Disapproval of Homosexuality - how much of it is just personal prejudice?

[lordsnooty]

Hi folks,

I've just been discussing this in the 'should homosexuals be executed thread', but I wanted to look at this issue in more depth.

It seems to me that religious people use the bible as an excuse to hate people. Previously, it was blacks (yes, yes, "that wasn't real Christianity"), and now it's gays.

I would ask you Christian folks - how much of your anti-homosexual feeling comes from the bible, and how much of it stems from normal physical revulsion?

Personally, I think it's disgusting in a physical sense. If I turn on the TV and two men are kissing, I look away immediately, because it makes me feel sick.

On the other hand, whatever makes them happy is fine by me. They're not hurting anyone, so I think that they should be allowed to get on with it, without being taunted and treated differently because of it. They can't help being gay, any more than I can help being an idiot.

If they would be polite enough not to perform their sex acts in front of me, then I'm always grateful, but it's hardly the end of the world either way.

So come on - do you use the bible to back up your pre-existing hatred, or is Christianity your sole impediment to peaceful socialisation with homosexuals?

Just to be sure you know, this thread is not intended to be insulting to anyone. If I've offended you, I'm sorry!

Cheers,

Paul

[yxboom]

I find your last statement untrue. Change the title.

[Piebald]

I agree. No one is going to refer to themselves as a "Queer-Hater."

[lordsnooty]

Title now changed to something more politically correct.

I meant no offense by it. I've seen many Christians use the term 'queer hater' with pride. If that does not apply to you (or others here) I apologise.

Paul

[yxboom]

Thanks.

[yxboom]

FYI, homosexuals call themselves queers and queens, etc priding themselves by these labels. Rarely do you find those opposed refer to them as such. The term is "homosexual".

[Zakath]

Unless you're Fred Phelps or those people on that other board, which shall remain nameless...

:hrm:

[Piebald]

I don't even understand how you could actively hate a group of people and be consistant with Christian teaching. Maybe I'm missing somethin' though.

[lordsnooty]

Yesterday @ 10:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
yxboom:
FYI, homosexuals call themselves queers and queens, etc priding themselves by these labels. Rarely do you find those opposed refer to them as such. The term is "homosexual".

Yes, I know, I'm not one of the bigots I was referring to.

But 'queer haters/bashers' describes a certain group of people, the behaviour of which goes beyond homophobia.

Paul

[Alden]

Today @ 02:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Hamster:

I don't even understand how you could actively hate a group of people and be consistant with Christian teaching.

Very true. I don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle in anyway, yet I have many longtime friends who are openly gay/lesbian. They know where I stand in my faith, and on issues like this. In fact, I've had many discussions with them on this subject, and none of them have turned into a angry shouting match or a diatribe of condemnation.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 01:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Alden:
Very true. I don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle in anyway

Why? Simply because of the OT?

Paul

[Socrates]

Lord SnootyIt seems to me that religious people use the bible as an excuse to hate people.It seems to be that anti-Christian bigots use their chronological snobbery as an excuse to cheaply psychologize their opponents. Previously, it was blacks (yes, yes, "that wasn't real Christianity"),No it wasn't. You and your mate Tycho never apologised for accusing the Bible of teaching that Blacks were the result of a curse on Ham -- although there is no such thing :dufus: As with your fellow misotheist Higgins, I've started a new policy of holding your feet to the fire to unconditionally admit your most egregious slanders against Christianity (his vile smears are similar to yours, e.g. "Hitler was a Christian" and "The Bible teaches the inferiority of negroes".

And before you go on, PROVE there is anything in the Bible with even the slightest hint that degree of skin melanization is an indicator of superiority of inferiority. ... and now it's gays.Not in the slightest bit comparable. People are born with skin color potential, while committing a homosexual act is a moral choice.I would ask you Christian folks - how much of your anti-homosexual feeling comes from the bible, All.and how much of it stems from normal physical revulsion?None.

[The Laughing Man]

Why does disapproval equate to hate when Christians (and only Christians) are involved? Many people here and elsewhere disapprove of Christians and Christianity, yet it not described as "hate." Why not? Their disapproval is often far more verbally abusive and insulting than simply stating that homosexuality is sinful. So why is disapproval of one group of people "hate" and disapproval of another group not?

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 01:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Socrates:
It seems to be that anti-Christian bigots use their chronological snobbery as an excuse to cheaply psychologize their opponents.

It was just an observation. It is undeniably true (look at Phelps et al), but I do not say that it is true of all fundamentalist Christians. If this is the impression I gave, I apologise.


Previously, it was blacks (yes, yes, "that wasn't real Christianity"),No it wasn't. You and your mate Tycho never apologised for accusing the Bible of teaching that Blacks were the result of a curse on Ham

I never made that accusation. I am not familiar with that part of the Bible, and am not in the least bit qualified to say whether the bible preaches hatred of blacks or not.

I think you might have mistaken me for someone else on that one.


People are born with skin color potential, while committing a homosexual act is a moral choice.

There's no moral decision to be made regarding homosexuality. Obviously you would disagree, since you tie morality in with religion.

Let's not have this 'morality is subjective', 'no it isn't' argument again, though.

Paul

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 10:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Jinx72:
Why does disapproval equate to hate when Christians (and only Christians) are involved?

Well, many Christians act as if they hate homosexuals. Actions speak louder than words.


Many people here and elsewhere disapprove of Christians and Christianity, yet it not described as "hate." Why not?

Because I don't treat Christians any differently to how I'd treat non-Christians. That's the major difference.

Of course, if you disapprove of homosexuality and yet still treat homosexuals as you'd treat straight people, then obviously there's less of a difference.


Their disapproval is often far more verbally abusive and insulting than simply stating that homosexuality is sinful.

I don't think so. Homosexuals can't help the way they are. They cannot change. To be told that they are sinful for reasons entirely beyond their control must be deeply offensive.

Christians are at least capable of changing their minds. They aren't being insulted for something outside of their control.

And besides, I don't see many (any) atheists insulting people purely for being Christians. For making dumb arguments, possibly. For being offensive or preachy, possibly. But not fr the simple fact of being a Christian.

Paul

[The Laughing Man]

Today @ 04:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
lordsnooty:

Well, many Christians act as if they hate homosexuals. Actions speak louder than words.

For every "Christian" you can name who hates homosexuals (excluding Fred Phelps), I can name dozens if not hundreds of true, loving Christians who don't.


Because I don't treat Christians any differently to how I'd treat non-Christians. That's the major difference.

Is it? According to Christianity, everyone is a sinner - even Christians - and everyone needs to be loved. Any Christian who treats homosexuals differently from anyone else needs to re-read their Bibles (particularly the Gospels).


Of course, if you disapprove of homosexuality and yet still treat homosexuals as you'd treat straight people, then obviously there's less of a difference.

And contrary to your argument, you will find that the vast majority of Christians take the teachings of Christ to heart and do not treat homosexuals any different than anyone else.


I don't think so. Homosexuals can't help the way they are.

That's a lie. Homosexuals are not "born gay," as your argument assumes. There is no "gay gene" or "gay" anything else. Homosexuality is a choice, plain and simple.


They cannot change.

Another lie. They can change. Many have already, in fact.


To be told that they are sinful for reasons entirely beyond their control must be deeply offensive.

But it's not beyond their control.


Christians are at least capable of changing their minds.

Only by rejecting the teachings of God.


They aren't being insulted for something outside of their control.

Calling homosexuality sinful is no more insulting than calling sex outside of marriage sinful.


And besides, I don't see many (any) atheists insulting people purely for being Christians.

Perhaps you should check out the Christian newsgroups. There's no moderation there so atheists can say whatever they want. Let me assure you from first-hand experience that there are many atheists who do insult people purely for being Christians.


For making dumb arguments, possibly.

Yeah, like the "dumb arguments" of, "I believe in God," and, "Jesus is my savior."


For being offensive

Atheists are far more offensive with their words. Few, if any, Christians spew obscenities at the drop of a hat.


or preachy, possibly.

Yeah, Heaven forbid that Christians share the Gospel! What an offense!


But not fr the simple fact of being a Christian.

Facts prove you dead wrong.

[Socrates]

Lord Snooty:Let's not have this 'morality is subjective', 'no it isn't' argument again, though.If morality is subjective, then your claim "It is wrong to hate homosexuals" is also subjective.

[The Laughing Man]

Excellent point, Soc. :thumb:

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 04:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Jinx72:That's a lie. Homosexuals are not "born gay," as your argument assumes. There is no "gay gene" or "gay" anything else. Homosexuality is a choice, plain and simple.

Uhhh....

Could you choose to be gay? Let's say, purely theoretically, that you dropped your faith tomorrow. Could you then think to yourself 'ooh, I actually quite fancy having sexual intercourse with a man!' ?

I know I couldn't. It is not a choice. The idea fills me with revulsion. If you could make that choice yourself, then you must be either homosexual or bisexual.

If you could not make that choice - what makes you think anyone else can? Do you think that people intentionally do things that make them feel sick?


Another lie. They can change. Many have already, in fact.

No they haven't. They've convinced themselves that they can change because you lot have terrified them with your tales of eternal torment.


Perhaps you should check out the Christian newsgroups. There's no moderation there so atheists can say whatever they want. Let me assure you from first-hand experience that there are many atheists who do insult people purely for being Christians.

And maybe it goes both ways. I haven't seen the Christian newsgroups. I'll check them out.


Yeah, like the "dumb arguments" of, "I believe in God," and, "Jesus is my savior."

No, dumb arguments like 'AIG is a reliable source', or 'You'll all go to hell unless you do this, that, or the other'.


Atheists are far more offensive with their words. Few, if any, Christians spew obscenities at the drop of a hat.

Obscenities, no. But abusive language, yes. Right Socrates? :thumb:


Yeah, Heaven forbid that Christians share the Gospel! What an offense!

They can do that if they want, but there are some places where it is inappropriate and/or intellectually insulting.

Paul

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 05:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Socrates:

Lord Snooty:Let's not have this 'morality is subjective', 'no it isn't' argument again, though.If morality is subjective, then your claim "It is wrong to hate homosexuals" is also subjective.


That's right!!

It is entirely subjective. But since homophobia is in direct opposition to my morality, I will still fight against it where I see it. It doesn't matter that it's subjective.

Paul

[Socrates]

Lord Snooty:No, dumb arguments like 'AIG is a reliable source', Which LS is incapable of refuting, except "My sister says they're wrong".Obscenities, no. But abusive language, yes. Right Socrates? Wrong, just following the Biblical challenge/riposte paradigm -- see Offensisensitivity Is It "un-Christian" to Engage in Satire? (http://www.tektonics.org/madmad.html)

[Socrates]

This is relevant to LordSnooty's false claim that homosexuals are born that way, and supports Jinx' contention that it is a choice -- from www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2482.asp. Spong is an ex-bishop who is really a dog-collared atheist for all practical purposes.


