How Homophobic Are You?

[ChaliceThunder]

To Chalice_Thunder,

They haven’t, men and women have dne all the producing, gays and straights are just people with sexual attractions.

Not really, reproduction is by man and woman the sexual desires of the men and women is irrelevant as it would only determine whether they wanted to or not.

The fact is: there are men and women in the creation who are straight and those who are gay. We are all products of the reproductive process.

I'm wondering why you have this need to define other people - do you not know one can define themselves by any number of characteristics?

Certainly for those of us who are Christian, our identity is in Christ, and that is the most important thing. And then we can go on to include other descriptors: gay, partnered, musician, chef, etc. Just because I could use those terms for myself does not mean any loss of identity in Christ.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

The fact is: there are men and women in the creation who are straight and those who are gay. We are all products of the reproductive process.

The "fact" is, that once you "are" homosexual, you have been taken out of any further reproductive process.

I'm wondering why you have this need to define other people - do you not know one can define themselves by any number of characteristics?

Good, bad, holiness and evil, define characteristics too.

Certainly for those of us who are Christian, our identity is in Christ, and that is the most important thing. And then we can go on to include other descriptors: gay, partnered, musician, chef, etc.

And those of us who are Christians that hold to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles on a proper partnered union for a marriage? What about that?

Just because I could use those terms for myself does not mean any loss of identity in Christ.

Jesus taught that not everyone that calls themself a believer in Him are a believer in Him. We are to test all things, say Hid Apostles. Anyone bringing a different Gospel, are to be rejected.

In the Gospel, marriage is a man and a woman. Are those of us Christians that follow the teachings of Christ Jesus and the Apostles, are we doing anything "wrong?"

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes that’s right.

Then you contradict yourself. Let us recap:

You: "Basic biology tells me the man and the woman are compatible sexually, man and man or woman and woman aren’t... As soon as you mention homosexuality you are talking by definition about sexual attraction which in the case of heterosexual is obviously ordered and in the case of homosexual is obviously disordered."

EnemyPartyII: "Well luckily for the scientific community, biology does not rely on what you think is "obvious"."

You: "Nonsense I was referring to what the scientific community think is obvious, not what you think I think is obvious. "

Me: "[T]he scientific community does not think homosexuality is 'obviously wrong'."

You: "I wasn’t referring to homosexuality..."

Me: "On the contrary, you were saying [p], so therefore homosexuality is wrong"

You: "Yes that's right."

So first you say the scientific community thinks it obvious that homosexuality is wrong, then you say you weren't talking about homosexuality at all! Which is it?

You asked for a source so I gave one.

I asked for the source of your claim, not the details of human biology. Again, let us recap:

You: "Basic biology tells me the man and the woman are compatible sexually, man and man or woman and woman aren’t... As soon as you mention homosexuality you are talking by definition about sexual attraction which in the case of heterosexual is obviously ordered and in the case of homosexual is obviously disordered."

EnemyPartyII: "Well luckily for the scientific community, biology does not rely on what you think is "obvious"."

You: "I was referring to what the scientific community think is obvious..."

Me: "Please, cite your sources."

Then you linked to a site detailing human anatomy. I site, I might add, which had nothing to do with homosexuality. I ask you again: cite your sources. What justification do you have for the claims you made?

kin selection is not relevant. If a defect that causes non reproductive coupling at 5 % continues to be passed on by the 95% reproductive population there is no evolution.

Then you do not know what 'evolution' is.

Homosexuality isn’t scientifically proven so how can it have done anything.

There isn't anything in that sentence that doesn't need correcting.

1) Science doesn't 'prove' anything; that's for mathematics. The existence of atoms is, ultimately, 'only' a theory.

2) Homosexuality is a known fact, insofar as heterosexuality is a known fact: they're both biological phenomena. I've never known anyone deny the existence of homosexuality before.

3) Homosexuality, as a phenomenon, does have an effect. That's indisputable. The question is: what effect?

