Look at the logic

[marksman315]

MercyBurst,

Thanks for the additional input on this matter. I read some of your blogs, and it's interesting and shocking to see the varied viewpoints of different people. It all seems to boil down to who is in charge of a person's life - is it the individual or is it God?

 

[marksman315]

AmericanCatholic,

What you wrote seems like pretty sound logic to me. I don't think I can see any holes in that. Does anyone else have some more on this subject? (from either side of the debate)

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Eh...thought the better of it.

 

[katautumn]

In NKJV, Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus said "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'".

This seems so clear to me that Jesus is talking about a man and woman being married together and not a homosexual relationship. There are other verses supporting this, but I do not know everything.

But we, as human beings, have adapted marriage in order to be flexible in a present-day culture. In Bible times, the concept of marrying someone just because you love them and want to spend your life with them was almost unheard of. And if your parents had arranged a marriage as a part of a business agreement or for political reasons, you did not shame your family by refusing to marry the one betrothed to you in favor of someone you truly have romantic feelings for. It was also unheard of to not have children if you were able-bodied if you were married. It was also considered an abomination to have intercourse during the wife's menstruation. People also married at a much younger age then than they do now.

If marriage laws change in order to accommodate modern society, wouldn't it stand to reason that society would broaden the scope of who can be legally married, despite the fact that during the time the Bible was written the marriage union was completely different?

Now if two men cannot be married to each other, and two women can't be married to each other, then they can only be with each other in a non-sexual relationship. If they have sex then it is fornication. Sex outside of marriage is sin. It all seems pretty simple to me.

The percentage of heterosexuals (including regular church-going Christians) who engage in sex before marriage is far greater than the percentage of gays and lesbians having sex out of wedlock.

The solution would obviously be let them get married.

So while homosexuality is not the worst sin (since all sin is evil in the eyes of God, does it really matter which one is worse?), why do we have pastors who are openly gay preaching the ways of sin as if it was righteous?

Can we please discuss this logically?

Are they preaching that being gay is any more righteous than being straight? I highly doubt most of them are proclaiming that gay relationships are superior to straight relationships. Would it be acceptable if they never preached about homosexuality?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

In NKJV, Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus said "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'".

This seems so clear to me that Jesus is talking about a man and woman being married together and not a homosexual relationship.

He's talking about a man and woman being married, but says nothing about their homosexual counterparts.

There are other verses supporting this, but I do not know everything.

Now if two men cannot be married to each other, and two women can't be married to each other, then they can only be with each other in a non-sexual relationship. If they have sex then it is fornication. Sex outside of marriage is sin. It all seems pretty simple to me.

Indeed, but nowhere does the Bible say that same-sex couples can't get married.

So while homosexuality is not the worst sin (since all sin is evil in the eyes of God, does it really matter which one is worse?), why do we have pastors who are openly gay preaching the ways of sin as if it was righteous?

Because they think it isn't sinful?

Can we please discuss this logically?

What's to discuss? To the Christian, it all boils down to whether one's interpretation* of one's translation** of one's compilation*** of the Bible condemns, condones, or doesn't mention homosexual sex, relationships, and/or marriages.

Once that's been established, that's pretty much the end of it. You can't rationalise someone out of a position they didn't rationalise themselves into, so any attempts at debate will derail to Hebrew wordplay, accusations of bigotry and special pleading, out-of-context quotemining, etc.

* Is a particular excerpt taken literally, metaphorically, allegorically, etc?
** KJV? YLT? NIV?
*** What texts constitute the Bible in the first place? The Catholic Bible? The Lutheran Protestant? Slavonic Orthodox?

 

[DMagoh]

The percentage of heterosexuals (including regular church-going Christians) who engage in sex before marriage is far greater than the percentage of gays and lesbians having sex out of wedlock.

You're joking, right?

Studies have shown the promiscuity of gay men (e.g., over 100 partners in one year for many). Gay monogamous sex is rare. I'm sure monogamous gay sex is a lot more common among gay christians than the general gay population, so I am not talking about members here. But, come on, dont insult the itelligence of the members here by pretending that the average gay man is less promicuous than the average straight man. Not even close.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

As it should be for all of us!
tulc(hey Chalice!)

AMEN! (hey bro, here's a cup of freshly brewed Parisian coffee...)

 

[ChaliceThunder]

The gay version of Jesus doesn't ask for our repentance -- unlike the Jesus in the Bible.