In Living in Sin (LS), Spong appeals to some hotly contended common 'knowledge' that sexual orientation is a part of life over which we have no control:
We now know that homosexuality is part of the essential nature of approximately 10% of the population. (LS p. 67)
Spong draws this figure from Alfred Kinsey's controversial study. In 1948, Kinsey published the results of a large-scale survey of American males.67 Supposedly Kinsey found that 37% of males had at least one orgasmic experience with at least one other male. Further, 10% of males between 11 and 55 years old were reported to have remained 'largely' homosexual for at least three years. Only 4% of males were found to be exclusively homosexual.

The homosexual movement (and Spong) often cites the Kinsey report to maintain that 10% of the population is exclusively homosexual. But even if this report were accurate, the gay lobby's conclusion clearly misrepresents it, as shown in the previous paragraph. Once again we see ideology masquerading as science.

However, Kinsey's reliability has recently been questioned. According to a recent critique68 , Kinsey's statistics were derived by interviewing a sample of the male populace, some 25% of which were ex-prisoners, prison inmates and sex offenders. Kinsey stacked his results by distorting his sample, thereby effecting the findings he wanted. Further, his researchers were also chosen for their bias. One applicant was personally blackballed by Kinsey after confessing that he believed homosexuality to be abnormal, bestiality ludicrous and adultery harmful to marriage. Kinsey also claimed that children from infancy are sexual and benefit from sexual encounters with adults. In the name of Kinsey's 'science', children from as young as two months were subjected to masturbation by Kinsey's 'technically trained' sex offenders.69

Even if we accept that some people are born homosexual, does this make homosexual acts morally right? Not automatically. Some violent male criminals are born with an XYY chromosome configuration, rather than the normal XY. Their predisposition towards violence does not excuse their violent behaviour. Some people are born with a genetic predisposition toward cancer. Do we embrace and rejoice in their condition, and encourage them to enjoy the experience of living in a cancer-ridden lifestyle? No! We see it as a disease for which we strive to find a cure. It does not automatically follow that just because someone is born with a condition that this makes it normal.

Furthermore, not all homosexuals are happy with Spong's (pseudo-)scientific defence of their lifestyle. Judith Dale, a self-confessed lesbian, in moving a vote of thanks for Spong after an address in Wellington last year,70 stated that she felt uncomfortable about Spong's scientific argument for homosexuality because it 'implies a naturalness to heterosexuality and an aberrance to homosexuality'. Dale said this was dangerous '… because the underlying assertion is that if we weren't born that way, we wouldn't want to be like this.' She said that the scientific argument was a kind of oppression as it points to homosexuality as a mutation. Spong, in responding to the vote of thanks, apologised for any imagined offence, and said that he endorsed Dale's comments, and claimed that he only used these arguments to win over heterosexuals to the gay rights cause.

In the same lecture, Spong defended homosexuality in humans by saying that homosexual behaviour had been observed in white mice in laboratories. Two things can be said about this reasoning: It is dangerous to derive morality from animal behaviour. Stronger animals will take food from weaker animals; does this justify theft? Tom cats will often mount unwilling female cats; does this justify rape? Spong endorsed Judith Dale's comments that the scientific arguments for homosexuality amounted to a form of oppression and were therefore unwanted by a large section of the homosexual community. Surely this retraction must negate a large part of his argumentation, so will Spong withdraw his books which contain arguments he has publicly admitted are faulty?

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 02:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Socrates:

Lord Snooty:No, dumb arguments like 'AIG is a reliable source', Which LS is incapable of refuting, except "My sister says they're wrong".

You bloody liar, I never said that. I was simply answering one ridiculous argument from authority with another. I used it to make a point about the sheer idiocy of demanding a PH.D before allowing criticism of pseudo-science, and not to support my position.

Does the bible encourage lying or misrepresentation? Is this 'lying for Christ'? Why do you continue to spread the same lies even when corrected?

Paul

[Socrates]

Lord Snooty:It is entirely subjective. But since homophobia is in direct opposition to my morality, I will still fight against it where I see it. It doesn't matter that it's subjective.Right then, so it doesn't exist outside yourself. So quit claiming that homophobia, as you put it, is wrong. Rather, just say "I don't like it", because that it ALL your objection amounts to! :bonk:

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 02:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Socrates:

This is relevant to LordSnooty's false claim that homosexuals are born that way, and supports Jinx' contention that it is a choice

1) This document is from AIG, who have proven time after time that they cannot be trusted.

2) This document does not back up Jinx's claim, it explores whether homosexuality can be moral if it is genetic. These issues are unrelated.

This document seems to be attacking a straw man, at least as it is presented in the context of this discussion.

What about you though, Socrates? If we assume you did drop Christianity (this is in theory only) could you choose to be homosexual? Could you choose to be attracted to another man?

Paul

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 02:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Socrates:
Right then, so it doesn't exist outside yourself. So quit claiming that homophobia, as you put it, is wrong. Rather, just say "I don't like it", because that it ALL your objection amounts to! :bonk:

I don't like it. And I have made the decision that it is morally wrong.

That's all anyone need do to make a moral decision.

Paul

[John Reece]

Socrates:


Spong is an ex-bishop who is really a dog-collared atheist for all practical purposes.

I have refrained from commenting on what I know about Spong.

No need to, now that you have summed up the truth so succinctly.

People link Spong, who live like parasites on the Body of Christ, all while working like termites to undermine the foundations of the Temple (if I may mix metaphors), are... what? I'm too benign to say.

Thank you, Socrates, for the invaluable service you perform in countering anti-Christian propaganda with fact-based statements of truth.

:thumb:

[Alden]

Yesterday @ 04:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
lordsnooty:

Why? Simply because of the OT?

Paul

Do I really need to answer this? I thought that this thread was about people using the bible to justify their hatred, or something along those lines. I find the questions you pose in the first post to be loaded from the get-go. You assume that we hate homosexuals because of our faith. But whatever.

I don't agree with homosexuality for several reasons. One, of course, is that the bible seems to view it in a negative light, not just in the OT, but in the New Testament as well. I believe in the divine creation of man. I believe that humans were created by God for a purpose. That being said, I find it hard to believe that people are meant to be homosexual.

The argument "they are born that way," (which is the most common refutation that I have seen) doesn't wash with me. From a Christian stand point, I can say that I disagree with this. "If God created humankind, and people have these predispositions, then didn't He mean for them to be gay?" No He didn't. He didn't mean for us to have many things. We weren't meant to have a genetic predisposition to have cancer. We weren't meant to have AIDS, yet we do. Mankind is fallen, etc. If you have any questions, please see Genesis.

From a standpoint not related to my faith-

I haven't seen much conclusive research to indicate that homosexuality is genetic. Even if it were, does this mean that it is a good thing. As has already been stated, people have predispositions for cancer, heart disease, and obesity, but we know that these are things we wish to avoid.

Many of my homosexual friends and acquaintances were sexually or emotionally abused as children (or even later in life for that matter). Only an extremely small percentage of them will tell me that they have "always been that way."

But once again, to refer back to the original post, I do not use my faith to justify hatred toward homosexuals because I don't have any.

[Socrates]

Socrates:


This is relevant to LordSnooty's false claim that homosexuals are born that way, and supports Jinx' contention that it is a choice

Lord Snooty's (non)response:1) This document is from AIG, Actually, it was originally from Apologia, and merely REpublished with permission on the AiG site.... who have proven time after time that they cannot be trusted.LordS proves time after time that he can't be trusted to respond to actual arguments.2) This document does not back up Jinx's claim, it explores whether homosexuality can be moral if it is genetic. These issues are unrelated.
Rubbish, it covers BOTH these issues. Try READING it this time :read:This document seems to be attacking a straw man, at least as it is presented in the context of this discussion.Your proof is, what?

[The Laughing Man]

Today @ 06:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
lordsnooty:

Uhhh....

Could you choose to be gay? Let's say, purely theoretically, that you dropped your faith tomorrow. Could you then think to yourself 'ooh, I actually quite fancy having sexual intercourse with a man!' ?

Difficult to say, really. "What if" questions are always difficult to answer. I prefer to deal with "what is."


I know I couldn't. It is not a choice.

So because you couldn't, that means homosexuality isn't a choice? Sounds like a non sequitir to me.


The idea fills me with revulsion. If you could make that choice yourself, then you must be either homosexual or bisexual.

Um, no. I could make that choice right now, I suppose, but that doesn't make me homosexual or bisexual at all. Does the fact that I could choose to kill someone in cold blood make me a murderer? Does the fact that I could choose to smoke marijuana or snort coke make me a drug user?


If you could not make that choice - what makes you think anyone else can? Do you think that people intentionally do things that make them feel sick?

What? I don't follow that last part. Are you trying to say that committing homosexual acts makes people feel sick?


No they haven't.

Uh, yes, they have. There are many people in this country who are no longer homosexuals because they chose it.

Hey, don't forget about Anne Heche.


They've convinced themselves that they can change because you lot have terrified them with your tales of eternal torment.

Even if that load of hateful, bigotted crap were true, it would still be a choice, wouldn't it? Convincing oneself is a choice. Make up your mind. Either you believe it is a choice or it isn't.


And maybe it goes both ways.

Sure, there's an extremely small minority of people who profess faith who do so, but they are the exception, not the rule. And even some of them are people pretending to be Christians in an attempt to make real Christians look bad. (Don't think it's true? Ever heard of the "Landover Baptist Church?")


No, dumb arguments like 'AIG is a reliable source', or 'You'll all go to hell unless you do this, that, or the other'.

Straw man argument.


They can do that if they want, but there are some places where it is inappropriate and/or intellectually insulting.

Like almost anyplace other than in their own homes or churches, right? :rofl: (Right now, I'm thinking of that recent case in Canada where Bible verses - book, chapter and verse, but no text - used in a paid ad were found by a court of law to be, as you state, "inappropriate and/or intellectually insulting" as well as offensive and hateful.)

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 02:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Jinx72:
Difficult to say, really. "What if" questions are always difficult to answer. I prefer to deal with "what is."

Oh come on. What a cop out! Either you think you could sleep with a man, or you don't. I'll admit this up front - I don't!


So because you couldn't, that means homosexuality isn't a choice? Sounds like a non sequitir to me.

I don't know any guys that could 'choose to be gay'. It's like asking if you'd choose to contract herpes or choose to have your legs amputated.


Um, no. I could make that choice right now, I suppose, but that doesn't make me homosexual or bisexual at all.

Yes it does. If you feel that you could quite happily have sex with another man (religious convictions aside), then that would make you officially bi-curious at best.


Does the fact that I could choose to kill someone in cold blood make me a murderer? Does the fact that I could choose to smoke marijuana or snort coke make me a drug user?

Of course not, but neither of those acts (neccesarily) requires a pre-existing compulsion. Homosexuality does.


