How Homophobic Are You?

[David Brider]

homophobia is a myth.

Only somebody who's never experienced homophobia, and doesn't know anyone who's experienced it, can possibly suggest that it's a myth. It's as real as sexism, racism, or any other kind of bigotry.

David.

 

[Andreusz]

homophobia is a myth.

Could you explain this statement, which borders on the insane?
What about Lawrence King?

 

[Technocrat2010]

Their voices are not leading the gay activist movement.

Wait a second! You said earlier:

Gay adherants do not wish to repent and sin no more, in fact, as we have seen with groups like Soulforce, they encourage the act of gay sex.

You were arguing that gay persons wanted to do the above, and now you're suggesting that not all gay persons want to do the above. If that is the case, it is likely that homosexuals, like any other humans, have varying opinions on their sexuality and religion, correct? If so, there will be some homosexuals who want their churches to OK gay sex and gay marriage within the church - and others who don't want that, and, like some of my college buddies, want to live a life of chastity and adherence to the teachings of scripture and the Church while mastering their homosexual tendencies. You cannot deny the existence of this group by painting the entire demographic with an "OH NOEZ THEY WILL PWN US" brush. There are gays who do not want the Churches to accept gay marriage, and there are gays who wish to live a life of chastity and self-denial. There are also others who believe otherwise, but you need to learn to distinguish between the two before you condemn innocent people along with the guilty ones.

I can only judge the fruit. Gay activism = gay sex.

No, it does not. Gay activism refers to a series of social movements regarding the social acceptance of gays and gay sexuality. Gay sex is a physical function performed between two consenting homosexuals.

I am going to try hard to no longer comment on what unbeleivers do.

Alas, this did not answer my question. If nonbelievers are free to do what they wish, then it follows that two homosexuals obtaining a marriage license from the state and performing gay sex would be legally permissible, correct? And if it is sinful - like I said earlier, who are you to stop them?

Jesus and the Apostles opposed false teacher and false teachings. We are to do the same otherwise you have what you have in the liberal-progressive Church, which is "anything goes," except for truth that is.

Indeed, He did oppose false teachers and false teachings. Did Jesus call for their isolation and removal from society? No. There is a difference between disagreeing with anothers' views and then forcing your own views upon that person.

We do. It's called evnagelizing the lost. Now, these people are demanding to be called Christian and rule us in our Churches.

You again paint the entire gay demographic with an "OH NOEZ" brush. As I pointed out before, not all gays wish to see gay sex accepted by their churches. You are again operating from the false assumption that a gay person must perform gay sex acts in order to be gay. This is manifestly false. By your argument, many straight people who are virgins would be asexual since they have not performed any sex acts.

The wheat and the weeds. Jesus saw gay activism in the Church coming.

Then you should not have a problem waiting for the day when the weeds are separated from the wheat. Until then, it makes sense not to condemn a group of people as "weeds" when in fact there may be "wheat" amongst them.

If a Muslim thinks that Islam is Christian truth and desires to preach Islam in a Church, OUT he goes, or opposed he will be. Actually I see Islam and Gay Rights spread in very similar ways.

I see Christian fundamentalism spread in a far more similar fashion to fundamentalist Islam, by using fearmongering tactics and demonizing entire groups. They did it for half a century with creation "science", and are doing it again with homophobia. (Although that is a topic for another discussion...)

You do realize that Gays and Muslims demand to silence Christians that hold to the Apostolic teachings don't you?

Yet another stereotyping. Please understand that not all gays and/or Muslims share the same beliefs.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

To you it may not matter that other people are oppressed by so called "upright Christians", to Jesus I would state it certainly matters. He gave the most stern rebuke to Pharisees and Sadducees..

Jesus condemned false teachers. This puts gay activism "in the Church" in the light of what Jesus condemned.

Neither Jesus nor the Apostles approached the subject of preaching the remission (repent-forgiveness) of sins as false teaching, or homophobia.

Only gay activists hold to that view.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Wait a second! You said earlier:

You were arguing that gay persons wanted to do the above, and now you're suggesting that not all gay persons want to do the above. If that is the case, it is likely that homosexuals, like any other humans, have varying opinions on their sexuality and religion, correct?

