I am GAY

[Montalban]

One can have a subjective belief in what constitutes logic, but that doesn't make logic subjective.

You then fall into the trap of thinking your thinking is logical (objectively) and that those that disagree with you aren't objectively logical

There will never be a square circle, no matter how many people want to believe there could be. It is not logically possible, period.

But others might not think so. Do either exist physically?

God didn't condone consentual same sex relationships.

Yes, he did. Jesus talks a bit about lusting outside marriage - and given that marriage only is between a man and a woman, that sort of covers it

And sexual orientation, as has been spelled out countless times on this board, is not a choice anymore than skin color is.

So if you're born it, you have no choice and you just follow through with it. Good for sociopaths then, hey!

And again, this doesn't make logic itself subjective, merely one's attempt at interpreting that logic.

I think you're arguing against yourself here

 

[HaloHope]

So what about people who have other sexualities? Pedophillia, sado-masochism, etc

I would day they don't tend to change either. I would also say they aren't actually defined as "sexualities". Pedophilia isn't nessecerily a sexual orientation as peadophiles will quite often pursue other relationships with adults to and may have a gender preference still. Of course the issue with peadophila is that it is ALWAYS unconsensual thus it's defined as a disorder not an orientation as it ALWAYS harms others when acted upon.

As for sado masochism it's a fetish rather than a sexuality and there is certainly no problem with it when acted on consensually in a relationship.

 

[Montalban]

I would day they don't tend to change either. I would also say they aren't actually defined as "sexualities". Pedophilia isn't nessecerily a sexual orientation as peadophiles will quite often pursue other relationships with adults to and may have a gender preference still. Of course the issue with peadophila is that it is ALWAYS unconsensual thus it's defined as a disorder not an orientation as it ALWAYS harms others when acted upon.

As for sado masochism it's a fetish rather than a sexuality and there is certainly no problem with it when acted on consensually in a relationship.

It doesn't matter about categories.

I recall years ago a survey of men who considered themselves 'straight' yet have had homosexual sexual encounters - including those who spend some time in jail - who, when they return to society continue with relations with women.

Even if they don't count it as an 'orientation', it is wrong because it's outside the ideal God has set for us, one man and one woman in marriage.

 

[Montalban]

One can have a subjective belief in what constitutes logic, but that doesn't make logic subjective.

We've spent some time on this - because of your objection to someone using the phrase 'your logic'. Nothing you have said has refuted the fact that someone can refer to a line of reasoning as 'your logic'. I think your objection has no validity.

 

[Montalban]

As no one has come up with evidence from God for a relationship outside marriage, I take it the thread is at an end?

 

[HaloHope]

As no one has come up with evidence from God for a relationship outside marriage, I take it the thread is at an end?

I have all the evidence I need from how much God has blessed my same-sex relationship. I couldn't really care less what other people think, I know he has blessed us.

Even with a lack of a ceromony etc.. I believe myself to be married to another woman in the eyes of God.

No amount of opression by men who think they can restrict Gods love is going to ever change that, or who I am.

 

[Montalban]

I have all the evidence I need from how much God has blessed my same-sex relationship. I couldn't really care less what other people think, I know he has blessed us. [/'quote]
Would you care to share the evidence?

Even with a lack of a ceromony etc.. I believe myself to be married to another woman in the eyes of God.

Where does God say that you're allowed to be 'married' to a same sex partner (within or outside of a 'formal ceremony')?

No amount of opression by men who think they can restrict Gods love is going to ever change that, or who I am.

How is calling a sin 'sin' oppression?

Where does God say "Hey lady, you organise your life and I'll give it the okay"?

 

[David Brider]

So, by your admission, you are appealing to popularity, at least in part, which negates your conclusion.

Why would you think that?

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

• Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
• Therefore X is true.