What? I don't follow that last part. Are you trying to say that committing homosexual acts makes people feel sick?

Yes, I am! It'd certainly make me feel queasy. This applies to almost all men in my experience, which is what convinces me that you'd have to find yourself with a natural predisposition towards that sort of behavior to want to partake in it.


Uh, yes, they have. There are many people in this country who are no longer homosexuals because they chose it.

I'm afraid I don't believe that in the slightest. Perhaps some people find that their tastes change over time, particularly if they have bisexual leanings. But you cannot simply turn off sexual desire at your choosing.


Even if that load of hateful, bigotted crap were true, it would still be a choice, wouldn't it? Convincing oneself is a choice. Make up your mind. Either you believe it is a choice or it isn't.

Firstly, it wasn't hateful, bigoted crap. As I understand it, practicing homosexuals are hellbound according to most fundamentalist Christians.

Secondly, I don't deny that people can choose to ignore their sexual leanings. I'm sure homosexuals can pretend that they're not gay for religious reasons. That doesn't mean they have pressed a magic 'make me straight' button.


Like almost anyplace other than in their own homes or churches, right?

Well, yes quite frankly. I'm opposed to all forms of indoctrination, and I do find it quite offensive when people preach at me.

I don't know why, but I suppose it's because they think I'm some poor ignorant lamb that has strayed from the flock. That kind of misplaced arrogance gets on my nerves. Or perhaps I'm just misunderstanding their intent, I don't know.


(Right now, I'm thinking of that recent case in Canada where Bible verses - book, chapter and verse, but no text - used in a paid ad were found by a court of law to be, as you state, "inappropriate and/or intellectually insulting" as well as offensive and hateful.)

Well, Biblical quotes can be offensive and hateful, but it depends on the context.

If it's OT stuff about burning homosexuals for instance, that's bad. If it's just some fairly pleasant quotation about being nice to each other, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Paul

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 01:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Alden:
I find the questions you pose in the first post to be loaded from the get-go.

I apologise. But I say things how I see them. I see huge concentrations of bile and hatred being aimed at homosexuals from Christians. If you don't hate them, then I'm sorry. That applies to any other Christians I've offended.

Disapproval is still bad, though. I put homophobia on a par with racism.


You assume that we hate homosexuals because of our faith. But whatever.

Well, I just assumed that you hate them, period. The faith thing seems to be more of an excuse than anything else.


I haven't seen much conclusive research to indicate that homosexuality is genetic. Even if it were, does this mean that it is a good thing.

No, but why must it be a bad thing? They're not hurting anyone.


As has already been stated, people have predispositions for cancer, heart disease, and obesity, but we know that these are things we wish to avoid.

Well, if someone finds the 'gay cure', then that's another issue. But the point is, homosexuality isn't a disease.


...I do not use my faith to justify hatred toward homosexuals because I don't have any.

Do you think homosexuals are going to hell?

Paul

[Woman]

with apologies for the following rant - if the shoe doesn't fit, don't write me letters

Jinx:

That's a lie. Homosexuals are not "born gay," as your argument assumes. There is no "gay gene" or "gay" anything else. Homosexuality is a choice, plain and simple.

This kind of statement is far more revealing than the speaker would ever dream or probably even admit to himself...despite the emotional denial, tough-guy attitude and "warrior" identification.


I'm convinced that a "gay gene" will indeed be found. There is not one of who has not known a little boy who always preferred feminine activites in spite his Dad's horror, who was "sensitive," or perhaps "artistic" and "threw like a girl," - who grew up and announced to his grieving family 15 years later what we already "knew."

I am not saying that gay men are of necessity "feminine." But we've all known those that were. The hell, the self loathing, the fear that these kids endure growing up belies anyone's insistance that "it's a choice." Bull hockey!

Enter into an alternate universe...only for the purpose of insight, again don't write me letters!

I say that within a decade there will be proof that just as heterosexuality is NOT a choice, neither is homosexuality. Just suppose I am correct. Let's turn the tables. You want to know what it would be like? We know how sexless unmarried Christians are "supposed" to be. Not only are healthy, young men expected to be celibate, they are exhorted to avoid self-gratification or even lustful thoughts. And we know they fail. Over and over and over again. Because the sex drive is very strong. Now suppose that you are told that all your heterosexual desires are disgusting and perverted and an abomination? You are prayed over. You are coached to try very hard to be attracted to other men. Any attraction, even affection or tenderness that you feel for a woman is instantly labled as against God. Do you believe you could choose to change your sexual orientation?

There are about a zillion sins out there. Get off yer sex -obsessed judgemental kick! Unless and until you treat every every sex act of every unmarried man the same way AND you are able to remain chaste 24/7, give it a rest! (And that goes for the time after your divorce too, something nearly 35% of you will experience!)

Get a hobby. Visit those in prison. Feed the hungry. Clothe the naked and comfort the homeless. Do something besides pointing your homophobic finger at your brother.

[The Laughing Man]

Just a minor thought: it's interesting to see people throw around the word "homophobic" these days like it actually means anything anymore.

[Woman]

Jinx:

Just a minor thought: it's interesting to see people throw around the word "homophobic" these days like it actually means anything anymore.

I have probably only used the word "homophobic" 3 or 4 times in my life. I seldom "throw" words around as I'm rather fond of the English language and generally try to be as precise as possible. As to the meaning of the word...I didn't realize that homophobia had been wiped out, leaving no use whatsoever for referencing the condition.

What?

Oh, you mean you just really, really don't like to be called that?

Well, if the shoe fits...

:teeth:

[Socrates]

Woman:This kind of statement is far more revealing than the speaker would ever dream or probably even admit to himself...despite the emotional denial, tough-guy attitude and "warrior" identification.And the above is more revealing of cheap psychologization of opponents than a real argument.I'm convinced that a "gay gene" will indeed be found. But this doesn't prove a thing, except a naive idea that behavior can reduced to genes. And as I already pointed out, even many homosexuals resent this idea -- I didn't notice you address an article I quoted earlier in this thread:


Furthermore, not all homosexuals are happy with Spong's (pseudo-)scientific defence of their lifestyle. Judith Dale, a self-confessed lesbian, in moving a vote of thanks for Spong after an address in Wellington last year,70 stated that she felt uncomfortable about Spong's scientific argument for homosexuality because it 'implies a naturalness to heterosexuality and an aberrance to homosexuality'. Dale said this was dangerous '… because the underlying assertion is that if we weren't born that way, we wouldn't want to be like this.' She said that the scientific argument was a kind of oppression as it points to homosexuality as a mutation. Spong, in responding to the vote of thanks, apologised for any imagined offence, and said that he endorsed Dale's comments, and claimed that he only used these arguments to win over heterosexuals to the gay rights cause.
I say that within a decade there will be proof that just as heterosexuality is NOT a choice, neither is homosexuality.Even if you're right, even within heterosexuality there is a CHOICE on whether to ACT on the desires. Just suppose I am correct. Let's turn the tables. You want to know what it would be like? We know how sexless unmarried Christians are "supposed" to be. Not only are healthy, young men expected to be celibate, Celibate actually means not married -- the correct word is "chaste". they are exhorted to avoid self-gratification or even lustful thoughts. And we know they fail.Yes they do. But you can't blame Paul, because it was Jesus Himself who pointed out so cogently that sinful ACTS are always preceded by sinful THOUGHTS. He applied this by pointing out that lust is adultery in the heart (and in the Bible, the heart and mind were synonymous), and anger is murder in the heart. Over and over and over again. And Paul said it was better to marry than burn.Because the sex drive is very strong. But we are NOT just animals that are trapped by bodily desires. MANY heterosexual Christians have practised self-control before marriage. This strong sex drive is designed to be practised within marriage, not outside.There are about a zillion sins out there. Get off yer sex -obsessed judgemental kick! That's a very judgmental statement :brow:.Unless and until you treat every every sex act of every unmarried man the same way AND you are able to remain chaste 24/7, give it a rest! (And that goes for the time after your divorce too, something nearly 35% of you will experience!)We DO treat heterosexual fornication and adultery seriously, because it is an affront to God-instituted marriage. But homosexuality is even worse because it is an affront to the design of a man and woman becoming one flesh, as endorsed by Christ not Paul (Matthew 19:3-6, Mark 10:6-9).Get a hobby. Visit those in prison. Feed the hungry. Clothe the naked and comfort the homeless. Do something besides pointing your homophobic finger at your brother.AiG has an interesting article showing their benefits at increasing the level of charity, and is a good argument against the sort of argument Woman is raising -- You should be feeding the hungry (http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/1001lead.asp).

[Alden]

Today @ 07:32 PM lordsnooty:

[quote]I apologise. But I say things how I see them.
I don't need your apology, especially not if you are going to essentially retract it in the very next sentence.



I see huge concentrations of bile and hatred being aimed at homosexuals from Christians. If you don't hate them, then I'm sorry. That applies to any other Christians I've offended.
And I've seen huge concentrations of bile coming from homosexuals. Do I make the presuposition that all are that way? What's your point?


Disapproval is still bad, though. I put homophobia on a par with racism.
Clarify this. Is disapproval homophobia in your mind?



Well, I just assumed that you hate them, period.
Mistake #1.

I said:

I haven't seen much conclusive research to indicate that homosexuality is genetic. Even if it were, does this mean that it is a good thing?
you said:

No, but why must it be a bad thing? They're not hurting anyone.
Was I saying that they were hurting anyone else? No. Does a person's genetic predisposition hurt anyone but the cancer patient?



Do you think homosexuals are going to hell?

Paul

I think that anyone who rejects Christ and the teachings of the bible is very likely to be going to hell. Gay, straight, or whatever.

[The Laughing Man]

04-06-2003 @ 09:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
lordsnooty:

Oh come on. What a cop out!

Not a cop-out. A very real and meaningful decision. "What if" questions are virtually meaningless. One could spend all their life arguing "what if" questions, but what difference would it make? "What if" is not "what is." "What if's" may never happen.


Either you think you could sleep with a man, or you don't. I'll admit this up front - I don't!

Right now, I couldn't, no. That is "what is." That's all that matters. Things could change, certainly - I don't know how, but they could. Things could have been different in my life, yes. Both those possibilities are not real, however. They are only imaginary "what if's." I see no point in exploring them anymore than I would in exploring other "what if" questions (e.g. "what if JFK hadn't been assassinated").


I don't know any guys that could 'choose to be gay'.

So? Should we base everything on you and guys you or I know? Do you know of any guys that could choose to commit crimes? No? Well, I guess that means that committing crimes isn't a choice! :ahem:


It's like asking if you'd choose to contract herpes or choose to have your legs amputated.

Geez... Had I made that comparison, the pro-gay people here would dog-pile me with condemnations.


Yes it does.

Well, then I guess you'd better put me on trial for murder because I could choose to kill someone. :ahem:


If you feel that you could quite happily have sex with another man (religious convictions aside), then that would make you officially bi-curious at best.