A repenting sinner is no longer guilty of what the did that was a sin. Your ideology that you are always what you "were" before you repent is rather odd.

If so, there will be some homosexuals who want their churches to OK gay sex and gay marriage within the church

It is usually taught, that those that promote sin and sinning are in a worse position (and condition) than just a sinner. Jesus threatned those who would cause others to sin.

- and others who don't want that,

Those would be "Christians."

. . . and, like some of my college buddies, want to live a life of chastity and adherence to the teachings of scripture and the Church while mastering their homosexual tendencies.

Are you trying to say that you are always the sinner you were, after you repent? It sounds like that is what you are promoting with your premise.

You cannot deny the existence of this group by painting the entire demographic with an "OH NOEZ THEY WILL PWN US" brush.

I can deny the promoting of sin in a Christian Church. No "real" Church promotes sin and sinning. Read what the Apostles have to say on that.

There are gays who do not want the Churches to accept gay marriage, and there are gays who wish to live a life of chastity and self-denial.

"Go, and sin no more." Why do you desire to continue to label a person by their past forgiven sinning. Where do you justify that idea?

There are also others who believe otherwise, but you need to learn to distinguish between the two before you condemn innocent people along with the guilty ones.

I have demonstrated a consistency in presenting the two sides of gay culture, the gay agenda, and gay theology. There is no support for any one of them in the Apostolic witness.

Here, see for yourself as Paul writes to "Greeks" (if you know what I mean) in Corinth:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?

Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

And that is what some of you were.

But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. Sexual Immorality

"Everything is permissible for me"

—but not everything is beneficial.

"Everything is permissible for me"

—but I will not be mastered by anything.

"Food for the stomach and the stomach for food" (ed note hear sarcasm) —but God will destroy them both.

The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.

By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also.

Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never!

Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh." But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

It is not Bible believing Christians that are the hateful group.

No, it does not. Gay activism refers to a series of social movements regarding the social acceptance of gays and gay sexuality.

What I keep referring to as "gay culture."

Gay sex is a physical function performed between two consenting homosexuals.

Gay culture. But not Christian culture.

Alas, this did not answer my question. If nonbelievers are free to do what they wish, then it follows that two homosexuals obtaining a marriage license from the state and performing gay sex would be legally permissible, correct? And if it is sinful - like I said earlier, who are you to stop them?

I have written over and over again, I do not care what pagans or secularists do. It is when these people come into the Church with their obviously non Christian beleif systems and attempt to force their false teachings and beliefs on Christians, that I protect my brothers and sisters in Christ by opposing gay culture "in" the Church. Why you would want to support same-gender marriage is bewildering. There shouldn't even be one word spoken for or against gay marriage for non and anti-Christians. Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. Not one supporting thing. Remember? But He was perfectly clear on what and who a marriage is, "for believers."

Indeed, He did oppose false teachers and false teachings. Did Jesus call for their isolation and removal from society? No.

Uh, yes. He said to "kleave them alone" and that He and His angles would deal with them on judgment day.

There is a difference between disagreeing with anothers' views and then forcing your own views upon that person.

Tell THAT to gay activists. Their running around in the Church with their gay agenda and their gay culture falsely teaching it is OK "for Christians."

You again paint the entire gay demographic with an "OH NOEZ" brush.

Please dispense with the college student rote. ALL gay activism is the same agenda. It is what it is.

Now, Ex-Gays, those people are in the Church.

As I pointed out before, not all gays wish to see gay sex accepted by their churches.

Please point me to these gay activists.

The only voices I hear in gay activism pointed towards Christians, is that gay sex is wondeful and God ordained it and "blesses" it. Completely false teeachings but completely consistent with the gay agenda and its well-defined gay culture.

You are again operating from the false assumption that a gay person must perform gay sex acts in order to be gay.

No, rather I am going on past sins forgiven no longer define a person. The New Testament witness is that very thing.

This is manifestly false. By your argument, many straight people who are virgins would be asexual since they have not performed any sex acts.

They are people doing well. In Christ, there are no labels applied to people to excuse away their sins, and yet still call them what they were.

Then you should not have a problem waiting for the day when the weeds are separated from the wheat. Until then, it makes sense not to condemn a group of people as "weeds" when in fact there may be "wheat" amongst them.