Source please?

Here, here, here, and here. I also found this article you may be interested in.

Well if you are going to ask me for sources and I provide them, you are going to have to provide your sources please otherwise I am going to treat your point as unsubstantiated and suspect.

I have done. And since you made your claim first, I find it curious that you would demand sources from me.

So, please cite your sources.

yes sure indeed.

Did you even read what I wrote?

But nether the human species, nor any other organism, are classified by their sexual attraction but by there sex.

No. The human species is not classified by sex, since there are two sexes (and an area of blurry 'middle-ground'). An individual can be classified by any number of arbitrary biological and behavioural traits: skin colour, eye colour, hair colour, penis length/girth, height, weight, cranial volume, accent, diet, religion, OCDs (or lack thereof), and, last but not least, sexuality.

What, exactly, is your point? What does this have to do with your strange notion of 'basic biology'?

yes that’s right and heterosexuals cant reproduce between then if they are of the same sex. So this should tell you that the terms homosexual and heterosexual are useless in describing the basic biology of male and female reproduction which is necessary for life to continue and even the theory of evolution.

Indeed. Homosexuality and heterosexuality refer to an individuals sexual orientation.

But what does this have to do with anything? We have terms for lots of things.

Well if they cant naturally why would you want unnaturally?

Because we have the technology to do so. If your wife required an emergency C-section, would you rather your unborn child die? If you needed a blood transfusion, would you rather die than accept medical assistance?

If you are so appalled by the 'unnatural', go live in a cave away from any and all modern technology. You could even go live with the Amish.

Medical science is not progressing its becoming perverted to the unnatural in this respect. … as I said we have science based in the whims of sexual desires.

Such as?

then the argument is irrelevent.

How so? The point is that it evolved; why it evolved is irrelevant. The latter does not negate the former. Stop conflating one with the other.

Because two people of the same sex cant naturally produce a child. There are no same-sex parents as they cant produce children.

The parents of a child are not simply the biological parents, and you know this. If a couple adopt a child and raise it from birth to age 18, they are its parents, regardless of the sexual orientation or gender pairing of the couple.

What is being called same-sex parents is abnormal and error for this basic reason. The evidence such as reports like Breakdown Britain last year show this.

I see nothing in that report that undermines what I am saying, nor bolsters what you are saying. What evidence do you have that male-male and female-female parental units are any worse than their male-female counterparts?

No. same-sex couples can’t reproduce whether they are willing or unwilling.

Yes and no. You did claim that choosing to not reproduce is a disease. But you are right that a same-sex couple can't procreate (not yet, at least).

You keep throwing in comments which are irrelevant.

Pot? Meet the kettle.

Yes I am anti-straight and anti gay as reproduction depends on a man and a woman, gay and straight is irrelevant and perverted thinking. What I am doing is explaining why.

You're not doing a very good job. Someone is deemed 'straight' if they are attracted to members of the opposite sex. Someone is deemed 'gay' if they are attracted to members of the same sex. That's all there is to it. It's a way of categorising people according to a particular trait, much like we categorise people as blonde, brunette, red-head, etc.

What, exactly, is perverted about that?

Well for everyone.

Then, once again, you make no sense:

You: "The SD’s and AIDS bills could be proportionately higher"
Me: "For whom than whom?"
You: "Well for everyone."

Yes agreed you are right here, people don’t necessarily choose to have homosexual attraction just like they don’t choose to be tempted in any other way.

At last, something we agree on. However, you once again contradict yourself:

Me: "...people don't 'choose' to be gay..."
You: "They can. People can chise (sic) not to be greedy, adulterous, selfish malicious,..."

Yet now you say people can't choose to be gay.

Not quite like that as the issue is not the helping, but the natural coupling of male and female. Also no not like that because a heterosexual couples could be two men who cant reproduce between them even with IVF. The problem is you keep using the words heterosexual/homosexual and gay/straight when it comes to reproduction and these words are useless as one has to assume you are referring to the actual sex of the people rather than their sexual attractions.