Your line of "reasoning" leaves a lot to be desired.


Of course not, but neither of those acts (neccesarily) requires a pre-existing compulsion. Homosexuality does.

Please provide a basis (other than your word) for this assertion. Sound like a load of bull to me.


Yes, I am!

So being gay makes gays feel sick? Weird... How would you know this?


It'd certainly make me feel queasy.

Again, so what? The thought of eating raw fish makes me feel queasy, but does that mean it makes everyone else feel that way.


This applies to almost all men in my experience,

And, of course, your experience and those who you've encountered are the end-all and be-all of existence.


which is what convinces me that you'd have to find yourself with a natural predisposition towards that sort of behavior to want to partake in it.

Still assuming that there is a "gay gene" and that people are "born gay," I see. No proof of either has ever been found.


I'm afraid I don't believe that in the slightest.

The people exist, but if you choose to be blind to their existence, then that's your choice, I guess.


Perhaps some people find that their tastes change over time, particularly if they have bisexual leanings. But you cannot simply turn off sexual desire at your choosing.

I never said it was that simple (at least not all the time), but it has happened. It does happen. It has nothing to do with "bisexual leanings," either. People have come out of bisexuality as well.


Firstly, it wasn't hateful, bigoted crap.

Yes, it was. Conquering homosexuality is not done with fearmongering about Hell, but through the redeeming love of Christ. Anyone who immediately and unthinkingly hits the "Christians terrify people into complience/submission with tales of eternal torment" panic button is drawing upon their hatred and bigotry of Christians. The promise of God's love is far and away more motivating than any "tale of eternal torment." (Why do you think Fred Phelps is such a joke?)


As I understand it, practicing homosexuals are hellbound according to most fundamentalist Christians.

Well, gee. Duh. So is everyone else including fundamentalist Christians themselves. It is only the redeeming love and grace of Christ that saves us from Hell. Fundamentalist Christians are as much sinners as homosexuals. They're desire to help people leave homosexuality is motivated out of love, not hate or phobia. But, of course, the lie of Satan is that anyone who opposes homosexuality - even out of love - is a hateful, bigotted, backwards, ignorant, foolish homophobe.


Secondly, I don't deny that people can choose to ignore their sexual leanings.

The issue is changing, not ignoring.


I'm sure homosexuals can pretend that they're not gay for religious reasons.

And God will see right through that pretending.


That doesn't mean they have pressed a magic 'make me straight' button.

No one's argued that there is any "magic 'make me straight' button." Please quit making straw man arguments.


Well, yes quite frankly. I'm opposed to all forms of indoctrination, and I do find it quite offensive when people preach at me.

Ah, but it's okay for people to preach at Christians about how homosexuality is normal and acceptible, right? And how Christians who oppose homosexuality are homophobes, right? That kind of indoctrination is perfectly acceptable - esp. in public schools, but Heaven forbid a child say grace with her friends before eating lunch!


I don't know why, but I suppose it's because they think I'm some poor ignorant lamb that has strayed from the flock. That kind of misplaced arrogance gets on my nerves. Or perhaps I'm just misunderstanding their intent, I don't know.

Yeah, it couldn't possibly be out of love for you. :ahem:


Well, Biblical quotes can be offensive and hateful, but it depends on the context.

What is the context of just providing book, chapter and verse citations?


If it's OT stuff about burning homosexuals for instance, that's bad.

Only if taken out of context - as pro-gay, anti-Christian people tend to do.


If it's just some fairly pleasant quotation about being nice to each other, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Yeah, let's just water-down God some more, shall we?

[The Laughing Man]

04-06-2003 @ 09:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Woman:

with apologies for the following rant - if the shoe doesn't fit, don't write me letters

Quite frankly, bull! "With apologies?" What a joke! If you truly felt that apologies were necessary, you never would have made the following rant.


This kind of statement is far more revealing than the speaker would ever dream or probably even admit to himself...despite the emotional denial, tough-guy attitude and "warrior" identification.

Excuse me? Say what you mean. No, wait. Let me guess. My "homophobia" - as you call it - stems from my denying my own homosexual desires, right? Yeah, deep down I'm a flaming, foppish gay who thinks Barbra Streisand is just "FABULOUTH!", right? Am I close?


I'm convinced that a "gay gene" will indeed be found.

Faith in the unseen, eh? Fascinating.


There is not one of who has not known a little boy who always preferred feminine activites in spite his Dad's horror, who was "sensitive," or perhaps "artistic" and "threw like a girl," - who grew up and announced to his grieving family 15 years later what we already "knew."

What? That he was straight and those things are not proof of the existence of his supposed homosexuality and/or any "gay gene?"

Gosh, I was "sensitive," "artistic" and "threw like a girl" growing up - though not to my fundamentalist Christian father's "horror" - and I continue to be "sensitive" and "artistic." (I learned to throw better. :wink: ) Gosh, I guess that means...

*trumpet fanfare*

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! (What? Expecting me to say, "I guess that means I'm gay?" :rofl: )


I am not saying that gay men are of necessity "feminine."

Maybe not, but you are certainly trying to make the assertion that a boy who exhibits those things you mention will be gay (or will be a "homophobe" who is trying to hide his homosexual desires).


But we've all known those that were. The hell, the self loathing, the fear that these kids endure growing up belies anyone's insistance that "it's a choice." Bull hockey!

And the fact that kids choose to study and get good grades even though it means "the hell, the self loathing, the fear that these kids endure growing up" belies your argument. Kids choose a lot of things which causes them those things. You point is meaningless.

I'm skipping your "what if" paragraph and moving right to the end:


There are about a zillion sins out there.

Yep, and I oppose every one of them.


Get off yer sex -obsessed judgemental kick!

Oh, yes, of course. It's because we're "sex-obsessed." And, of course, Christians aren't ever supposed to judge because Jesus said, "Judge not, or you too will be judged," right?


Unless and until you treat every every sex act of every unmarried man the same way

As sinful? Not difficult.


AND you are able to remain chaste 24/7,

It's a choice and not a difficult one at that. If you or anyone else has trouble with that, perhaps then it is not Christians who are "sex-obsessed." (Which is my belief anyway.)


give it a rest!

Um, no. No, I don't think I'll stop spreading the Word of God.


(And that goes for the time after your divorce too, something nearly 35% of you will experience!)

Not a problem if one chooses to follow God's Word.


Get a hobby. Visit those in prison. Feed the hungry. Clothe the naked and comfort the homeless.

Who says we don't?


Do something besides pointing your homophobic finger at your brother.

Yes, of course. As I said already, the accusations of "homophobe/homophobic" are meaningless. They've been repeated like a broken record so often that it's just a joke, now.

"I don't think homosexuals should be able to marry."
"You're a homophobe!"

"I don't think homosexual partners should get benefits."
"You're a homophobe!"

"I don't think homosexuality should be promoted in the schools."
"You're a homophobe!"

It's simply astounding how those who scream bloody murder for "tolerance" are the most intolerant of all.

[Sher]

Today @ 02:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Jinx72:

It's simply astounding how those who scream bloody murder for "tolerance" are the most intolerant of all. Amen :thumb:

[Socrates]

Jinx: It's simply astounding how those who scream bloody murder for "tolerance" are the most intolerant of all. ”

Sherbear: Amen :thumb: IOW, there's no one as illiberal as a liberal in power! :bonk:

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 05:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Socrates:
[quote]But this doesn't prove a thing, except a naive idea that behavior can reduced to genes.

Behavior can be essentially broken down to genetics plus the environment in which someone is raised.

Recent studies have shown that genetics play a very important role in our behavior. Twins are even more alike than we had thought.


And as I already pointed out, even many homosexuals resent this idea

Who cares? The evidence is abundant that there is a genetic factor.

Not that I'd expect many fundamentalist Christians to know evidence if it beat them over the head.


Even if you're right, even within heterosexuality there is a CHOICE on whether to ACT on the desires.

A choice which is none of your business.

Paul

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 05:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Alden:
And I've seen huge concentrations of bile coming from homosexuals.

Bile from homosexuals? Aimed at the completely innocent, hate-free, gay-loving Christian community? Never!


Clarify this. Is disapproval homophobia in your mind?

Yes, it is. If you find excuses to be intollerant of homosexuals, you are a homophobe. I'm sorry if some right-wing folks don't like that word, but I'm afraid it applies perfectly.


I think that anyone who rejects Christ and the teachings of the bible is very likely to be going to hell. Gay, straight, or whatever.

Those are the sorts of silly ideas that give people a free reign to be as bigoted and 'disapproving' as they like.

Paul

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 06:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Jinx72:
Not a cop-out. A very real and meaningful decision. "What if" questions are virtually meaningless.

Nonsense. You don't want to answer because you realise that your answer would nullify your argument.

You know as well as I do that you couldn't choose to engage in homosexual behavior. The idea is ridiculous. Unless you are gay, of course (which is not statistically likely).


So? Should we base everything on you and guys you or I know? Do you know of any guys that could choose to commit crimes?

Yes!


No? Well, I guess that means that committing crimes isn't a choice!

Anyone can commit crimes. Not anyone can choose to do something that most men would find disgusting, and enjoy it.


Well, then I guess you'd better put me on trial for murder because I could choose to kill someone.

Comparing apples and oranges again...


So being gay makes gays feel sick? Weird... How would you know this?

Nice misinterpretation.

A straight person, committing a homosexual act, would likely feel sick. It is natural to find such acts disgusting, if you are straight.

Why would someone not feel sick? Oh yes! Because they are gay!


And, of course, your experience and those who you've encountered are the end-all and be-all of existence.

It's not just 'my experience'. Actually, this is a well known fact. You'd realise this if you peered emerged from your Christian coccoon once in a while.


Still assuming that there is a "gay gene" and that people are "born gay," I see. No proof of either has ever been found.

No, but all of the evidence points to it. And when it is found, you'll have to eat your hat.


Conquering homosexuality is not done with fearmongering about Hell, but through the redeeming love of Christ. Anyone who immediately and unthinkingly hits the "Christians terrify people into complience/submission with tales of eternal torment" panic button is drawing upon their hatred and bigotry of Christians.

Right. So Christians don't think that people who act contrary to the instructions in the bible will rot in hell?

Just to be clear, I was mistaken there, was I? People you think are 'sinners' will not go to hell, and they are never, ever told this. Right. I'm cool with that. Christianity must have changed in the day or so since this discussion began.

Mental note: The threat of eternal torture has no effect on someone's decision to pretend to stop being gay.


The promise of God's love is far and away more motivating than any "tale of eternal torment." (Why do you think Fred Phelps is such a joke?)

I don't know, he's only preaching what the bible tells him.


They're desire to help people leave homosexuality is motivated out of love, not hate or phobia.

Yeah, I've seen lots of 'love' aimed at homosexuals by the Christian community. Both the 'God hates fags' type of love, and the 'poor ignorant lamb' kind of love.