If that was what I'd said, you'd have a point. As it is, that's not what I've said. I've said that there's a consensus in favour of the notion that non-consensual relationships or sexual activity (e.g., rape, child abuse, arranged marriages) are wrong and consensual relationships are acceptable. The reason for this consensus should be fairly obvious - non-consensual relationships, particularly rape, harm people.

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim. It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim.

If there were no other reasons to accept something, then yes, appeal to majority would be fallacious. In this case at least - as in several others such as murder and theft - appeal to majority makes perfect sense. Rape, child abuse, murder, and theft, harm people and harm society. Therefore, in this case at least, the majority is correct.

Are you a Christian?

Yes.

If you're a biblical Christian, then you can't deny what the Bible states about fornication...

I wasn't talking about fornication.

...which is a sin that can and does block one from access to Heaven.

There's only one unforgivable sin, and fornication isn't it. So I don't know where you get that idea from.

If you're not a biblical Christian, then with what manner of Christianity do you align yourself? I'm just truying to understand where you're coming from.

Just Christianity, plain and simple.

Any adult of lawful age has access, which still makes such establishments public access.

Your home is private because nobody of ANY age can have open access without your consent....because it's otherwise breaking an entering.

Correction: Movie theaters also charge for entrance, but that doesn't mean they aren't public access. Don't make the mistake of confusing monetary charge for access and age restrictions as drawing a line between public access and private disallowance for entry.

The fact that the public can enter strip clubs and cinemas doesn't make them public areas. They're privately owned establishments. A genuinely public place would be something like a park or a high street. So the claim (whoever made it, I've lost track) that strip clubs encourage nudity in public places simply isn't accurate.

David.

 

[David Brider]

Where does God say that you're allowed to be 'married' to a same sex partner (within or outside of a 'formal ceremony')?

Where does God say that Halohope isn't allowed to be married to a same-gender partner?

David.

 

[Montalban]

It saddens me that Satan has deceived so many people. I have continually been met with no evidence that God approves all 'consensual' sexual unions, let alone those where consent is a non-issue (such as with animals).

People here seem to think that because God loves us eternally that we are forgiven all. We're not forgiven until we seek forgiveness. In order to seek forgiveness we must acknowledge that we've wronged. Then we can bathe in God's eternal love. You need to participate in order to be saved. If God simply saved everyone, regardless of the desires of people then we'd have no free will, because there's no real choice between choosing God, and rejecting God.

God doesn't accept all actions. Those against God are sinning.

If God accepts all actions then all are saved without any reason for Jesus giving us a 'way' on how to live. It is true Jesus talks of loving one's neighbour. Jesus however also told the adulterer to go and sin no more.(John 8:11)

A number of people here support same-sex sexual unions because they're driven by their own personal desires. They've put their desires above God's will and believe he will sanction their actions... which is also to put themselves above God.

 

[David Brider]

Absolutely. The pro-gay side continually states we misrepresent God's law of 'love' and also that we judge, yet I've been on this thread for many days and none of them have shown me proof that says that a marriage can exist between same sex partners...

In Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden, as well as Connecticut, Iowa, and Massachusetts, same-gender couples can legally marry.

...or failing that, that God approves of sex outside of marriage.

Actually, I don't believe He does.

David.

 

[David Brider]

If consent were the only issue then bestiality would be okay, because the animal can't by its very nature 'consent', or not 'consent' so consent from the animal would not be an issue.

No, if consent were the only issue then an animal's inability to give or express consent is precisely what would render bestiality unacceptable.

Incest between adults would also be okay based on each party's consent.

If there is genuine consent between the two people involved, then personally I wouldn't disagree with that; I'm aware that there are arguments against close relatives having offspring, but that wouldn't necessarily apply to all examples of incest anyway.

David.

 

[Montalban]

Where does God say that Halohope isn't allowed to be married to a same-gender partner?

David.

Well, thank you for not answering the challenge.

Everytime marriage is referred to it's between a man and a woman.