It's shorthand, and I figured it'd be obvious. Nevertheless, here's a handy-dandy guide:

A heterosexual couple is made of one heterosexual male and one heterosexual female. Also known as a 'straight' couple.

A homosexual couple is made of two homosexual men, or two homosexual women. Also known as a 'gay' couple.

This isn't exactly rocket science.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

The "fact" is, that once you "are" homosexual, you have been taken out of any further reproductive process.

Well, I know several homosexuals who would disagree with you here. They are married with children, and even though they are gay, they are staying in their marriages. So much for your reproductive process argument.

Good, bad, holiness and evil, define characteristics too.

Yes, they do.

And those of us who are Christians that hold to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles on a proper partnered union for a marriage? What about that?

I would say that God blesses your marriage as much as He has mine.

Jesus taught that not everyone that calls themself a believer in Him are a believer in Him. We are to test all things, say Hid Apostles. Anyone bringing a different Gospel, are to be rejected.

Not so. Paul, in Romans, says this:
"...because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved. The scripture says, "No one who believes in him will be put to shame." For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him. For, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

In the Gospel, marriage is a man and a woman. Are those of us Christians that follow the teachings of Christ Jesus and the Apostles, are we doing anything "wrong?"

Did anyone say you were doing something wrong? (except for unrighteous judgment you are casting about like so much bird seed...that is not Gospel in any way)

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Chalice_Thunder

The fact is: there are men and women in the creation who are straight and those who are gay. We are all products of the reproductive process.

The fact is there arent, the idea of gay and straight is a human concept not a godly one.

I'm wondering why you have this need to define other people - do you not know one can define themselves by any number of characteristics?

Biology defines male and female, I wonder why you pick on me defining people the same?

Certainly for those of us who are Christian, our identity is in Christ, and that is the most important thing. And then we can go on to include other descriptors: gay, partnered, musician, chef, etc. Just because I could use those terms for myself does not mean any loss of identity in Christ

If ones identity is in Christ then it needs to be in line with His commands and teaching such as Jesus explains in John 14-15. If we obey His teaching He will be in us and we in Him
So the Romans passage also applies, indeed as Polycarp fan implies, Jesus says some will say Lord Lord but He wont know them. The scripture their lips praise but their hearts are far. Now I am not suggesting anyone in mind, all I am saying is a blanket claim is not necessarily so, we have to see the fruit. However obviously of the fruit is wilful promoting of same-sex one is already outside what Christs NT teaching says on this matter

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Most people in the world know that the Bible clearly maintains man/woman union is the creation purpose and homosexual unions are error, so I think your comments are wishful thinking and in denial.

You seem to be mistaking what you wish most people in the world think for what most people in the world ACTUALLY think.

Either way, you still havn't addressed my point. Nowhere, anywhere, does the Bible condemn homosexuality. Arguably it condemns homosexual ACTS, but thats very different to condemning homosexuality.

then your identity is in your sexual desires, mine is in Christ. Therefore you are entitled to follow your sexual desires and live out your identity, just as I am entitled to seek to follow Jesus Christ and His teaching.

I am defined by more than my sexuality. However, in the context of discussing our sexualities, mine is homosexual. Yours is heterosexual. Our religious affiliation has nothing to do with this.

I am not a heterosexual, I don’t have opposite sex attraction per se, as I am married. I don’t do ‘heterosexual’ or ‘homosexual’ identity or classification as the terms cut across and confuse God’s purposes.

Wow. Well, I bet your spouse is happy about this.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

To Chalice_Thunder
The fact is there arent, the idea of gay and straight is a human concept not a godly one.

I disagree. But that's ok.

Biology defines male and female, I wonder why you pick on me defining people the same?

I picked on you because you keep trying to define others in order to ostracize them. Not cool with Jesus in any way, shape or form.