But, of course, the lie of Satan is that anyone who opposes homosexuality - even out of love - is a hateful, bigotted, backwards, ignorant, foolish homophobe.

That's right, that's exactly what Satan told me to say.


Ah, but it's okay for people to preach at Christians about how homosexuality is normal and acceptible, right?

Yes, of course. That's fine. To encourage tollerance and kindness amongst humankind. Splendid sentiments. There was no promise of eternal hellfire either!


And how Christians who oppose homosexuality are homophobes, right?

Spot on! :thumb:


That kind of indoctrination is perfectly acceptable - esp. in public schools, but Heaven forbid a child say grace with her friends before eating lunch!

It's called 'education', not 'indoctrination'. A child can say grace if she wants, that is entirely legal and nobody could stop her.


Yeah, it couldn't possibly be out of love for you.

No. 'Christian love' is a myth. I've never seen any evidence whatsoever that it exists. If you have any, let me see it.


Only if taken out of context - as pro-gay, anti-Christian people tend to do.

So Leviticus is neither hateful nor bigoted - and it could never be seen as such, by anyone.


Yeah, let's just water-down God some more, shall we?

We should probably just throw out the idea, rather than water it down.

Paul

[The Laughing Man]

Today @ 09:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
lordsnooty:

Nonsense. You don't want to answer because you realise that your answer would nullify your argument.

Well, gee... I'm obviously not needed here. You can just continue to presumptuously make all my arguments for me and explain my supposed reasoning behind them. That being the case, I bid both you and this thread "adieu."

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 06:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Jinx72:
Well, gee... I'm obviously not needed here. You can just continue to presumptuously make all my arguments for me and explain my supposed reasoning behind them. That being the case, I bid both you and this thread "adieu."

I understand. Sometimes it's just easier to back out of an argument that you're losing.

Hopefully you'll one day realise that your foul-minded opinions of homosexuals don't come from God, but from the basest and most intollerant aspects of the human mind.

But I doubt it.

Paul

[Ryokan]

Is it wrong not to tolerate racism?
Sexism?
Religious discrimination?
Discrimination against the unborn?

If standing against things you believe are wrong, like the way Christians and the government treat homosexuals, then I want you to be more "tolerant" of the causes above, too.

Why don't you Christians spend as much time trying to convince the greedy people to give, rather than horde, as you do trying to "convert" homosexuals? The bible mentions it alot more times.

I don't care if you don't approve of homosexuality, but I don't approve of alot of things fundamentalist Christians do and teach, and I don't constantly rail against them, or call them disgusting, or tell jokes about them all the time, or use the term fundie a generic derogatory statement. It is hideously unfair.

Actually, though, bundling Christians together is unfair, too. Most of you are decent people. I am just having a long day, and trying personal circumstance regarding a friend and this issue.:shifty:

Here, cheer up, and watch a bunny:bunny:

[wienerdog]

"Love the sinner, hate the sin."

I think indeed, some Christians have used the Bible to express their hatred. We need to look at homosexuals as people created in God's image, that he loved so much he sent his Son to die for them.

When that kid in Colorado was killed, some "Christians" (I have to put in quotes) showed up at his funeral, with his parents there, and held up signs saying "God hates f*gs" and "Matthew is in Hell." These are the people that I struggle with. But again, they are people created in God's image that he loved so much, he sent his Son to die for them.

I would be surprised if there wasn't some kind of genetic link to homosexuality, just as there probably is for all types of behavior. One of my theology profs pointed out that if you tested those crazy people who run super-marathons, they'd probably have some significant genetic commonalities. But of course, this doesn't mean that they or homosexuals are determined to behave the way they do. It just means they have a predisposition towards the behavior in question. Some people have a genetic predisposition towards alcoholism. Ultimately, genetics can't tell us whether something is immoral or amoral. We have to look elsewhere.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 09:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58242#post58242)
wienerdog:
I think indeed, some Christians have used the Bible to express their hatred. We need to look at homosexuals as people created in God's image, that he loved so much he sent his Son to die for them.

Nice to see a sensible and honest post in this thread...


When that kid in Colorado was killed, some "Christians" (I have to put in quotes) showed up at his funeral, with his parents there, and held up signs saying "God hates f*gs" and "Matthew is in Hell." These are the people that I struggle with.

Those people are pure evil, and they give Christians a very bad name.


It just means they have a predisposition towards the behavior in question. Some people have a genetic predisposition towards alcoholism. Ultimately, genetics can't tell us whether something is immoral or amoral. We have to look elsewhere.

I agree, though I suspect we would disagree as to where we should look.

Paul

[Alden]

Today @ 07:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=57976#post57976)
lordsnooty:


[quote]
Bile from homosexuals? Aimed at the completely innocent, hate-free, gay-loving Christian community? Never!
Well then, I suppose that unprovoked attacks on myself from homosexuals were purely hallucinations.:dufus:


Yes, it is. If you find excuses to be intollerant of homosexuals, you are a homophobe. I'm sorry if some right-wing folks don't like that word, but I'm afraid it applies perfectly. Good one genius!:dufus: I said disapproval not intolerence. I disapprove of the lifestyle, and yet I count more than a few homosexuals as friends. But I disapprove, and therefore am homophobic.:huh:




Those are the sorts of silly ideas that give people a free reign to be as bigoted and 'disapproving' as they like.
hmm...right...I like how you put disapproval in the same category as bigotry. If you want to call the ideas of Christianity 'silly', then back them up with something other than your opinion. Otherwise, take it to the rant closet.


And I really liked it when you said:

Just to be sure you know, this thread is not intended to be insulting to anyone. If I've offended you, I'm sorry!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
That's a good one! Ask us our opinions on something, and then tell us things like what we believe is wrong, silly, bigoted, etc.

[Woman]

Jinx:

Excuse me? Say what you mean. No, wait. Let me guess. My "homophobia" - as you call it - stems from my denying my own homosexual desires, right? Yeah, deep down I'm a flaming, foppish gay who thinks Barbra Streisand is just "FABULOUTH!", right? Am I close?


:rofl: :cool: :rofl:

I give up! It's impossible to stay ticked off at you. I firmly believe that disarming the opposition by making them laugh till they strain something vital is clearly unfair.

:cheers:

[lordsnooty]

Yesterday @ 11:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58306#post58306)
Alden:

Well then, I suppose that unprovoked attacks on myself from homosexuals were purely hallucinations.:dufus:

I haven't seen these attacks, so I wouldn't know. But you can't blame gays for being a little angry at Christianity for the crimes it has committed against them.


Good one genius!:dufus: I said disapproval not intolerence. I disapprove of the lifestyle, and yet I count more than a few homosexuals as friends. But I disapprove, and therefore am homophobic.:huh:

Yeah, racists usually have black friends too.

Who on earth are you to disapprove of something that is none of your business? What a patronising tone you have when talking about your 'friends'.


If you want to call the ideas of Christianity 'silly', then back them up with something other than your opinion. Otherwise, take it to the rant closet.

I think the comedic silliness of Christianity has long since been established. Look at the Landover Baptist Church if you want some examples. It may be satire, but it's only exaggeration of much Christian belief.


That's a good one! Ask us our opinions on something, and then tell us things like what we believe is wrong, silly, bigoted, etc.

So, what? I'm meant to lie about what I think so I don't offend you?

Paul

[brother vinny]

As to the question posed by the title of this thread, I believe nearly all disapproval of homosexuality by Christians is based on prejudice-- either by personal prejudice, in which the Bible is interpreted to support one's own views on homosexuality, or by those prejudices inherited from the interpretations and/or mistranslations of the biblical texts by trusted others. I will go further into why I believe this in a separate article I'm composing on the topic.

Those who know me from elsewhere also know that this is a radical departure from views I've held in the past. Some will even see this as a disappointment. But the more I read on this, the more it seems to me to be an interpretive issue. No man's interpretation of Scripture is going to be perfect, and if I am to err, henceforth I shall err on the side of love. To those I've disappointed, I have but the Apostle Paul's words for my defense: "For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ (Galatians 1:10)."

[Alden]

Yesterday @ 04:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58387#post58387)
lordsnooty:
I haven't seen these attacks, so I wouldn't know. But you can't blame gays for being a little angry at Christianity for the crimes it has committed against them.
Have you seen the Punic Wars? Have you seen the Holocaust? So our disapproval of their lifestyle based on our faith is not okay, but homosexuals have every right to be angry or attack us for this disapproval? Ever heard "two wrongs don't make a right?"



Yeah, racists usually have black friends too.

Your insinuation is sickening.

Who on earth are you to disapprove of something that is none of your business? What a patronising tone you have when talking about your 'friends'.

You made it my business by asking me. Or do not understand that? Who are you to call principles of Christianity silly?



I think the comedic silliness of Christianity has long since been established. Look at the Landover Baptist Church if you want some examples. It may be satire, but it's only exaggeration of much Christian belief.
You can satirize anything, it doesn't make the real thing "silly." Furthermore, the LBC is a satirization of some Christian belief, but some Christian belief is not all Christian belief. Why is it that athiests can say that Marx or Stalin is not representative of athiesm, yet Christians are constantly lumped together?



So, what? I'm meant to lie about what I think so I don't offend you?
I'm not asking you to lie. Your posts throughout this thread show a lack of integrity. You give us an "I don't mean to offend you" statement, but then you are blatantly offensive. Yes, however much this might tax you to see as true, you can state what you think without being offensive.

[Socrates]

I wrote:
Even if you're right, even within heterosexuality there is a CHOICE on whether to ACT on the desires.

Lord Snooty:A choice which is none of your business.Do you think it's objectively wrong for me to make it my business?

Lord Snooty to Jinx:Hopefully you'll one day realise that your foul-minded opinions of homosexuals don't come from God, but from the basest and most intollerant aspects of the human mind.But of course, since Snooty is a moral relativiest, this is only his subjective opinion with no reality outside himself, so Jinx has no cause to worry.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 09:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58714#post58714)
Alden:
Have you seen the Punic Wars? Have you seen the Holocaust? So our disapproval of their lifestyle based on our faith is not okay, but homosexuals have every right to be angry or attack us for this disapproval? Ever heard "two wrongs don't make a right?"

There's no excuse for homosexuals (or anyone else) to attack you unprovoked. But I can see why they'd be resentful.


You made it my business by asking me. Or do not understand that?

I asked, but your tone in response was hardly that of someone wanting to engage in polite conversation. If people talk to me politely, I am polite to them. If someone is aggressive towards me, I am often the same in reply.


Who are you to call principles of Christianity silly?

Someone that thinks they are silly.


Furthermore, the LBC is a satirization of some Christian belief, but some Christian belief is not all Christian belief. Why is it that athiests can say that Marx or Stalin is not representative of athiesm, yet Christians are constantly lumped together?