We are not to harm anyone. Contending for the faith is an act of love. Pointing out weeds and encouraging your brother or sister in Christ not to become one is an act of love. I have never once contended against sin forgiven. I make my apologia towards those that claim that sin and sinners can redefine that by some clever use of neologism.

I see Christian fundamentalism spread in a far more similar fashion to fundamentalist Islam, by using fearmongering tactics and demonizing entire groups.

EVERY Apostle was a "fundamentalist Christian." Care to think about your statement in light of the Apostolic witness?

quote]They did it for half a century with creation "science", and are doing it again with homophobia. (Although that is a topic for another discussion...)[/quote]

Jesus is literally creation science. Read what the fundamentalist Christian John has to say about that in the Gospel that bears his name.

Yet another stereotyping. Please understand that not all gays and/or Muslims share the same beliefs.

By their fruit . . .

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Technocrat2010,

I see Christian fundamentalism spread in a far more similar fashion to fundamentalist Islam, by using fearmongering tactics and demonizing entire groups.

I would say much mainstream Christianity is now being called fundamentalist by gay and lesbian, atheist and secular groups, whereas mainstream Islam isn’t.
I think there is an element of prophetic truth in Polycarp fan's comment which is somewhat demonstrated by your response because mainstream Christianity knows homosexual practice is sin and error.

 

[Neuron]

4 - Your score rates you as "high-grade non-homophobic."

 

[Zecryphon]

Only somebody who's never experienced homophobia, and doesn't know anyone who's experienced it, can possibly suggest that it's a myth. It's as real as sexism, racism, or any other kind of bigotry.

David.

But to group it with those other words leads people to believe that it's like sexism, racism or other kinds of bigotry. Homophobia is not a type of bigotry, it's a phobia, which means it's an irrational fear of homosexuals. Now this can lead to bigotry, but the condition in and of itself does not automatically make someone a bigot.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

To Technocrat2010,
I would say much mainstream Christianity is now being called fundamentalist by gay and lesbian, atheist and secular groups, whereas mainstream Islam isn’t.

Ad hominem attack is the basis of opposing "Christians" that refuse to allow homosexuality to be seen as an acceptable sin. Using scripture is the basis, the foundation, of what is and what isn't acceptable behaviors in The Church."

Same-gender sexual behavior has been contended against since even earlier than the Gnostics. What we have in today's world, is a cunning and talented iideological movement based on centuries of anti-Christian scholarship, being foisted onto and into The Church. (And even sometimes being called Christian theolgogy.)

It is easy to see the complete rejection of "gay sex" in the writings of the Apostles. So what has happened, is that the Apostolic witness is either ignored or devalued by the promoters of a "new" religion, inserted in place of: The faith delivered ONLY ONCE to the Saints."

Gay theology (the subject of this sub-forum) is presentedd by altering scripture to fit the Humanist platform and not the Apostolic witness.

There is not one shred of support or reason to promote same-gender sexual acts from the written scriptures (canon). But of course, as the Apostles predicted it is happening yet again.

I think there is an element of prophetic truth in Polycarp fan's comment which is somewhat demonstrated by your response because mainstream Christianity knows homosexual practice is sin and error.

"Mainstream Christianity" can only be defined as the Apostolic testimony.

Remember, the "red letters" assigned as quotes of Christ Jesus, were actually written down BY disciples.

Gay activism 2008, has taken homosexuality where other same-gender sex act proponents have gone before, but with a power of the secular world (The World) to implement their agenda.

It is: The World vs. The Church.

This was predicted BY the Apostles and of course quoted of Jesus as saying these kinds of things would happen TO and IN the Church.

We are living a prophecy proclaimed BY the followers of Christ Jesus, in the schism and strife brought INTO the Church by false teachers with, of course, false doctrines.

The Word of God made flesh. The Apostles and disciples, used the sayings of Jesus and their own words to warn future believers that these things were going to happen. And some of them, were tortured and executed for standing against The World and standing against false teachers, and for standing firm on the truth, that Christian life is different than worldy life. Homophobia and hate crimes language (the power of neologism corrupted) is used to oppose Christians and The Church.