So do the Church Fathers.
" The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, the works of Sts Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa and Blessed Augustine and the canon of St. John the Faster — all express the unchangeable teaching of the Church that homosexual relations are sinful and should be condemned. People involved in them have not right to be members of the clergy (Gregory the Great, Canon 7; Gregory of Nyssa, Canon 4; John the Faster, Canon 30). Addressing those who stained themselves with the sin of sodomy, the St. Maxim the Greek made this appeal: «See at yourselves, damned ones, what a foul pleasure you indulge in! Try to give up as soon as possible this most nasty and stinking pleasure of yours, to hate it and to fulminate eternally those who argue that it is innocent as enemies of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and corrupters of His teaching. Cleanse yourselves of this blight by repentance, ardent tears, alms-giving as much as you can and pure prayer… Hate this unrighteousness with all your heart, so that you may not be sons of damnation and eternal death»."
Problems of Bioethics - Abortion, Contraceptives, Cloning, Homosexuality, Etc.

 

[Montalban]

No, if consent were the only issue then an animal's inability to give or express consent is precisely what would render bestiality unacceptable.

So you're against eating animals or keeping them as pets, or you have another 'issue' here that you haven't stated.

If there is genuine consent between the two people involved, then personally I wouldn't disagree with that; I'm aware that there are arguments against close relatives having offspring, but that wouldn't necessarily apply to all examples of incest anyway.

David.

And incest too is condemned by the church. Another instance where 'consent' doesn't equate with 'okay before God'.

 

[David Brider]

As to your post: that's false based on your misunderstanding of 'action'. Being homosexual is having a desire for the same sex.

Desire is an action.

Not quite. Being homosexual is being likely to be romantically/physically attracted to people of the same gender as oneself.

But either way, whether you describe it as desire or attraction, it's not an action.

Jesus himself, on the issue of sex outside marriage says that even if you look at a woman lustfully you've committed adultery.

Being attracted to people isn't the same thing as looking at them lustfully.

David.

 

[David Brider]

Well, thank you for not answering the challenge.

Everytime marriage is referred to it's between a man and a woman.

Never in such a way as to explicitly state that it should only be between a man and a woman.

David.

 

[Montalban]

In Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden, as well as Connecticut, Iowa, and Massachusetts, same-gender couples can legally marry.

Sorry, the 'proof that can exist' is in the context of God's approval. I thought that I'd stated this enough times, obviously not.

I'm not arguing "Gay marriage does not exist" per se.

Actually, I don't believe He does.

David.

*sigh*

Another person states it does, because of .... wait! no evidence!

 

[David Brider]

The bottom line is that homosexuality is unnatural lust for the same sex.

Homosexuality is no more "lust for the same sex" than heterosexuality is "lust for the opposite sex". It's a likelihood to be attracted to people of the same gender as oneself, but that isn't the same thing as lust.

And for a person who is homosexual, homosexuality is perfectly natural, same as heterosexuality is perfectly natural for a person who is heterosexual.

David.

 

[David Brider]

*sigh*

Another person states it does, because of .... wait! no evidence!

I suggest you read what I wrote again. I was agreeing with you, at least on that particular point.

David.

 

[Montalban]

Never in such a way as to explicitly state that it should only be between a man and a woman.

David.

What a novel interpretation you have (given you've no evidence for your side). That's like saying "The Bible never says "Only between a single man and a single woman" means that polygamy is allowed. Or, that the New Testament doesn't condemn bestiality, therefore it's allowable.

The fact that everytime marriage is mentioned it's between a man and a woman is enough. If you have evidence of the church officating in same sex practices you'd be on your way to a case.

The condemnation of other behaviours is added proof...
"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."
—Romans 1:26-27 (NKJV)

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."
—1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV)

"Knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,"
—1 Timothy 1:9-10 (NKJV)

I take it you still have no evidence?

The facts are plain.

The Bible only mentions marriage in the context of a man and a woman. It condemns certain sexual practices.