I never said it was 'all Christian belief'. That's why I said 'much Christian belief'. Marx and Stalin's atheism sprung from their political ideals, and so has very little - if anything - to do with rational freethought.

I don't lump all Christians together anyway. Some (exemplified by Phelps and co) are pure malevolent evil, but most are ordinary, decent people. I do not say that all Christians are the same, but many fundamentalists do hold sickening views about homosexuals.

There is considerable homophobic behavior on this board, but this thread has shown me that there is also a lot of more moderate disapproval and even some enlightened tolerance.


Your posts throughout this thread show a lack of integrity. You give us an "I don't mean to offend you" statement, but then you are blatantly offensive.

In the face of your confrontational tone, perhaps.

Paul

[Dee Dee Warren]

Yeah, racists usually have black friends too.


Lordsnooty, that was over the line of decency. Please retract said slur against Alden.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hey Brother Vinny, I look forward to seeing what you later post. I have examined this pretty indepth and have come to the conclusion that it is anything but an interpretive issue. Due to friendships and life situations, I have great motivation for it to be a matter of intrepretation, but I just did not reach that conclusion.. but that of course is another thread and another time. I wish I could participate here, but time constraints will just not allow it....

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 11:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58974#post58974)
Dee Dee Warren:
Lordsnooty, that was over the line of decency. Please retract said slur against Alden.

I retract the remark, but under protest.

Paul

[Patroclus]

Woman:

I'm convinced that a "gay gene" will indeed be found. There is not one of who has not known a little boy who always preferred feminine activites in spite his Dad's horror, who was "sensitive," or perhaps "artistic" and "threw like a girl," - who grew up and announced to his grieving family 15 years later what we already "knew."

I am not saying that gay men are of necessity "feminine." But we've all known those that were. The hell, the self loathing, the fear that these kids endure growing up belies anyone's insistance that "it's a choice." Bull hockey!

Woman, I think this argument is irrelevant. This is just as easily called gender androgyny. The revulsion displayed by the father is more symptomatic of extreme ideas of gender roles in our society than it does have anything to do with homosexual tendencies. In fact, most family psychologists that I know encourage comparatively androgynous behavior.

Lordsnooty, your flagrant use of the term homophobia is sickening. Why is dissaproval, which many people on this board claim, more indicative of homophobia than revulsion, which you claim? What it seems to me is that you would rather use this word to suit your own purposes than to rely on the basic etymology of the word itself. This is irresponsible and, in this case, inflammatory.

homo meaning same.
phobia meaning fear of.

To dissaprove is not to fear. I dissaprove of inherritence tax. I do not fear it. Arachnophopbia does not mean "dissaproval of spiders." Homophobes, in my opinion, are those people of the mistaken opinion that Homosexual people are trying to infiltrate society, or have some malevolent cause against heterosexuals, or are disease factories, etc. Describing Homosexual activity as sinful, based on one's belief system, is not the same as fearing it.

As far as whether or not it is genetic, I am going to go out on a limb here and distinguish myself from my more conservative brethren.

If it is a genetic pre-disposition, the act of homosexuality is still sinful. This, doubtless, will seem to some as a divine trick by a malevolent God. However, consider that all people are pre-disposed to rampant sexual activity (homo/ hetero). Yet, we still believe that such activity, outside of marriage, is wrong. We are also born with a pre-disposition to value our personal lives above all else. However, this ethos is contrary to Christian values. Rather, at the crux of the Christian faith is the necessity of self-denial for the sake of Christ. If homosexuality is a genetic pre-disposition, to the Christian homosexual, it is essential to offer-up even that.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 10:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59497#post59497)
Patroclus:

Why is dissaproval, which many people on this board claim, more indicative of homophobia than revulsion, which you claim?

Revulsion of the acts themselves is natural enough. But presuming to tell others how to behave (when they are harming nobody) is socially unacceptable and unwarranted behaviour.


What it seems to me is that you would rather use this word to suit your own purposes than to rely on the basic etymology of the word itself. This is irresponsible and, in this case, inflammatory.

Perhaps homophobia is the wrong term. But I can't think of a more appropriate term - at least not one that you wouldn't find even more offensive.


Describing Homosexual activity as sinful, based on one's belief system, is not the same as fearing it.

I agree.


If it is a genetic pre-disposition, the act of homosexuality is still sinful. This, doubtless, will seem to some as a divine trick by a malevolent God.

Quite a nasty trick, yes. Evil, you might say. But that would be impossible, because God is omnibenevolent. Quite a puzzle, really...


However, consider that all people are pre-disposed to rampant sexual activity (homo/ hetero). Yet, we still believe that such activity, outside of marriage, is wrong.

I doubt it's much consolation to homosexuals that unmarried straight men are in the same predicament.


We are also born with a pre-disposition to value our personal lives above all else. However, this ethos is contrary to Christian values. Rather, at the crux of the Christian faith is the necessity of self-denial for the sake of Christ. If homosexuality is a genetic pre-disposition, to the Christian homosexual, it is essential to offer-up even that.

There's little point in me arguing against that, but I will quote a much kinder profit than Jesus appears to have been (to my atheistic eyes), given the above sentiments.

'Happiness is the Only Good.
The time to be happy is now.
The place to be happy is here.
The way to be happy is to make others so.

This creed is somewhat short, but is long enough for this life; long enough for this world. If there is another world, when we get there we can make another creed. But this creed certainly will do for this life."

--Robert G. Ingersoll

We'll have to agree to disagree on this particular issue, I suspect. Suffice it to say, I would deny no person happiness for the unlikely hope of another life.

Paul

[Piebald]

Quite a nasty trick, yes. Evil, you might say. But that would be impossible, because God is omnibenevolent. Quite a puzzle, really...

Well this begs the question of how much creative activity God has in the womb. In my (humble) opinion God allows genetic flaws and does not create them (e.g. predispositions towards alchoholism)

So if homosexuality is genetic that doesn't excuse homosexual acts.

I tend to believe that homosexuality is "instilled" in a person at a very young age or possibly even in the womb. This is simply based on my own personal experience, however.

[Woman]

Alden:

...but some Christian belief is not all Christian belief. Why is it that athiests can say that Marx or Stalin is not representative of athiesm, yet Christians are constantly lumped together?

There is a common misconception among many that "atheism" is a belief system with creeds and rules and members. This is simply not true. Christians are bound together by common belief, shared activites and fellowship. These often extend to choices of friends, schools, political party, etc.

Atheists, on the other hand, are are different from each other as they are from any other segment of society. They share no belief systems. No club jackets or secret handshakes.

They just don't believe in a supreme being. Period.

[ollie]

04-04-2003 @ 05:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=54085#post54085)
lordsnooty:

Title now changed to something more politically correct.

I meant no offense by it. I've seen many Christians use the term 'queer hater' with pride. If that does not apply to you (or others here) I apologise.

Paul If someone professes to be a Christian and uses the word "queer hater" in reference to themselves; They lie about their profession.

"And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you.
1 Thessalonians 3:12

[ollie]

Perhaps a more appropriate scriptural term for homosexuals would be, "those engaged in the unnatural use of themselves together", and instead of homophobia, which is a very recently created word, dislike and reprove the actions of their lifestyle, which is sin, in accordance to God.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 12:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59600#post59600)
ollie:

Perhaps a more appropriate scriptural term for homosexuals would be, "those engaged in the unnatural use of themselves together", and instead of homophobia, which is a very recently created word, dislike and reprove the actions of their lifestyle, which is sin, in accordance to God.

I still don't understand why God finds such offense in the happiness of others. Why is it 'sin'?

Paul

[Alden]

Today @ 03:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59574#post59574)
Woman:

Alden:


There is a common misconception among many that "atheism" is a belief system with creeds and rules and members. This is simply not true. Christians are bound together by common belief, shared activites and fellowship. These often extend to choices of friends, schools, political party, etc.

Atheists, on the other hand, are are different from each other as they are from any other segment of society. They share no belief systems. No club jackets or secret handshakes.

They just don't believe in a supreme being. Period.

you'll get no disagreement with me on this. I was simply trying to say that lumping all athiests together is as incorrect as doing it to Christians.

[ollie]

Today @ 07:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59603#post59603)
lordsnooty:



I still don't understand why God finds such offense in the happiness of others. Why is it 'sin'?

Paul
It is fornication. Sexual intercourse outside the marriage union is fornication. The only marriage union given of God is between man and woman.

For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that you should abstain from fornication:
That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;
Not in the lust of concupiscence even as the Gentiles which know not God;
1 Thessalonians 4:3-5

God does not authorize sexual unions between those of the same gender. Sexual intercourse is given of God to the marriage union and two of the same sex being married is not given of God.

Nevertheless to avoid fornication let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1 Corinthians 7:2

I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I (Paul).
But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
1 Corinthians 7:8-9

God is not offended by true happiness. True happiness is in Christ and doing God's will. It is eternal.

If there is any happiness in homosexual relationships it is temporal.

[Socrates]

lordsnooty:I still don't understand why God finds such offense in the happiness of others. Why is it 'sin'?La Rubia's post http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=59098#post59098 explained about why God gives His laws, and earned a well-deserved "post of the day" award.

[Sher]

04-07-2003 @ 10:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=57975#post57975)
lordsnooty:

Socrates: Even if you're right, even within heterosexuality there is a CHOICE on whether to ACT on the desires.


lordsnooty: A choice which is none of your business. Actually, you are quite wrong. It has been forced to be our business under the guise of "tolerance". If you would like, I can PM you a link where children in kindergarten are being indocternated (beginings anyway) into thinking this is "normal" and they are "intolerant" if they oppose it ... even when it is against their religious beliefs ... they have to accept it. It is being TAUGHT in high schools in gay clubs and in health classes as normal alternative behavior. And there is a process being started for it to be introduced into middle schools.

You may have no problem with this, but it is a big issue when topics are being taught ,in a way that would make adults uncomfortable, to children as normal behavior. That should be left for them to learn about, if at all, when they are adults ... not children and teens. I'm sorry but it follows the whole "get them when they are young" mentality.

And before you start the whole "you must be a homophobe" or "you just say that because you are a Christian" routine at me ... I should warn you that I have friends who are homosexual and one lost a brother to AIDS a few years back ... and I sat at his bedside in the hospital. I do no approve at all of their lifestyle, and tell them such ... but I love them as people who are God's children and my friends

... one who was raped as a young man by a male neighbor and the fact was hidden by this man's family to avoid the "uglyness" that it will bring ... he never felt right after that and turned to the gay lifestyle thinking that he must have somehow encouraged that man to do that awful deed

.... another one was straight all through school, dating women and enjoying hetersexual sex, until he went to college and "experimented" as the "receiver" (forgive the bluntness) when drunk ... felt guilty but was persuaded that it was "okay to be bi" and remained that way

... the third was a big tough burly guy that you would never in a million years expect to be gay from the stereotypical thought (opposed to woman's description) but had trouble relating to women and again in college was turned to being bi ... and finally homosexual as an "alternative" ... it was his brother who was also gay and died ... now he has fallen off the face of the earth ... something that he said he would do if he contracted AIDS to keep his family from reliving it all again.. so we can only assume that is what happened ... and it breaks my heart to think of him all alone with that

.... So, no, your "homophobe" description of Christians is a wrong assertion from your own ignorance. I deplore that sin for its forced indocternations AND for the fact that it is against the word of God to be a practicing one. However, I love the person enough to tell them that they are wrong, but support them as a friend.