In this Gays versus Christians version 21st century, we have the predictions - or rather the stand for truth - of the Apostles coming true with amazing clarity.

Rather than to be dismayed that so many false teachers are claiming authenticity in modern day language, and things like gay theology is being proclaimed as orthodoxy, any Christian valuing the Apostolic witness, the only basis for discerning Christian reality, should be excited to see the words of Christ Jesus and His Apostles being proven for what the are, the very truth itself, proclaiming the Only Truth, Himself.

 

[ElviraRio]

Could you explain this statement, which borders on the insane?
What about Lawrence King?

I don't know who Lawrence King is.

I have not read through this thread. However, I think the term homophobia is seriously misused overused and downright bogus. If you're referring to violence committed against homosexuals because of their sexuality, I will submit to you that it's not a homophobic hate crime so much as it is a violent act against another human being. The same dick heads that beat Matt Shepherd to death probably beat their girlfriends and eachother. It's the violent aggression that needs to be dealt with. I watch the television show 'Snapped' which does nothing but profile wives who've killed their husbands. Why is there not a term to fit this? Husbandphobic, or some such? Not to mention the children which have been murdered by psychopaths, and wives who've been abused by husbands. and then there is your random violence, for no apparent reason, stranger to stranger. There are no terms that I know of other than psychopath to describe these criminials.

I have expressed my opinion that I agree with my faith teachings that homsexual behavior in humans goes against he natural law only to be told I am homophobic. By people who do not even know me and have no idea how to gauge such a thing. I truly am convinced of the veracity of my faith's teaching, I am not just going along w/ it to be a hater. I should be free to practice my religion esp. since I am a US citizen and when I say free I mean w/out the slander that I am homophobic for doing so. So when I hear the term homophobia, I roll my eyes as it's become just another meaningless cliche.

 

[Technocrat2010]

To Technocrat2010,
I would say much mainstream Christianity is now being called fundamentalist by gay and lesbian, atheist and secular groups, whereas mainstream Islam isn’t.

I would say that since Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodoxy comprise of nearly three-quarters of all Christians that they are "mainstream" Christianity. From a further denominational breakdown, Catholicism would make up more than half of all Christianity, making it "mainstream" in comparison to the EO - this is, of course, assuming that what is "mainstream" is defined by populations.

I think there is an element of prophetic truth in Polycarp fan's comment which is somewhat demonstrated by your response because mainstream Christianity knows homosexual practice is sin and error.

Mainstream Christianity (that is, Catholicism and the EO) understand the difference between having a sexual orientation and acting on that orientation. They understand that the act of homosexual sex is the sin, but the state of sexual orientation itself is not a sin. Unlike some of the people in this thread, mainstream Christians do not make the erroneous assumption that one must engage in gay sex in order to be considered gay.

Please show me at any point in this thread that I said gay sex was not a sin and/or was not in error.

 

[Technocrat2010]

A repenting sinner is no longer guilty of what the did that was a sin. Your ideology that you are always what you "were" before you repent is rather odd.

This statement confused me at first, but after I read the rest of this post I think I understand where you are coming from - and I realized you have not been paying attention. I will address this point a few paragraphs down.

It is usually taught, that those that promote sin and sinning are in a worse position (and condition) than just a sinner. Jesus threatned those who would cause others to sin.

In that case, by letting non-Christians practice their faiths, are you promoting their beliefs?

Those would be "Christians."

Fine with me.

Are you trying to say that you are always the sinner you were, after you repent? It sounds like that is what you are promoting with your premise.

No. And here is where I will address your first section as well. A homosexual is not a sinner by definition, because in order to commit a grave sin of sodomy, the homosexual must engage in that act. You erroneously imply that a homosexual is defined not by his/her orientation but rather by whether or not the said homosexual engages in gay sex acts. By that argument, in order to be considered straight one must engage in heterosexual sex acts - which is also a false statement. I have already addressed this point several times and so far it has been ignored, and the point is this: that there is a difference between having an attraction and acting on that attraction. A homosexual need not engage in gay sex to be considered homosexual; likewise a heterosexual need not engage in straight sex to be considered heterosexual.

