Would you date an ex-gay/ex-lesbian partner?

[Philothei]

Was Christ blessing a heterosexual marriage? Was Christ not 'loving' towards homosexual unions also by not participating in one? If not they why he did not participate in one? Are you saying Christ was not loving towards them? You are putting words in my mouth I never said... Find me where Christ gave his blessing to such unions. He said for us not to judge them and we do not... I already explained that in my previous posts.

 

[Faelin]

I was just thinking about this and while I hate making lists of "would not date" based on single categories, I find that this is one category that I would strongly prefer a partner not be in. What are your thoughts?

Considering I don't believe it's possible to just stop being gay/lesbian I think it would be kinda pointless. I could probably date someone who was a bisexual though.

Have to agree with Isis here.

There are many things that I would prefer my future partner not to be before their sexuality (or former sexuality) became an issue.

 

[[serious]]

yeah .... I agree Serious. But i also think that those are two major esp abortion involves life.... About homosexuality I still think it is one of the major sins that do have a moral value... more than a "kosher" type of sin such as the "having sex that time of the month" you did lump them all together there... lol....

What was that about the "cloth of different clothes"?

Also divorse is of great consern of the Christians in our times as well as getting angry for some pastors at least that is a serious sin..... No sin is too small. That is why even to illegally pass someone or cut off the road to me is something I regret or do think twice doing that is where our Christianity shows.... A Christian should be an example in all areas of his life not only when it comes to certain issues diffenately

Where is the scriptural basis for greater and lesser sins? If you violate part of the law do you not violate all of it?

Even if we were to order the laws of the bible, (which I would not, lest we should boast) would not the first be to love God with all your heart soul and mind, and the second be to love your neighbor as yourself?

 

[Philothei]

Kosher law and "punitive" law were not condemned both by Christ? He asked the Pharisees to tell him what to do with their animal falling in a ditch/watering it... etc. And he made a dinstinction among the laws of prohibition...ie. the "kosher" law of the Jews and the moral laws. We have to show "economia" (dispensation) on those kind of rules.... And also he stopped those who were to stone to death the adulterous woman... Why? Because the "greatest commandment is LOVE" not the ONLY one as some make the mistake to think....

But again we are off topic here...

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Was Christ blessing a heterosexual marriage? Was Christ not 'loving' towards homosexual unions also by not participating in one? If not they why he did not participate in one? Are you saying Christ was not loving towards them? You are putting words in my mouth I never said... Find me where Christ gave his blessing to such unions. He said for us not to judge them and we do not... I already explained that in my previous posts.

There are lots of things we don't have records of Christ being involved with. That doesn't mean he wasn't, or that he necesarily disaproved of them.

 

[Philothei]

Whatever is in the Bible obviously was important EP and thus we do know... Otherwise we should not believe anything that is IN the testimony that the four Evangelists wrote...... either...And then the Gospel should not be taken as a guide either... And yet that is what we go by 'the Good News of Christ" so your argument is moot. If we take the testimony of the Apostles we have to see for what it says not what it does not.

 

[Blank123]

There are lots of things we don't have records of Christ being involved with. That doesn't mean he wasn't, or that he necesarily disaproved of them.

an argument from silence is not a valid one. if you want to argue that He approved of them, you'll have to back that claim up with Scripture.

 

[HaloHope]

an argument from silence is not a valid one. if you want to argue that He approved of them, you'll have to back that claim up with Scripture.

Perhaps you should post the scripture where Christ said it was ok for you to be using a computer and the internet right now?

I mean we obviously need Christs direct written approval for everything in life to do those things? Right?

 

[Blank123]

Perhaps you should post the scripture where Christ said it was ok for you to be using a computer and the internet right now?

I mean we obviously need Christs direct written approval for everything in life to do those things? Right?

you're arguing the fact that an argument from silence is not a valid argument by using an argument from silence? Interesting and ironic.

 

[HaloHope]

you're arguing the fact that an argument from silence is not a valid argument by using an argument from silence?