[Patroclus]

Revulsion of the acts themselves is natural enough. But presuming to tell others how to behave (when they are harming nobody) is socially unacceptable and unwarranted behaviour.

I don't think anybody here is advocating the subjugation of other people. I would never tell a homosexual to not be a homosexual. That isn't my place. I still think it is wrong, but that is really between that person and God. Should a Christian continue in homosexual activity? I say no. But that is a matter within the church, for which the scriptures a few things to say.


Perhaps homophobia is the wrong term. But I can't think of a more appropriate term - at least not one that you wouldn't find even more offensive.


Snoot, please don't play pious with me. It seems like you are having a hard time deciding whether or not you want to be offensive. How about, instead of trying to pigeonhole people into your own biased categories, you actually deal with the issue at hand? You don't "honestly" want to know what "Christians" believe, because you have your own pre-conceived notions. You are merely waiting for somebody to say something that smacks of these notions so that you can waylay them. And you aren't doing a superb job at that. People who agree with you, like Woman, have managed to maintain a level of credibility. If you can't think of appropriate words to use, perhaps you shouldn't say anything until you can.


Quite a nasty trick, yes. Evil, you might say. But that would be impossible, because God is omnibenevolent. Quite a puzzle, really...

Whoever said that God is omnibenevolent? God is supremely benevolent, but that is because God gives grace to those people that do not deserve it--everybody.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 06:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59969#post59969)
SherBear:
Actually, you are quite wrong. It has been forced to be our business under the guise of "tolerance". If you would like, I can PM you a link where children in kindergarten are being indocternated (beginings anyway) into thinking this is "normal"

Well, I've never heard of children that young being taught this sort of thing. I don't think that kids of that age should be exposed to anything even remotely sexual (campness is a different matter - Tinky Winky is ace!).


and they are "intolerant" if they oppose it ... even when it is against their religious beliefs ... they have to accept it. It is being TAUGHT in high schools in gay clubs and in health classes as normal alternative behavior.

Which is perfectly accurate. It is normal behaviour, and you might not like it, but nobody has any obligation to cease being tolerant because of your beliefs.


You may have no problem with this, but it is a big issue when topics are being taught ,in a way that would make adults uncomfortable, to children as normal behavior. That should be left for them to learn about, if at all, when they are adults ... not children and teens.

Teens know what sex is, and they know what homosexuality is. It can't hurt to tell them that homosexuals are not evil monsters or disease-carrying perverts.

What good would be achieved by not educating kids? Why keep them in ignorance? Do you wish to encourage the bullying of gay schoolchildren?


I'm sorry but it follows the whole "get them when they are young" mentality.

I hate to point this out, but that's the usual Christian method. Christianity would not survive without the indoctrination of children.


I do no approve at all of their lifestyle, and tell them such ... but I love them as people who are God's children and my friends

I don't see why they'd want to hang out with someone who 'disapproves' so strongly of them, and who wishes to keep them on the fringes of society.


... one who was raped as a young man by a male neighbor and the fact was hidden by this man's family to avoid the "uglyness" that it will bring ... he never felt right after that and turned to the gay lifestyle thinking that he must have somehow encouraged that man to do that awful deed

I know I am totally unfamiliar with this case, but it sounds incredibly unlikely that someone would be raped and then decide to become gay as a result.


.... another one was straight all through school, dating women and enjoying hetersexual sex, until he went to college and "experimented" as the "receiver" (forgive the bluntness) when drunk ... felt guilty but was persuaded that it was "okay to be bi" and remained that way

People aren't robots. He didn't do it once and then think 'well, I don't like this much, but I'll keep doing it!'.

The obvious inference from this story is that he was gay or bi to begin with.


... the third was a big tough burly guy that you would never in a million years expect to be gay from the stereotypical thought (opposed to woman's description) but had trouble relating to women and again in college was turned to being bi ... and finally homosexual as an "alternative"

People do not become gay simply because they aren't very good in female company. Perhaps he wasn't very good in female company because he was gay?

You seem to have this weird idea that people who are exposed to homosexuality are somehow warped by it, and become gay. There is no evidence for this.


.... So, no, your "homophobe" description of Christians is a wrong assertion from your own ignorance.

So you're not a homophobe, you just support the ideals and causes of homophobes?

Whether intentionally or not, in seeking to ban all mention of homosexuality in public, you are contributing to the bigotry that pervades our societies. You are providing an excuse for real bigots to intimidate, threaten and bully people on the basis of their sexuality.

Paul

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 08:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60028#post60028)
Patroclus:
Snoot, please don't play pious with me. It seems like you are having a hard time deciding whether or not you want to be offensive.

I try not to be offensive, but I can't help it if I think a view is bigoted or nasty.


You don't "honestly" want to know what "Christians" believe, because you have your own pre-conceived notions. You are merely waiting for somebody to say something that smacks of these notions so that you can waylay them.

People here say these things even without my prompting them. I have no desire for anyone to say anything inparticular.


People who agree with you, like Woman, have managed to maintain a level of credibility. If you can't think of appropriate words to use, perhaps you shouldn't say anything until you can.

Please don't talk down to me.


Whoever said that God is omnibenevolent?

I believe it was Mr. Holding.

Paul

[Patroclus]

Snoot:

Teens know what sex is, and they know what homosexuality is. It can't hurt to tell them that homosexuals are not evil monsters or disease-carrying perverts.

What good would be achieved by not educating kids? Why keep them in ignorance?


Believe it or not, I agree with you on this point.


I hate to point this out, but that's the usual Christian method. Christianity would not survive without the indoctrination of children.

You have no proof of this, snoot. The statistics on life-long involvement versus mid-life conversion vary from denomination to denomination. Though, I will concede that the numbers would not be as high. But that is a given for any religion.


I try not to be offensive, but I can't help it if I think a view is bigoted or nasty.
...
Please don't talk down to me.


Try not saying anything. So far, unless I have missed it, you are the only one that has resorted to name-calling in this thread. If you continue to use such base language, you should be talked-down to. I see nothing wrong with an occaisional ribbing, but your discourse has been immature.

Back to homosexuality: I think that relatively impartial instruction on the subject, with early adolescents, is important. I do not want the school teaching what is right and wrong, however, that is my job as a parent. I don't think that kindergarteners should be taught about homosexual issues however. There are more basic principles to work with, like reading, alphabets and beginning art.

[ollie]

04-04-2003 @ 04:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=54054#post54054)
lordsnooty:

Hi folks,

I've just been discussing this in the 'should homosexuals be executed thread', but I wanted to look at this issue in more depth.

It seems to me that religious people use the bible as an excuse to hate people. Previously, it was blacks (yes, yes, "that wasn't real Christianity"), and now it's gays.

I can't speak for "religious people" but Christians are not to hate
people, but show them the love of God through Christ.


I would ask you Christian folks - how much of your anti-homosexual feeling comes from the bible, and how much of it stems from normal physical revulsion?

Most of these feelings come from the bigotry of the world over time and the natural revulsion to unnatural acts of sexual intimacy. The Bible only teaches love for man and redeeming man back to God through Jesus Christ.


Personally, I think it's disgusting in a physical sense. If I turn on the TV and two men are kissing, I look away immediately, because it makes me feel sick.

Change the channel or turn off the power. It would be watching
transgression of God's will.


On the other hand, whatever makes them happy is fine by me. They're not hurting anyone, so I think that they should be allowed to get on with it, without being taunted and treated differently because of it.

They seem to like to flaunt it in ones face. They don't seem happy. That is why the "gay" facade.


They can't help being gay

Sure they can. They do not have to act upon their base desires, but with the help of God and His people can learn to overcome the behaviour.


So come on - do you use the bible to back up your pre-existing hatred, or is Christianity your sole impediment to peaceful socialisation with homosexuals?

It is not possible to back up hatred with the Bible. Christians are called out of the world and to a life of Godliness and if individuals delight in sin then Christians must get away from them. However they are free to continue in their sin until the end. But Christians should leave them alone and go about the business of God in their lives. The acts of the devil are all around.


Just to be sure you know, this thread is not intended to be insulting to anyone. If I've offended you, I'm sorry!

Cheers,

Paul
Understood.

[bobazilla]

Live and live let live.....no one....absolutely no one has the right to tell others how to live, if they are not harming you or others.

Does anyone care what my wife and I do in the privacy of our home? Should you? Would I resent it?

Should I disapprove of what others in this forum do in private?

By the same reasoning should you care what two men or two women are doing in private? Shouldn't this be up to the people involved???

It's absolutely no one elses business. If there is a god, let him deal with it.

More than ever acceptance and tolerance are vitally important in today's increasingly populated, mobile world. The tone of intolerance in someone's words leads to intolerance from others in a vicious circle. So lay off the sermonizing...and understand we're all in the same human condition, and not a one of us is truly in a position to judge others.

[Alden]

Tolerance is nice and all, but I must ask, do you believe in absolutes? I ask this question generally, not just in regard to homosexuality.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 12:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60669#post60669)
Patroclus:

You have no proof of this, snoot. The statistics on life-long involvement versus mid-life conversion vary from denomination to denomination. Though, I will concede that the numbers would not be as high. But that is a given for any religion.

It is true for any religion, you're right. But conversions would not occur without the 'indoctrinated' there to spread the word, so to speak.


Try not saying anything. So far, unless I have missed it, you are the only one that has resorted to name-calling in this thread. If you continue to use such base language, you should be talked-down to.

Name calling indeed. I've not called anyone names, and if I used the term 'homophobe' then it was justified.


I see nothing wrong with an occaisional ribbing, but your discourse has been immature.

You'd be hard pushed to back that up, I suspect.


I don't think that kindergarteners should be taught about homosexual issues however. There are more basic principles to work with, like reading, alphabets and beginning art.

I agree. Any talk of sexuality would be inappropriate at that age.