If ones identity is in Christ then it needs to be in line with His commands and teaching such as Jesus explains in John 14-15. If we obey His teaching He will be in us and we in Him
So the Romans passage also applies, indeed as Polycarp fan implies, Jesus says some will say Lord Lord but He wont know them. The scripture their lips praise but their hearts are far. Now I am not suggesting anyone in mind, all I am saying is a blanket claim is not necessarily so, we have to see the fruit. However obviously of the fruit is wilful promoting of same-sex one is already outside what Christs NT teaching says on this matter

Indeed!

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Well, I know several homosexuals who would disagree with you here. They are married with children, and even though they are gay, they are staying in their marriages. So much for your reproductive process argument.

To beget children one most be "not" homosexual. It's a science thing. (The first sentence had to be worded the way it was.)

Yes, they do.

I would say that God blesses your marriage as much as He has mine.

If you are saying you are married to someone of the same gender, there is no such thing in the "Christian" church per the Apostolic witness. Whatever they do in the MCC is strictly a new religiosity.

Not so. Paul, in Romans, says this:
"...because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved. The scripture says, "No one who believes in him will be put to shame." For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him. For, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

"Anyone," and everyone. You won;t see me disagreeing with scripture.

But the "not so?"

Originally Posted by Polycarp_fan
Jesus taught that not everyone that calls themself a believer in Him are a believer in Him. We are to test all things, say His Apostles. Anyone bringing a different Gospel, are to be rejected.

Here's Jesus on false followers:

"Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravaging wolves. You'll recognize them by their fruit. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree produces good fruit, but a bad tree produces bad fruit. A good tree can't produce bad fruit; neither can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that doesn't produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So you'll recognize them by their fruit.

"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord!' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but [only] the one who does the will of My Father in heaven. On that day many will say to Me, 'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in Your name, drive out demons in Your name, and do many miracles in Your name? ' Then I will announce to them, 'I never knew you! Depart from Me, you lawbreakers!

I don't know who the original individual was that invented gay theology, maybe Mel White, but it is encouraging people to sin. Gospel advice is just the opposite.

Here's Paul's familiar treatise on encoraging others to sin, and I'm sure you know what preceded this line:

" . . .they not only do them, but even applaud others who practice them.

If there is one thing consistent in gay religiosity and secular gay culture, it is definately encouraging others to engage in the sin of gay sex. If I am wrong, please point me to anyone in the gay community "preaching" against gay sex.

The Two Foundations

24 "Therefore, everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them will be like a sensible man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain fell, the rivers rose, and the winds blew and pounded that house. Yet it didn't collapse, because its foundation was on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of Mine and doesn't act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 The rain fell, the rivers rose, the winds blew and pounded that house, and it collapsed. And its collapse was great!"

Jesus taught that marriage is a man and a woman.

Did anyone say you were doing something wrong? (except for unrighteous judgment you are casting about like so much bird seed...that is not Gospel in any way)

You're joking right?

Let me ask you a question or two. How does a person that desires gay sex and engages in gay sex, find comfort in a Church that affirms the Bible?

Do you really think that a person that promotes gay sex is NOT going to be fiercely opposed in a Church that affirms the Bible?

I'm NOT talking about liberal and progressive religious organizations, as they clearly edit out of the Bible whatever dissents of humanism, I am talking about places where millions and millions and millions of Christians call their Chruch that preach that "homosexuality" is innapropriate AND a sin?

What do you hope to accomplish by pushing the gay agenda into and onto Christians that have multiple reasons to oppose gay culture?

Do you really think that promoting gay sex (male and female) in a Church is going to fly?

Where do you get the religious authority to teach people in the Church that gay sex and gay culture is acceptable?

 

[Technocrat2010]

To beget children one most be "not" homosexual. It's a science thing. (The first sentence had to be worded the way it was.)