I can deny the promoting of sin in a Christian Church. No "real" Church promotes sin and sinning. Read what the Apostles have to say on that.

I'm aware of what the Apostles have said on the matter, but from what I recall, the Apostles didn't preach in favor of coercion.

"Go, and sin no more." Why do you desire to continue to label a person by their past forgiven sinning. Where do you justify that idea?

Please see my above response. You have ignored the fact that a homosexual need not commit the sin of gay sex to be a homosexual. You falsely link the attraction and the act.

I have demonstrated a consistency in presenting the two sides of gay culture, the gay agenda, and gay theology. There is no support for any one of them in the Apostolic witness.

No, you have not. You have been inconsistent by ignoring the portion of the homosexual population that adheres to Christian teachings on sexuality and chastity.

Here, see for yourself as Paul writes to "Greeks" (if you know what I mean) in Corinth:


It is not Bible believing Christians that are the hateful group.

Again, I have no arguments with this passage. Sexual immorality is a grave issue, but you are conflating attraction with action.

Gay culture. But not Christian culture.

No, it is not. It is a sexual act. Here is the definition of "Culture":

Main Entry: 1cul·ture Pronunciation: \&#712;k&#601;l-ch&#601;r\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, cultivated land, cultivation, from Anglo-French, from Latin cultura, from cultus, past participle Date: 15th century 1: cultivation, tillage2: the act of developing the intellectual and moral faculties especially by education3: expert care and training <beauty culture>4 a: enlightenment and excellence of taste acquired by intellectual and aesthetic training b: acquaintance with and taste in fine arts, humanities, and broad aspects of science as distinguished from vocational and technical skills5 a: the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations b: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life} shared by people in a place or time <popular culture> <southern culture> c: the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization <a corporate culture focused on the bottom line> d: the set of values, conventions, or social practices associated with a particular field, activity, or societal characteristic <studying the effect of computers on print culture> <changing the culture of materialism will take time &#8212; Peggy O'Mara>6: the act or process of cultivating living material (as bacteria or viruses) in prepared nutrient media; also : a product of such cultivation

Please tell me at any point where "sexual intercourse" is mentioned in that definition.

I have written over and over again, I do not care what pagans or secularists do. It is when these people come into the Church with their obviously non Christian beleif systems and attempt to force their false teachings and beliefs on Christians, that I protect my brothers and sisters in Christ by opposing gay culture "in" the Church.

My position exactly.

Why you would want to support same-gender marriage is bewildering.

Why people try to restrict the secular freedoms of gay persons is even more disturbing. I do not believe the Catholic Church should succumb to the pressure and accept same-sex marriages, but if gay persons want to be legally recognized by the state and engage in same-sex marriages by obtaining a license or going to a Church that allows same-sex marriages, it is not my problem.

There shouldn't even be one word spoken for or against gay marriage for non and anti-Christians. Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. Not one supporting thing. Remember? But He was perfectly clear on what and who a marriage is, "for believers."

I agree that Jesus made it clear what marriage was for. But if someone chooses to sin and misuse it, are you going to remove their free will and coerce them into doing so? I think not. You said you don't care what they do, as long as they don't force the Church to do it. I am with you on that sentiment exactly - my argument is, "do you want gay marriage? Fine - just not in my church."

Uh, yes. He said to "kleave them alone" and that He and His angles would deal with them on judgment day.

More and more I get the feeling that we are not as far apart on the issue as we initially appeared.

Tell THAT to gay activists. Their running around in the Church with their gay agenda and their gay culture falsely teaching it is OK "for Christians."

We could tell that to the Christian dominionists who seek to prevent the state from recognizing same-sex marriages, too.

Please dispense with the college student rote. ALL gay activism is the same agenda. It is what it is.

Dispense with the college student rote? I am a college student.
Can you verify your claim that all gay activism is the same?

Now, Ex-Gays, those people are in the Church.

Again you conflate attraction with action.

Please point me to these gay activists.

Here's an interesting excerpt - http://bcm.bc.edu/issues/summer_2003/ft_catholic.html

And from a personal experience I have several close college friends who are homosexuals and Catholics, and promote a chaste, celibate lifestyle. They participate in our school's Newman center and I believe they have talked on the matter as well.