Jesus is Lord, MB.
There is no "gay version" of him.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

It seems that you are the authority in your life and not God. God has the authority to tell people who they should be attracted to. I have a lot of sympathy for people who (by nature, not by choice) are attracted to the same sex. If I was in their position, I don't think I could do anything about it either. However, as a Christian, I don't understand how homosexual pastors can preach a doctrine (or live the doctrine) that is against God. The people they mislead will be upon their heads in final judgement, and it is very sad that so many are being led astray.

I think you may be coming close to a break-through...at least in your ability to understand and have some small glimmers of compassion.

Those of us who live for God and are faithfully paired with the mates God has given us are grateful to Him for it.

This "doctrine" about judgment against gay people is made-up out of people's fear, hatred and distaste for homosexuality...nothing more.

 

[katautumn]

You're joking, right?

Studies have shown the promiscuity of gay men (e.g., over 100 partners in one year for many). Gay monogamous sex is rare. I'm sure monogamous gay sex is a lot more common among gay christians than the general gay population, so I am not talking about members here. But, come on, dont insult the itelligence of the members here by pretending that the average gay man is less promicuous than the average straight man. Not even close.

Wow. Preoccupied with promiscuous gay sex much? I wasn't even referring to promiscuous sex. I was referring to the percentage of people who engage in sex out of wedlock - period. It doesn't matter if it's one partner or a thousand. If it isn't within marriage, isn't it sex out of wedlock?

Also, can it be proven by some source other than "americansfortruth.com" which boasts of being "a newly reorganized national organization devoted exclusively to exposing and countering the homosexual activist agenda"? I see a lot of op-ed pieces in blogs online about gay males allegedly being a hundred-fold more promiscuous than their heterosexual male counterparts, but I've yet to see an unbiased case study conducted to prove these slanderous claims.

A, FWIW, it's really unfair to try and use "multiple sex partners" as a reason to condemn an entire group of people when some of the most promiscuous people I've ever met were straight males between the ages of eighteen and thirty.

 

[Caylin]

noise doesn't listen.

You know, in my years of posting here, this is the most true thing you have ever said.

 

[MercyBurst]

You're joking, right?

Studies have shown the promiscuity of gay men (e.g., over 100 partners in one year for many). Gay monogamous sex is rare. I'm sure monogamous gay sex is a lot more common among gay christians than the general gay population, so I am not talking about members here. But, come on, dont insult the itelligence of the members here by pretending that the average gay man is less promicuous than the average straight man. Not even close.

This forum insults intelligence and morality both.

Geee how does she get a promiscuity number greater than 100% for church going Christians? laughable...

 

[MercyBurst]

I don't really take a stand as far as condemning homosexuals. Their lives are their business with God. I have no place to judge them.

Every gay that got HIV, did it in the privacy of their own bedroom, and that doesn't affect the rest of us -- right???

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You're joking, right?

Studies have shown the promiscuity of gay men (e.g., over 100 partners in one year for many). Gay monogamous sex is rare. I'm sure monogamous gay sex is a lot more common among gay christians than the general gay population, so I am not talking about members here. But, come on, dont insult the itelligence of the members here by pretending that the average gay man is less promicuous than the average straight man. Not even close.

I don't suppose you have any sources to back up these claims?

 

[tulc]

Every gay that got HIV, did it in the privacy of their own bedroom, and that doesn't affect the rest of us -- right???

I can honestly say I don't understand what you're saying here.
tulc(care to explain?)

 

[tulc]

This forum insults intelligence and morality both.

I don't believe that at all. I think people get excited and start insulting instead of listening (both side can be guilty of that) and then little gets accomplished.

Geee how does she get a promiscuity number greater than 100% for church going Christians? laughable...

You could ask her?
tulc(has often found that works well)

 

[marksman315]

The percentage of heterosexuals (including regular church-going Christians) who engage in sex before marriage is far greater than the percentage of gays and lesbians having sex out of wedlock.

The solution would obviously be let them get married.

Sorry to throw out an over used phrase, but it fits here. "Two wrongs don't make a right". I'm not condoning fornication whether it be heterosexual or homosexual.

Are they preaching that being gay is any more righteous than being straight? I highly doubt most of them are proclaiming that gay relationships are superior to straight relationships. Would it be acceptable if they never preached about homosexuality?

Whether or not a pastor preaches about the subject they have a great influence on their church just by the way they live their lives. It would not be acceptable if they never taught about homosexuality because their life style shows the message they truly believe in.

 

[marksman315]

He's talking about a man and woman being married, but says nothing about their homosexual counterparts.

There are other places in the Bible that show that a homosexual relationship is not approved of by God.

Indeed, but nowhere does the Bible say that same-sex couples can't get married.