You could have rather said (to a less awkward grammatical effect) "one must be heterosexual" but I digress. At any rate, your argument is invalid. Sexual orientation is not necessary to perform sexual intercourse and beget children - functional genitalia and fertile sperm/eggs are sufficient. There are numerous instances of closet homosexuals, who, while believing in the public misconception that homosexuality is a social choice, marry and have children. One of my close friends is one such example.

"Anyone," and everyone. You won;t see me disagreeing with scripture.

Please show me where in scripture does it say that having a homosexual orientation is a sin.

If there is one thing consistent in gay religiosity and secular gay culture, it is definately encouraging others to engage in the sin of gay sex. If I am wrong, please point me to anyone in the gay community "preaching" against gay sex.

Several of my college friends are homosexual - and devout Catholics. They follow the teachings of the Catholic church and strongly believe that homosexuals are called to a life of celibacy - a teaching of the Catholic Church. They also believe homosexual acts are grave sins - also a teaching of the Catholic Church. Please stop with the stereotyping unless you can back up your statements.

Let me ask you a question or two. How does a person that desires gay sex and engages in gay sex, find comfort in a Church that affirms the Bible?

Desiring gay sex and engaging in gay sex are two different things. One can lead to the other, but it is not a necessity. Just as a person need not engage in heterosexual sex to be identified as a heterosexual, so neither does a homosexual need to engage in gay sex to be seen as such.

I'm NOT talking about liberal and progressive religious organizations, as they clearly edit out of the Bible whatever dissents of humanism, I am talking about places where millions and millions and millions of Christians call their Chruch that preach that "homosexuality" is innapropriate AND a sin?

Humanism? What does humanism have to do with our discussion?

Exactly how do you define "homosexuality"?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

You could have rather said (to a less awkward grammatical effect) "one must be heterosexual" but I digress. At any rate, your argument is invalid. Sexual orientation is not necessary to perform sexual intercourse and beget children - functional genitalia and fertile sperm/eggs are sufficient.

First: Why would ANY Christian want to call themself Gay, Lesbian, or Bi-Sexual?

OK, on to response.

Gentalia, sperm and ovum denote normality and literaly define the term "sexual orientation." If you have normally formed genitalia that produce sperm, you are a man. If you ovulate, you are a woman. There may be extremely rare cases where that is not the case, but that is not "homosexuality," or gay sex related.

There are numerous instances of closet homosexuals, who, while believing in the public misconception that homosexuality is a social choice, marry and have children. One of my close friends is one such example.

Contemplate the words you are writing. "Closted homosexual," is a neologism that is literally meaningless except for driving a wierd agenda. It is a mental choice to engage in any kind of sex act, and of course we could get graphic about body functions that define normality and literally "point" to sexual orientation. What goes up, er, is to be used the way natural law has defined it.

Please show me where in scripture does it say that having a homosexual orientation is a sin.

Homosexual orientation is not "in" the Bible. On sexual behavior "in the Bible" there are only people doing the right kind of sex and the ones doing the wrong kind of sex. The Bible is well known for its view that same-gender sex acts are the wrong kind of sexual acts. "Sexual orientation" is a modern day neologism to describe how homosexuals feel about themselves.

Several of my college friends are homosexual - and devout Catholics.

Not according to Catholic doctrine. Why would they desire to be in the Catholic Church if they like gay sex? There are some other religious organizations that support that kinf of thing. Why the need to be in a Church that desires them to stop doing what they want to sexually? It just doesn't seem honest or respectful to Christians that will not affirm gay sex, for gays to force their sexual tastes on them.

They follow the teachings of the Catholic church and strongly believe that homosexuals are called to a life of celibacy - a teaching of the Catholic Church. They also believe homosexual acts are grave sins - also a teaching of the Catholic Church. Please stop with the stereotyping unless you can back up your statements.

A sin repented of is no where to be found. "It" no longer exists. I am very familiar with "not" doing things you need to repent of AND DOING things you need to repent of. Once you repent (and as the case with "even" the Catholic Church) and are forgiven you no longer are your former sinful self. You go on from there. If God will not hold forgiven sins to account (literally) why would anybody else?

