any given sex act. (Draw an exception for the rare but real 'sex addicts' with OCD on sexual activities.) That's the behavioral component.

The question is, why would anyone want to in the first place? And that's what this whole predisposition and orientation thing is about. When someone says that they're gay, they are not saying they want to jump into bed with the next man (or woman if they're female) they see -- they're saying that they find attractive, sexually and romantically, some people of the same sex. That's what they mean by homosexuality. And just as normal straight people want to find one particular person, fall in love and get married, so do they -- except that it will be another gay man or another lesbian woman.

So you have not proven any point -- except that anyone with a tendency can resist that tendency. The rules here recognize that: some people have hot tempers, and can do little about that, but they can choose not to post inflammatory posts, and that's what they're expected to do.

I have a hereditary predisposition to alcoholism -- there ware alcoholics among close relatives on both sides of my family. But, not belonging to a church that believes even moderate drinking is sinful, and since that predisposition has not tipped me into actual alcoholism yet, I can drink a little wine in moderation -- and do on very rare occasions. I simply need to be on my guard not to rationalize away a need to drink -- alcoholism in its incipient form -- which has not yet hit.

By the same token, there are those of us who believe that what's prohibited by Scripture is the abusive or self-indulgent homosexual acts, much the same as adultery, promiscuous fornication, coercive sex, etc., on the other side of the divide -- and that gay people may fall in love and marry without sinning against God's Law (and yes, people, I CAN read the Scriptures -- I can even read them in context, which some legalists seem unable to do).

It is their choice, yes. But since you could remain celibate -- to marry and have sex is your choice, and Paul makes it quite clear that it's a second choice for those unable to stay celibate -- I feel it is not our place to insist to gay people that they must remain celibate if they believe they can follow God best in company with a loving spouse.

Besides, how many marriages is God going to say He doesn't recognize, because He was serious in Matthew 7:1-5 and people who claim to be married have decided to judge that others' marriages are not real in His eyes. I don't know whether they are or not; I do know He said not to judge others. Logical conclusion to me is that there are a bunch of conservative Christian couples in California and some other states that passed those laws that are going to be in for a big surprise come Judgment Day.

 

[beechy]

Accusing people of violating civil rights you demonstrably do not have is.

Supreme Courts throughout the country have deemed the issue worthy of discussion and have gone on to reach different conclusions about it. It is not a flame and troll -- are you flaming and trolling right now?

 

[Polycarp1]

I'm wondering where, constitutionally, the right to marry is guaranteed to anyone...

Ninth Amendment. And I'll bet in some state constitutions as well -- certainly in all the ones that amended their constitution to define marriage.

Why's it an unenumerated right? Because imagine a state that banned marriage entirely, dissolving all existing marriages and prohibitng any new ones. You'd have some tee;d-off people, right? Chief Justice Warren picked up on that and included it in the text of Loving v. Virginia -- which enshrines it as a constitutionally guaranteed right.

 

[beechy]

I'm wondering where, constitutionally, the right to marry is guaranteed to anyone...

The Constitution does not mention marriage directly. It has been held to be part of the substantive due process doctrine derived from the 14th Amendment liberty protection.

Edit: Polycarp's post asserting the Ninth Amendment is correct as well. The two (14th and 9th) are intertwined in that the 9th has been applied to the interpretation of the 14th in support of the substantive due process concept ... i.e., the idea that the Bill of Rights does not try to enumerate every single fundamental right, so we should read the "liberty" right guaranteed in the 14th as an umbrella term which includes certain specific fundamental liberties.

 

[Veyrlian]

Wow, this thread is getting insaner and insaner.
"The breakdown of marriage is not caused by heterosexuals, it's a leftist agenda!"
Of course we all know leftists can't be heterosexuals, only gay. Because they choose to.
"In a few years the term "consensual adults" might mean something entirely different!"
Yes, it is the gay and leftist and feminist agendas combined to change the meaning of "adult" to mean everything from chickens to fungus. Busted!

I don't know, maybe I should just leave you people to fight your needless, ugly and absurd war against homosexuality. You are going to lose eventually, mainly because there is no good reason to deny other people their equal rights, and your much-revered history will remember you as the ignorant bigots you profess not to be.

Then again, it's rather cool to be one of the good guys.

 

[Philothei]

By the same token, there are those of us who believe that what's prohibited by Scripture is the abusive or self-indulgent homosexual acts, much the same as adultery, promiscuous fornication, coercive sex, etc., on the other side of the divide -- and that gay people may fall in love and marry without sinning against God's Law (and yes, people, I CAN read the Scriptures -- I can even read them in context, which some legalists seem unable to do).

Nope scripture does not describe....ONLY against abusive sexual acts... It is CLEAR about homosexual acts be abusive or "friendly" any act outside the perimeters of marriage as sinful. The ONLY legitamate relations are within marriage and that pressuposes man and woman....It is not a matter of legalism but of how God created and He created man and woman as his helper...Again not another man... period.

 

[Philothei]

Besides, how many marriages is God going to say He doesn't recognize, because He was serious in Matthew 7:1-5 and people who claim to be married have decided to judge that others' marriages are not real in His eyes. I don't know whether they are or not;

Christ forgave the adulteress who sinned but repented. He did tell here to go and sin NO MORE....what does this tell you? That living in sin is ok? He did not judge her past but he did advice her about the future....How more obvious you think he should have been? Fornication, homosexual acts and such were against the Hebrew Law he did not agree as to the punishment...about the Law but not the Law itself. He upheld the fact that these are all sins and should be repented...

I do know He said not to judge others. Logical conclusion to me is that there are a bunch of conservative Christian couples in California and some other states that passed those laws that are going to be in for a big surprise come Judgment Day.

Not judging those who are sinning meaning to do likewise? hmmm.... And now ....who is judging who here....lol.... ah... human nature ....