The only voices I hear in gay activism pointed towards Christians, is that gay sex is wondeful and God ordained it and "blesses" it. Completely false teeachings but completely consistent with the gay agenda and its well-defined gay culture.

Perhaps you should check the entire spectrum before listening to the loudest people.

No, rather I am going on past sins forgiven no longer define a person. The New Testament witness is that very thing.

Again, this is based on earlier comments that I have addressed above.

They are people doing well. In Christ, there are no labels applied to people to excuse away their sins, and yet still call them what they were.

You misuse the label of "homosexual" and "gay" and assume that they must engage in those acts! It's like saying that because John Doe is still a virgin, then he is asexual.

We are not to harm anyone. Contending for the faith is an act of love. Pointing out weeds and encouraging your brother or sister in Christ not to become one is an act of love. I have never once contended against sin forgiven. I make my apologia towards those that claim that sin and sinners can redefine that by some clever use of neologism.

But you first need to understand what it is you are defending against before you can properly defend the Church. If you don't know what it is you are defending against, you are no better than a person who wears chain-mail to stop arrows, only to find the opponent is using AP bullets.

EVERY Apostle was a "fundamentalist Christian." Care to think about your statement in light of the Apostolic witness?

Did every Apostle argue that gays should be isolated and thrown out of society? Did every Apostle argue that creation "science" is the only true way of looking at the natural world? Did every Apostle support points of dominionism?

Jesus is literally creation science. Read what the fundamentalist Christian John has to say about that in the Gospel that bears his name.

The Catholic St. John did not deny the possibility of God using natural laws to enact His will.

By their fruit . . .

Have you seen all of their fruit or are you just going by what the media most often presents?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

In that case, by letting non-Christians practice their faiths, are you promoting their beliefs?

Without a doubt, YES. There is no agreement or consent to be given to sin and sinners that desire above all else to encourage others to embrace their sins.

A homosexual is not a sinner by definition, because in order to commit a grave sin of sodomy, the homosexual must engage in that act.

A person, does this or that. Leave the psychology definitions out of this. And yes, according to Jesus looking at a woman with lust is the same as doing what it is you're thinking about. Now, "gays" say that their sexual orientation is the complete equal to that of "straight people." Although in gay ideology, there is the idea of having it both ways, "just thinking" about sex with another person is the same thing as doing it "to Jesus."

You erroneously imply that a homosexual is defined not by his/her orientation but rather by whether or not the said homosexual engages in gay sex acts.

I do more than that, I assert that gay culture is antithetical to Apostolic truth. Gay culture promotes gay sex. One plus one equals two.

By that argument, in order to be considered straight one must engage in heterosexual sex acts - which is also a false statement.

Straight, gay, in Christian reality people are just people.

I have already addressed this point several times and so far it has been ignored, and the point is this: that there is a difference between having an attraction and acting on that attraction.

That is an Apostolic truth. The message preached by the Apostles is salvation and remission of sins. "Repent and be baptised." Gay culture is still antithetical to Christian truth. Gay culture encourages people to engage in gay sex. That's just a fact. Even gay religiosity. Mel White just "married" his

A homosexual need not engage in gay sex to be considered homosexual; likewise a heterosexual need not engage in straight sex to be considered heterosexual.

According to secular neologism. Christians are only IN the world and not of it. Secular jargon is to stay where it belongs.

I'm aware of what the Apostles have said on the matter, but from what I recall, the Apostles didn't preach in favor of coercion.

The Apostles, except for the added on Paul, were taught what the preached directly from Jesus. Notice no same-gender sex OK'd? In fact husband, wife, marriage, all as Jesus taught.

Please see my above response. You have ignored the fact that a homosexual need not commit the sin of gay sex to be a homosexual. You falsely link the attraction and the act.

I don't falsely "link" anything, the gay community is quite clear on what gays do.

No, you have not. You have been inconsistent by ignoring the portion of the homosexual population that adheres to Christian teachings on sexuality and chastity.

You mean "Christians" that are following the Apostolic witness. It is what Christians SHOULD do. Labels from the world no longer apply to a person wne they become a Christian. In Christ we are a new creation.