Desiring gay sex and engaging in gay sex are two different things.

Uh yes. OK. If you are desiring to bring "no gay sex" into the Church, then you will be greeted as a Christian. if you are thinking of sneaking it in under false pretenses, you had better be ready to repent or bear the consequences of existing where you stand until you do. There are too many signals that gays desire access to "The Church" to attempt to legitimize gay sex and gay culture. I can assue you, that will never happen. It_will_never_happen.

One can lead to the other, but it is not a necessity. Just as a person need not engage in heterosexual sex to be identified as a heterosexual, so neither does a homosexual need to engage in gay sex to be seen as such.

You are talking about judging a person. What Christian can do that? You don;t judge a person for their mindset. You can though, test them and their behaviors and actiions within the Church and/or outside of the Church, "IF," the call themsleves a Christian AND a member of your Church body.

Humanism? What does humanism have to do with our discussion?

Actually EVERYTHING!!!!!!!! It is from the Humanist Manifesto and other related works of Humanists, and the belifes and social demands of humanists that homosexuals were given their greatest support and power. What we see today sprang from the Humanist movement into our "education" system decades ago. Please, please, test me on that. Read what humanists truly desire and teach in such an authoritarian manner, that all must submit to their secular demands. Read the Humanist ideology on "family." You will see the basis for the gay movement gaining the power it has attained, and the power it will achieve.

It also will have nothing to do with, or in Christianty, as Christian life and culture is explained by the Apostles, in gaining its power through gay activism. The Gay Agenda is antithetical to Christian truth. That is why you see the animosity between gays and Christians. Literally, schism is but one fruit of gay activism.

Exactly how do you define "homosexuality"?

Part of the sodomy condition. That is the way "it" is taught in scripture. You see Sodom and Gomorrah almost exclusively mentioned along with sexual sin.

It is the call of every Christian NOT to encorage others to sin. Sodomy is the engagement of sin and the encouraging of others TO sin.

Inhospitality and lasciviousness licentiousness go hand in hand. The haughty defined quite well, by the Prophets and Apostles alike.

Why would ANY Christian want to call themself Gay, Lesbian, or Bi-Sexual?

Please answer that.

 

[The_Master]

There scoring is strange.
if you select Strongly agree to 20. Homosexual behavior should not be against the law then it raises your score, but if you don't agree, (State that it should be against the law) then that lowers your score.

 

[cheese007]

There scoring is strange.
if you select Strongly agree to 20. Homosexual behavior should not be against the law then it raises your score, but if you don't agree, (State that it should be against the law) then that lowers your score.

Maybe you read the scoring system wrong? I had that same issue when i went back and looked over my questions.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

First: Why would ANY Christian want to call themself Gay, Lesbian, or Bi-Sexual?

Because that particular Christian is gay, lesbian, and/or bisexual? You might as well ask why a Christian would want to call themselves blonde, etc.

 

[Technocrat2010]

First: Why would ANY Christian want to call themself Gay, Lesbian, or Bi-Sexual?

Wiccan child has already addressed this statement.

OK, on to response.

Gentalia, sperm and ovum denote normality and literaly define the term "sexual orientation." If you have normally formed genitalia that produce sperm, you are a man. If you ovulate, you are a woman.

Genitalia does not determine if the man or woman is heterosexual or homosexual. Furthermore, the seat of sexuality is in the brain. It is the CNS that directs the release of sexual hormones, and that initiates phases like puberty. You appear to be conflating gender with sexual attraction.

Contemplate the words you are writing. "Closted homosexual," is a neologism that is literally meaningless except for driving a wierd agenda.

Please demonstrate the validity of your statement.

Furthermore, I'm referring to homosexuals who either (a) are afraid to publicly acknowledge their orientation or (b) are unwilling to acknowledge it at all.

It is a mental choice to engage in any kind of sex act, and of course we could get graphic about body functions that define normality and literally "point" to sexual orientation. What goes up, er, is to be used the way natural law has defined it.