Erm not quite. My point is your argument is utterly invalid as if you need written Biblical approval for everything you rule out pretty every aspect of modern life. This makes the argument automatically false as there are clearly now Biblical permissions for using a computer which you are clearly doing.

Interesting and ironic.

Seeing as ironic if correctly defined is "a use of words pertaining to something other than their literal intention. Im fairly sure what I posted wasn't ironic.

 

[Blank123]

Erm not quite. My point is your argument is utterly invalid as if you need written Biblical approval for everything you rule out pretty every aspect of modern life. This makes the argument automatically false as there are clearly now Biblical permissions for using a computer which you are clearly doing.Seeing as ironic if correctly defined is "a use of words pertaining to something other than their literal intention. Im fairly sure what I posted wasn't ironic.

lets look at this another at another angle. enemy was arguing from silence to claim that Jesus could have approved of homosexual unions. what you and she may not be aware of though is that this argument is actually a recognized logical fallacy

Argument from silence. Who is Argument from silence? What is Argument from silence? Where is Argument from silence? Definition of Argument from silence. Meaning of Argument from silence.

if either of you want to be logically consistent then it would be wise to prove the claims with some substantiation or find another way to argue the point. as it is the point has already been lost by the simple fact that it hasn't been argued logically.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Jesus also never specifically said "don't sleep with your brother or your mother", but it's still wrong, immoral and illegal to boot.

What Jesus DID talk about was sexual immorality. Some Christians believe that homosexuality falls under sexual immorality.

 

[Beanieboy]

Jesus also never specifically said "don't sleep with your brother or your mother", but it's still wrong, immoral and illegal to boot.

What Jesus DID talk about was sexual immorality. Some Christians believe that homosexuality falls under sexual immorality.

Interesting that you say that, having brought up Sodom and Gomorrah, a story that continues with his daughters getting their father drunk, and getting pregnant by him. And those were the people looking for the "good people."

If one believes that homosexuality falls under immorality, then do they believe that all forms of heterosexuality are moral? Heterosexual child molestation, rape, prostitution, strippers doing lap dances? That exist, and there aren't thread after thread about that.

There are moral and immoral forms of heterosexuality, namely, those that are loving to the other, as opposed to those that harm the other, demean the other, or are selfish and unloving to the other.

The same can be said of homosexual acts, even homosexual acts committed by straight people (like prison rape).

However, there are loving heterosexual acts and relationships, and loving homosexual relationships that are edifying, nurturing, supportive and caring.
I have a hard time believing that is sinful.

Is it a sin to sleep with your mother? Well, I would suggest watching the episode of the X Files called House, where the The mother has three sons, one whom was the father and brother of the other two. What happens? Well, because the DNA is so close, people become deformed.

But how would a son marry his mother if he has a father?
Is it immoral and illegal if the father is gone? It's something that grosses most of us out, but probably has happened before, even in Shakespeare.

Do brothers and sisters marry? Rarely. Who would want to. The DNA problem arises again. However, when people talk of "God's Plan" of one man and one woman, A&E can have children, but the next generation has to reproduce through incest. When you think about it, it's kind of icky, but that was their only option, and apparently, God's well thought out plan.

The only real reason that it is illegal is because of genetic problems in offspring. Legally, they are next of kin, and can share property rights, make life and death decisions for one another, without marrying at all. Were there a Mother-Son Pride Parade each year, this would be an issue, or a Brother-Sister Love Group calling for legal incestuous marriage, again, this would be something to debate and discuss.

However, there isn't. It is extremely rare that you hear about it, and not because it is illegal, but because most people are not in love with their brother/sister/mother/father past the age of 5.

Again, you can't compare such things as incest to homosexuality, unless you want me to say that a man marrying a woman is no different than a brother marrying his mother or sister, because it is heterosexual.

Surely you understand the difference.

 

[Philothei]

Again, you can't compare such things as incest to homosexuality, unless you want me to say that a man marrying a woman is no different than a brother marrying his mother or sister, because it is heterosexual.

you are making the following fallacy:

if a shares some characteristics to b and c shares some charactiristics to b then a and b are the same? No they are not

PW said about specific cases that "reseble" not that they are equal...