Again, I have no arguments with this passage. Sexual immorality is a grave issue, but you are conflating attraction with action.

I am once again, being consistent on what is said by the gay community and the Apostles. Gay attraction and gay sex is what the gay community its culture and its declarations profess with no grey area about it.

No, it is not. It is a sexual act. Here is the definition of "Culture":

The "culture" that defines the gay community is one of gay sex and the "culture" that promtes and approces of it. I wil be more than happy to debate the word "culture" with you in another thread if you so desire.

Please tell me at any point where "sexual intercourse" is mentioned in that definition.

In a culture come behaviors and actions that are approved of and promoted for that culture. I'm pretty sure I got that word in its proper context.

Why people try to restrict the secular freedoms of gay persons is even more disturbing.

It is mandated when gays and lesbians go into schools looking for children they call "questioning youth." That slogan of gay culture got me into this debate. And, I've been asked to write a book on my positions regarding gay sex in the Church. If you think things are a done deal about gay culture when gay marriage is legislated from the judiciary into existence, you are sorely mistaken. That is the beginning of the Church versus Gays era. It's be done before. The gay agenda is no myth. Gays have rule and authority over all as a very real quest. Now we have orgs like Soulforce to deal with threatening the Church every single day. Finally Christian are waking up to the elephant in the pews, and even more shocking than that, are so-called gay clergy openly defying the Apostolic witness as to appropriate Christian life.

I do not believe the Catholic Church should succumb to the pressure and accept same-sex marriages, but if gay persons want to be legally recognized by the state and engage in same-sex marriages by obtaining a license or going to a Church that allows same-sex marriages, it is not my problem.

If you have children in public school, the problem is there too. Gays do not desire to co-exist with the Church, they demand to lead it. That will never happen. Buildings are not The Church.

I agree that Jesus made it clear what marriage was for. But if someone chooses to sin and misuse it, are you going to remove their free will and coerce them into doing so?

I will contend for the faith if these non and anti Christians demand to have any authority in the Church. My voice is one of hundreds of millions waking up to gay culture :in" the Church. And waking up it is.

I think not. You said you don't care what they do, as long as they don't force the Church to do it. I am with you on that sentiment exactly - my argument is, "do you want gay marriage? Fine - just not in my church."

Once the gay agenda and gay culture was enterd into the "public" schools, then opposing gay culture became a public concern. Many other people are waking up to the gay agenda, not only Bible-believing Christians. Muslims have demanded those gay indoctrination books out of schools in England. They are luckier than we Americans, they do not have the ACLU driving gay culture over everyone.

More and more I get the feeling that we are not as far apart on the issue as we initially appeared.

I'm thinking we are. Will you stand with Christians in opposing gay culture being promoted to THEIR children in "public" schools? If gay culture stayed in the gay community, I wouldn;t have to care about anything gays and lesbians do. Instead, we Christians are forced to live in our communities and leave our children and our rights at the front door of society.

We could tell that to the Christian dominionists who seek to prevent the state from recognizing same-sex marriages, too.

Christians are fighting against an "anything goes" condition to further influence our already debauched society. As voting members of a democracy they have the civil rights to their voice being heard.

Dispense with the college student rote? I am a college student.

"Test alll things . . ."

Can you verify your claim that all gay activism is the same?

You're joking right? Whether anti, non, or Christian, every gay and lesbian is demanding the very same thing. Do you not listen to "THEM?"

quote]Again you conflate attraction with action.[/quote]

One plus one equals two. Or, as the New Testament puts it: "By their fruit you will know them."

Here's an interesting excerpt - http://bcm.bc.edu/issues/summer_2003/ft_catholic.html

And from a personal experience I have several close college friends who are homosexuals and Catholics, and promote a chaste, celibate lifestyle. They participate in our school's Newman center and I believe they have talked on the matter as well.

And????? When they no longer desire to be "chaste" guess what?

I don't label people as the world does. If these men desire to follow the Apostolic witness, they will find a woman to love, cherish, marry and obey. I'm sorry, I do not think "loving" a member of the opposite sex is a hate crime.

Perhaps you should check the entire spectrum before listening to the loudest people.

I do and I am. I've been debating gays and lesbians and their always ubiquitous anti and non Christian supporters for a long time. They ALL demand the same thing.