You are committing a naturalistic fallacy. What is =/= what must be.

I must cut this short; something urgent came up. Sorry - I'll be back.

 

[brightmorningstar]

If a Christian calls themsleves blonde, its a puzzle as Jesus never taught anything about being blonde being relevent to God's creation or purposes. However gay is same-sex attraction which, with homosexual practice as a sin, is not only not relevant, but alomost implying an oxymoron.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If a Christian calls themsleves blonde, its a puzzle as Jesus never taught anything about being blonde being relevent to God's creation or purposes.

So? It could be argued that, because this particular Christian is ultimately blonde, it is relevant to God's creation. Moreover, one's hair colour is as arbitrary as one's sexual orientation; either they are both relevant, or neither are.
That said, what does a particular trait's relevance to "God's creation or purposes" have to do with anything? Indeed, how can sexuality (or, indeed, hair colour) be relevant at all?

However gay is same-sex attraction which, with homosexual practice as a sin, is not only not relevant, but alomost implying an oxymoron.

What oxymoron? "Gay" is a single word. Moreover, your claim that "homosexual practice as a sin" is not held by the majority of Christians, nor by the majority of scholars: the original texts used to compose the Bible do not condemn homosexuality.

 

[Technocrat2010]

Homosexual orientation is not "in" the Bible.

Neither are cellphones nor the word "Trinity", but we do not deny the existence of either.

On sexual behavior "in the Bible" there are only people doing the right kind of sex and the ones doing the wrong kind of sex.

Excellent point.

The Bible is well known for its view that same-gender sex acts are the wrong kind of sexual acts. "Sexual orientation" is a modern day neologism to describe how homosexuals feel about themselves.

False. Sexual orientation describes a person's propensity for homosexual/heterosexual/bisexual attraction or behavior.

Since you have established that certain sexual acts are condemned, please establish that certain forms of sexual attraction are also condemned.

Not according to Catholic doctrine.

Here is an article on Catholic doctrine regarding homosexuality.

http://www.catholic.com/library/homosexuality.asp

Nowhere does it suggest that a homosexual can or should be "changed" into a heterosexual. Rather, the Church calls for homosexuals to adhere to a life of chastity.

Why would they desire to be in the Catholic Church if they like gay sex?

Because the Catholic Church understands the difference between having an attraction and acting upon it.

There are some other religious organizations that support that kinf of thing. Why the need to be in a Church that desires them to stop doing what they want to sexually? It just doesn't seem honest or respectful to Christians that will not affirm gay sex, for gays to force their sexual tastes on them.

Priests are called to a life of celibacy, and being chaste until marriage is considered virtuous in the Church. By your argument, calling young people to chastity before marriage would be dishonest, since it would deny their heterosexual attractions.

A sin repented of is no where to be found. "It" no longer exists. I am very familiar with "not" doing things you need to repent of AND DOING things you need to repent of. Once you repent (and as the case with "even" the Catholic Church) and are forgiven you no longer are your former sinful self. You go on from there. If God will not hold forgiven sins to account (literally) why would anybody else?

But since when is an attraction a sin?

Uh yes. OK. If you are desiring to bring "no gay sex" into the Church, then you will be greeted as a Christian.

And as I am repeatedly pointing out, there is a difference between committing the act and an interest in committing the act.

You are talking about judging a person. What Christian can do that? You don;t judge a person for their mindset.

Then why are you judging homosexuals for their mindsets?

You can though, test them and their behaviors and actiions within the Church and/or outside of the Church, "IF," the call themsleves a Christian AND a member of your Church body.

But you are falsely assuming all homosexuals must engage in gay sex.

Actually EVERYTHING!!!!!!!! It is from the Humanist Manifesto

Which one? There are three.

and other related works of Humanists, and the belifes and social demands of humanists that homosexuals were given their greatest support and power.