That is a wrong logic here.

 

[Beanieboy]

you are making the following fallacy:

if a shares some characteristics to b and c shares some charactiristics to b then a and b are the same? No they are not

PW said about specific cases that "reseble" not that they are equal...

That is a wrong logic here.

Originally Posted by PreachersWife2004
Jesus also never specifically said "don't sleep with your brother or your mother", but it's still wrong, immoral and illegal to boot.

What Jesus DID talk about was sexual immorality. Some Christians believe that homosexuality falls under sexual immorality.

What is implied is that just because incest isn't something Jesus mentioned, it doesn't make it moral. However, PW is comparing two men, who aren't related and love each other, with a brother sleeping with a mother, who is not only someone she gave birth to, but may still be married to the father, and would have deformed children.

Does incest have ANYTHING to do with homosexuality?
No, so I said that if that is the reasoning being used, then it is no different than FALSELY comparing a son having sex with his mother or brother with his sister, because it is heterosexual in nature, and so is equal to an unrelated man and woman marrying and having sex.

I understand the false logic, but I have had my loving relationship to my same sex partner compared to a man having sex with a goat, to murder, to child molestation, or rape, and now, someone is bringing in incest, to suggest or imply that it is no different - that it is the exact same thing.

It's not the same in any way, no similar than saying a man marrying a woman is no different than a brother marrying a sister. It's logical dishonesty.

Further, Abraham married his half sister, which isn't legal. Cain would have had to marry his sister, which is no longer legal. Lot had sex with his daughters, and was said to be a righteous man. And it resulted in his son/grandson. Would you call anyone who had a son who was also his grandson righteous? There are others, but it isn't a "the bible says" issue, because the bible contains polygamy that is not condemned, incest that is not condemned, etc.

Much of what people claim is "immoral" is usually put upon other people, and rarely themselves. They say that homosexuality is immoral, but ignore promiscuity in heterosexuals, especially men who brag about it, or men who hire prostitutes for their bachelor parties, or have lap dances from. It's far easier to point to homosexuals, lump it with something you would never do, and take the focus off of you.

Look at your morality! You never have sex with the same sex! Sure, you may look at inappropriate content, be sexually active, filled with lust, have cheated on your wife, but HEY! You didn't have gay sex, so that makes it all forgivable.

I think there are immoral gay and straight actions, but I don't believe that homosexuality itself, nor heterosexuality, is, or can be, a sin. It is the attraction to the opposite or same sex, but not necessarily active sex.

I also think there can be immoral gay and heterosexual acts, performed by gay or straight people, but loving another person isn't one of them.

 

[Kuraisto]

So, if a gay person can't tell the difference...

That was a very touching message, Beanieboy. I hope that other people will read it and discover Christ's message within it. Sadly, there are so many who put their own judgment above G-d's, even here.

 

[Kuraisto]

Beanieboy, there are many Christians who do whatever they can to avoid sexual sin in their own lives. They also promote abstinence and such to other people. I don't know any church where inappropriate contentography and adultery are considered ok. There is a great concentration on homosexuality in the church because there is a great interest in the topic within the U.S. today.

 

[b&wpac4]

Beanieboy, there are many Christians who do whatever they can to avoid sexual sin in their own lives. They also promote abstinence and such to other people. I don't know any church where inappropriate contentography and adultery are considered ok. There is a great concentration on homosexuality in the church because there is a great interest in the topic within the U.S. today.

See, I stay out of any debate about if homosexual marriage should be in the church. I'm not a Christian, and it's your church. Your church, your rules. I get agitated when people want to force others to their religious beliefs through the use of secular laws.

Do I think a good case can be made that homosexual sex is a sin? Of course. I tend to stay out of the "is it a sin" argument, however. What I do see is many people fight against homosexuals because they are secure in the fact that is it one of the sins they themselves will never commit.

It's a lot harder to fight against divorce or heterosexual immorality. Why, they themselves might get caught up on that! Better fight against sins you know you won't commit!