You misuse the label of "homosexual" and "gay" and assume that they must engage in those acts!

The heck I do. According to gay culture, gay sex and gay life are one and the same. Go ver to Soulforce and "test things."

It's like saying that because John Doe is still a virgin, then he is asexual.

Virgin denotes 100% a normal sexuality is in place. I do not claim the labels for people that you do. I am a Christian, not a secularized person "anymore." I have been de-secularized. THAT is part of Christian culture.

But you first need to understand what it is you are defending against before you can properly defend the Church. If you don't know what it is you are defending against, you are no better than a person who wears chain-mail to stop arrows, only to find the opponent is using AP bullets.

I am positive that the gays and their supporters know that I am defending my brothers and sisters in Christ from being encouraged to engage in gay sex. I have the gay community and its culture well defined because they are quite vocal in what they demand. And, gay culture is antithetical to Christian life. There is no support for gay sex anywhere in the Bible.

Did every Apostle argue that gays should be isolated and thrown out of society?

The Apostles were not accepting nor did they affirm same-gender sex to be engaged in by believers. In fact, we see just the opposite.

Did every Apostle argue that creation "science" is the only true way of looking at the natural world?

100% yes. John and paul make that more than clear. Evolution is nothing more than a very good guess. A scientific endeavor to figure out how "it" all began and where life came from. It did not come from 0 x 0.

Did every Apostle support points of dominionism?

How are you using that word?

The Catholic St. John did not deny the possibility of God using natural laws to enact His will.

I do not desire to debate evolution, until atheists that use evolution to bash Christians can come up with something from nothing. 0 x 0 = 0. Not exactly an endorsement for un-itelligent design. Accidents bumping into accidents are going to need far more than a few trillion years to come up with you and I debating on the internet.

Have you seen all of their fruit or are you just going by what the media most often presents?

I have lived and worked in several Gay communities. What the media proitrays is not always even close to real gay culture. I posted what gay culture looks like in a gay community and was dealt with as if I presented a lie.

This Gay culture versus Christian truth contention, has not even begun to get the attention of the entire Bible-believing and Apostolic affirming Christian Community, but it will.

The darkness is coming, but without fear, light has overcome it.

 

[Technocrat2010]

Polycarp_fan,

I will respond to your post tomorrow evening. I have a CLEP exam to study for and I can't afford getting too distracted, no matter how interesting the conversations get. Thanks for your patience!

 

[Neuron]

Technocrat,

That is a disturbing sig.

 

[KCKID]

I do not desire to debate evolution, until atheists that use evolution to bash Christians can come up with something from nothing. 0 x 0 = 0.

Totally off-topic but I had to jump in here. Is is not JUST as implausible to believe in a God who ALWAYS WAS, or otherwise a God who sprang up from nothing? Just asking a question that has no possibility of receiving a satisfactory answer.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Not that anyone who has studied the theoretical physics of the matter believes that anything had to come from nothing for evolution to be correct, but hey, its more fun if you don't put facts in the story.

(Is "fact" a neologism?)

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You're joking right? Whether anti, non, or Christian, every gay and lesbian is demanding the very same thing. Do you not listen to "THEM?"

Wow. Time for a hearing aid... we have some of our very own seld denying homosexuals right here in this very forum, that is, people who self identify as homosexual and actively seek to maintain celibacy. I wonder if said people are considered in this "all homosexuals demand the same thing" statement.

"All left handers want the same thing, don't you listen to THEM?"

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

To answer the OP, and only the OP:

I scored a 26, non-homophobic. I believe the practice of homosexuality to be contrary to Scripture, which is another way of saying it's a sin, but I also believe we are all sinners. This is only one sin among many. I don't single it out for persecution, and I don't treat homosexuals any differently from any other sinner.

I also believe it to be strictly a matter of religion, which the secular government has no business meddling in. Churches should be free to do their conscience in regard to joining or not joining same-sex couples, based on their interpretation of Scripture. However, secular government should stay out of the bedroom. JMO.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Lovebirdsflying,
Thanks for your post, and I agree.

PS. Had you considered that in a democracy a government can contain religious people in which case it isnt entirely secular?