Just because it does not say explicity, "same-sex couples can't get married", even though same-sex relationships (or activities) are disapproved of, then that would mean that only sexless same-sex marriages would be allowed. At least that's where the logic points me based on your reasoning. It does not sound like it would be a very fun marriage.

What's to discuss? To the Christian, it all boils down to whether one's interpretation* of one's translation** of one's compilation*** of the Bible condemns, condones, or doesn't mention homosexual sex, relationships, and/or marriages.

Once that's been established, that's pretty much the end of it. You can't rationalise someone out of a position they didn't rationalise themselves into, so any attempts at debate will derail to Hebrew wordplay, accusations of bigotry and special pleading, out-of-context quotemining, etc.

I actually care about people, and I don't want to see anyone get led astray and go to hell. These discussions can be painful on both sides of this debate, but if just one person sees the real truth (whether it be your side or my side), then isn't it worth it to have this discussion? If we never tried to convince anyone of what is right then we truly should bring all the missionaries back home as well. Should we do that?

* Is a particular excerpt taken literally, metaphorically, allegorically, etc?
** KJV? YLT? NIV?
*** What texts constitute the Bible in the first place? The Catholic Bible? The Lutheran Protestant? Slavonic Orthodox?

I included the translation I read it from so people can look it up and know that I am not paraphrasing this or making up the words to suit my beliefs.

 

[katautumn]

Every gay that got HIV, did it in the privacy of their own bedroom, and that doesn't affect the rest of us -- right???

So did every straight person. What is your point?

Sorry to throw out an over used phrase, but it fits here. "Two wrongs don't make a right". I'm not condoning fornication whether it be heterosexual or homosexual.

Then why even bring it into a debate against gay rights? In most debates about same-sex marriage or homosexual relationships someone has to drag out the tired, unfounded talking point about how homosexuals discredit themselves because they are sexually promiscuous. I'm saying that the behaviors of an isolated group should not be used as a basis to discriminate against the rest, otherwise you'd have to pass laws saying that "swinging bachelors" or prostitutes shouldn't be allowed to legally get married.

Whether or not a pastor preaches about the subject they have a great influence on their church just by the way they live their lives. It would not be acceptable if they never taught about homosexuality because their life style shows the message they truly believe in.

You know I've never sat in a church in which the pastor didn't engage in some sort of behavior in his private life that completely contradicted what they preached against at some point on Sunday mornings.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There are other places in the Bible that show that a homosexual relationship is not approved of by God.

A claim not shared by all Christians. Like I said, it depends on which interpretation, translation, and compilation one adheres to. Some combinations are pro-gay, some are anti-gay, some are neither.

Just because it does not say explicity, "same-sex couples can't get married", even though same-sex relationships (or activities) are disapproved of, then that would mean that only sexless same-sex marriages would be allowed. At least that's where the logic points me based on your reasoning.

How? You were making the point that, because same-sex couples can't get married, they can only have sex outside marriage, which is sinful. I rejected the "gays can't marry" premise with, "[N]owhere does the Bible say that same-sex couples can't get married." To argue otherwise would require you to condemn everything that wasn't explicitly condoned in the Bible; since this is absurd, I assume it is not the stance you take. Thus, because same-sex marriage is not explicitly condemned (nor, indeed, condoned), the onus is on you to justify your condemnation of it. As point out above, it is not even clear whether the Bible condemns homosexuality at all.

It does not sound like it would be a very fun marriage.

If your idea of 'fun' is homosexual sex, you might want to take an introspective moment.

I actually care about people, and I don't want to see anyone get led astray and go to hell. These discussions can be painful on both sides of this debate, but if just one person sees the real truth (whether it be your side or my side), then isn't it worth it to have this discussion? If we never tried to convince anyone of what is right then we truly should bring all the missionaries back home as well. Should we do that?

Quite frankly, yes. If Christianity (specifically, Catholicism) stayed out of Africa, the HIV/AIDS epidemic would not be as widespread in that continent. I'm an advocate of embracing other cultures, not submerge them with our own.

While I am aware of that particular aspect of debate (the chance that someone will be swayed to a new stance), I was pointing out that there is nothing to debate: it inevitably boils down to semantic wordplay and an exercise in Hebrew and Koine Greek linguistics. I am interested in the truth, not building a ministry.

I included the translation I read it from so people can look it up and know that I am not paraphrasing this or making up the words to suit my beliefs.

On the contrary, you are: you are free to choose from a variety of equally valid translations, each one with its own set of possible interpretations. Though you can cite your sources, they are as arbitrary as anyone else's.