What we see today sprang from the Humanist movement into our "education" system decades ago. Please, please, test me on that.

Very well; I will test you. Please validate your statements with proof from the manifestos and the other sources you mentioned.

It also will have nothing to do with, or in Christianty, as Christian life and culture is explained by the Apostles, in gaining its power through gay activism. The Gay Agenda is antithetical to Christian truth. That is why you see the animosity between gays and Christians. Literally, schism is but one fruit of gay activism.

Whether or not the Gay Agenda is against Christianity, the fact remains that having a homosexual attraction is not. There is a difference between having a biological attraction and supporting a sociopolitical agenda. (and how exactly do you define the "Gay Agenda"? What constitutes the Gay Agenda, if it is to be considered a sociopolitical agenda of the scale you're implying?)

Part of the sodomy condition. That is the way "it" is taught in scripture. You see Sodom and Gomorrah almost exclusively mentioned along with sexual sin.

Does sexual sin extend only to actions, or actions and attractions?

It is the call of every Christian NOT to encorage others to sin. Sodomy is the engagement of sin and the encouraging of others TO sin.

Okay... and? How does telling someone to acknowledge their attractions mean they must engage in the act?

Inhospitality and lasciviousness licentiousness go hand in hand.

No, they do not. If I am mistaken, please demonstrate that they do.

Why would ANY Christian want to call themself Gay, Lesbian, or Bi-Sexual?

Please answer that.

Wiccan child already answered it quite effectively.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

If a Christian calls themsleves blonde, its a puzzle as Jesus never taught anything about being blonde being relevent to God's creation or purposes. However gay is same-sex attraction which, with homosexual practice as a sin, is not only not relevant, but alomost implying an oxymoron.

Actually no.

This is not true of those of us whom God has created gay as a part of His plan.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

To beget children one most be "not" homosexual. It's a science thing. (The first sentence had to be worded the way it was.)

Again - in fact you are just plain WRONG. Homosexuals have (for centuries) created children. You certainly may hold an different opinion, but that will not change the FACT that you are in error.

If you are saying you are married to someone of the same gender, there is no such thing in the "Christian" church per the Apostolic witness. Whatever they do in the MCC is strictly a new religiosity.

I am not an MCC member. God Himself joined me and my partner over 24 years ago. Nothing you say will ever change that.

"Anyone," and everyone. You won;t see me disagreeing with scripture.

But the "not so?"

Care to translate your words into comprehensive English?

If there is one thing consistent in gay religiosity and secular gay culture, it is definately encouraging others to engage in the sin of gay sex. If I am wrong, please point me to anyone in the gay community "preaching" against gay sex.

Please demonstrate where any of us has engaged in encouraging others into the "sin" of gay sex.

You're joking right?

Let me ask you a question or two. How does a person that desires gay sex and engages in gay sex, find comfort in a Church that affirms the Bible?

There is no one more obsessed with gay sex than YOU, Poly. It sonsumes your every waking moment. Perhaps you'd be a little less vexed if you shifted your focus to the Gospel of Christ.

What do you hope to accomplish by pushing the gay agenda into and onto Christians that have multiple reasons to oppose gay culture?

I only promote a Christian agenda.

Do you really think that promoting gay sex (male and female) in a Church is going to fly?

You would first have to prove that I was promoting a gay sex agenda in the Church. And guess what? You can't. In fact, please feel free to search and find where I have done so. What about gay sex is so enticing to you???

Where do you get the religious authority to teach people in the Church that gay sex and gay culture is acceptable?

Gay culture is a neologism invented in YOUR MIND. Get over it.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Wiccan-Child,

What oxymoron? "Gay" is a single word. Moreover, your claim that "homosexual practice as a sin" is not held by the majority of Christians, nor by the majority of scholars: the original texts used to compose the Bible do not condemn homosexuality.

Then you don’t really understand what Christianity is or have a clue what the majority of Christians believe. I suggest you stick to telling us about Wicca and let the Christians tell you about Christianity.