Paul

[Sher]

Today @ 01:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60455#post60455)
lordsnooty:

Well, I've never heard of children that young being taught this sort of thing. I don't think that kids of that age should be exposed to anything even remotely sexual (campness is a different matter - Tinky Winky is ace!).Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist! I offered to send you a link to a radio host's website that secretly taped the meetings and who obtained some of the Mass. curriculum info, but you haven't responded... so I can only assume that is why you continue to be unaware. It's easy to bury one's head in the sand and say "I've never heard of ... this sort of thing"

As of the rest of your rhetoric, you are correct in saying you are unfamiliar with the people and therefore, your erroneous armchair psychiatry is going to be ignored.
Teens know what sex is, and they know what homosexuality is. It can't hurt to tell them that homosexuals are not evil monsters or disease-carrying perverts. What good would be achieved by not educating kids? Why keep them in ignorance? Do you wish to encourage the bullying of gay schoolchildren?This is especially ripe ... not knowing exactly what they are teaching, in vivid details ... you assume to pass a judgment on me? And what in the sam hill does not wanting children to be taught graphic lessons in any kind of sexual behavior, especially deviant ones, have to do with bullying gay school children? That kind of statement is precisely why this is being allowed in some schools and attempted in others ... these fake "tolerance" issues that prove no connection, yet try to use them as umbrellas to introduce all sorts of things to children who may, rightfully so, be opposed to hearing and viewing them ... or at the very least, the parents looking to preserve their innocence. My middle school age teen knows what homosexuality is, has never had any inclination to beating one up, but still isn't going to be taught (very graphically) what these methods of sexual behavior are ... until perhaps he is an adult and looks them up for himself, if he so chooses. I don't know if you are a child/teen yourself, or a parent, but if you are not a parent, you cannot possibly imagine how scary it can be to find out what sort of things are being taught in public schools ... under the guise of "tolerance". The information I have seen tells of how these children are not only taught that this is acceptable behavior, but also given how-to lessons on every aspect of it in clubs that are called "gay/straight alliance"... supposedly to foster tolerance. What it really amounts to is a forced destruction of innocence... an education that our teens do/should not need to deal with in impressionable years. It is sometimes easy to sit back as an adult and descern what is right/wrong, but teens are not adults and cannot always deal with adult matters.

It amazes me that public school offer things as "education" to teens, sometimes with the option to "opt out", but prohibits things that can actually benefit someone for all eternity. A teen can't tell others at graduation how God is leading them on a certain path for fear of "offending" someone who doesn't believe in Goe, but teen can be taught in health class the proper methods of performing ______ sexual activity and how to avoid pain, ("unless of course you are into that kind of thing) without prohibition.

Mass. recently kicked out GLSEN (The Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network), but a county in Florida has accepted it by a large majority (http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/NEWS/newspage.asp?story=878) ... and before you whine about it being a "Christian website" ... look at the information on the Steve Kane website, the radio host I referred to ... (Please be aware that this includes some of the graphic details I referred to ... if you are young, or uncomfortable with graphic sexual details, please do not click on the link for Steve Kane). Other counties are sure to follow and frankly, it makes me sick ... and very glad that I home educate. Unfortunately, my kid has to come in contact with "your kid who is public educated", and that allows my kid to be corrupted by proxy ... and it really ticks me off.

You can continue to bury your head in the sand, Paul ... but I personally know people who struggle needlessly with addiction to pornography because they became hooked on it like a drug, and I personally know the people I mentioned who live a life style that it dangerous for them in more ways than one because of their background ... you can scoff all you wish, but it doesn't negate the truth that children exposed to these lifestyles will eventually think it alright and often without previous inclination will perhaps accept it and participate in it because of this sort of education ... just like a drug that they "try once".

[Socrates]

Bobazilla:no one....absolutely no one has the right to tell others how to live, if they are not harming you or others.But you want to tell us Christians how to live -- i.e. in line with your version of tolerance, we can't even believe our own sacred Book! So in reality, the advocates of the new toleration are very INtolerant of Biblical Christianity.

And you beg the question of by implying that sexual immorality is harming no one, but it is harming society by undermining the marriage and family unit. In history, no society has ever survived once this has happened.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 04:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60890#post60890)
SherBear:
Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist! I offered to send you a link to a radio host's website that secretly taped the meetings and who obtained some of the Mass. curriculum info, but you haven't responded... so I can only assume that is why you continue to be unaware. It's easy to bury one's head in the sand and say "I've never heard of ... this sort of thing"

I meant that I'll take your word for it.


As of the rest of your rhetoric, you are correct in saying you are unfamiliar with the people and therefore, your erroneous armchair psychiatry is going to be ignored.

If I was engaging in armchair psychiatry, what on earth were you doing? Rooting through their life histories to try and find reasons for them being gay!

I was simply disputing your simplistic ideas.


And what in the sam hill does not wanting children to be taught graphic lessons in any kind of sexual behavior, especially deviant ones,

Deviant indeed...


...have to do with bullying gay school children? That kind of statement is precisely why this is being allowed in some schools and attempted in others ...

I recieved vicious bullying in school for being gay, and I'm not even gay! It's a long story, but you can believe me when I say that it isn't nice. Some middle-school education might have helped those tiny-brained feckwits.

That you want to keep people in ignorance, with only a vague idea that it's wrong or 'deviant' is disgraceful.


these fake "tolerance" issues that prove no connection, yet try to use them as umbrellas to introduce all sorts of things to children who may, rightfully so, be opposed to hearing and viewing them ...

Yes, that'd be the Evil Gay Atheist Conspiracy to Pervert Schoolchildren... Whoops! That's let the cat out of the bag!


I don't know if you are a child/teen yourself, or a parent, but if you are not a parent, you cannot possibly imagine how scary it can be to find out what sort of things are being taught in public schools

I am not a parent, but I hope that if I ever am, my children will be taught all about homosexuality in the course of sex-ed (or other) lessons.

That's because I realise that simply being exposed to the idea of homosexuality does not transform someone into a raging bender.


The information I have seen tells of how these children are not only taught that this is acceptable behavior, but also given how-to lessons on every aspect of it in clubs that are called "gay/straight alliance"... supposedly to foster tolerance.

Oh, no! Not tolerance! The horror of it! Next thing you know, they'll be abolishing slavery!


What it really amounts to is a forced destruction of innocence...

Are these kids forced to join these clubs?

Maybe they're just good kids that want to see an end to ignorance and bigotry.


It amazes me that public school offer things as "education" to teens, sometimes with the option to "opt out", but prohibits things that can actually benefit someone for all eternity. A teen can't tell others at graduation how God is leading them on a certain path...

As I understand it, it is completely legal for a kid to do that. Even though it's not truthful.


Unfortunately, my kid has to come in contact with "your kid who is public educated", and that allows my kid to be corrupted by proxy ... and it really ticks me off.

I've never seen 'enlightenment and understanding' described as corrupting influences before.

Still, much better than your child should grow up to be a halfwitted ignoramus that equates homosexuality with paedophilia or animal-sex. He might be bigoted, but at least he won't be corrupted!

Your concern for your child is misplaced. Most parents would prefer their children to be decent and kind human beings, rather than ignorant bigots. God alone knows why you wish your child to be kept in the dark.


you can scoff all you wish, but it doesn't negate the truth that children exposed to these lifestyles will eventually think it alright and often without previous inclination will perhaps accept it and participate in it because of this sort of education ...

This is so obviously flawed. They may come to think of it as acceptable (which is often the general idea), but that doesn't mean they'd participate in it - not unless they were warm to the idea in the first place.

Paul

[ollie]

Yesterday @ 09:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60759#post60759)
bobazilla:

Live and live let live.....no one....absolutely no one has the right to tell others how to live, if they are not harming you or others.

Does anyone care what my wife and I do in the privacy of our home? Should you? Would I resent it?

Should I disapprove of what others in this forum do in private?

By the same reasoning should you care what two men or two women are doing in private? Shouldn't this be up to the people involved???

It's absolutely no one elses business. If there is a god, let him deal with it.

More than ever acceptance and tolerance are vitally important in today's increasingly populated, mobile world. The tone of intolerance in someone's words leads to intolerance from others in a vicious circle. So lay off the sermonizing...and understand we're all in the same human condition, and not a one of us is truly in a position to judge others.
Tolerance and acceptance is a two way street. One can never promote tolerance in speech when the speech contains intolerance. It seems hypocritical.

[Patroclus]

Snoot:

I recieved vicious bullying in school for being gay, and I'm not even gay! It's a long story, but you can believe me when I say that it isn't nice. Some middle-school education might have helped those tiny-brained feckwits.

That you want to keep people in ignorance, with only a vague idea that it's wrong or 'deviant' is disgraceful.

I completely agree. I believe that even that which we think is wrong should be clearly explained and the distinguishment made between the act and the people. Do I have a problem with homosexuals? No. Do I disagree with homosexuality? Yes. That distinction is often not made, especially by dritics, and it has led to all kinds of bigotry.

Sher:

It amazes me that public school offer things as "education" to teens, sometimes with the option to "opt out", but prohibits things that can actually benefit someone for all eternity. A teen can't tell others at graduation how God is leading them on a certain path...

This kind of education and censorship varies widely. However, I know of a person who suffered similar censorship (a friend of mine was not permitted to read her Bible during lunch time). She threatened to sue the school for violation of First Ammendment Freedom of expression. After that, the school let her read whatever she wanted. So, Snoot is right on that one.

Snoot:

Even though it's not truthful.

Who is prejudiced now? This conversation is about people preceive homosexuality and the issues thereof.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 11:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=62173#post62173)
Patroclus:
I completely agree. I believe that even that which we think is wrong should be clearly explained and the distinguishment made between the act and the people. Do I have a problem with homosexuals? No. Do I disagree with homosexuality? Yes. That distinction is often not made, especially by dritics, and it has led to all kinds of bigotry.

I'm not sure I follow completely - do you believe that sex-ed lessons (assuming you believe that those are appropriate) should teach teens what homosexuality is?


Who is prejudiced now? This conversation is about people preceive homosexuality and the issues thereof.

I apologise, I shouldn't have said that. It was running through my mind, and my fingers just tapped it out without consulting my brain.

Paul

[Patroclus]

I'm not sure I follow completely - do you believe that sex-ed lessons (assuming you believe that those are appropriate) should teach teens what homosexuality is?

Yes, without subjectifying it. BTW, I do believe in sex-ed in public schools, but it must remain objective.

For instance, if a gene is proven to pre-dispose a person to be homosexual, teach that. But, right and wrong should not be taught around the issue. That is a discussion for the parents.


I apologise, I shouldn't have said that. It was running through my mind, and my fingers just tapped it out without consulting my brain.

Paul

Apology accepted. Thanks.

[Sher]

Today @ 07:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=61556#post61556)
lordsnooty:

I meant that I'll take your word for it. That's fine. Your tone at first suggested disagreement.
If I was engaging in armchair psychiatry, what on earth were you doing? Rooting through their life histories to try and find reasons for them being gay!Hardly. The victim of abuse cried on my shoulder, questioning his reasons himself without any prompting from me. I am a good friend and as such, he was happy to talk with me about his issues. I listened, not rooted. As for the other two, I grew up with them and the history and results were obvious without any rooting. Your tone is offensive given you know none of these men. As for the rest of your comments, the proof stands on its own. I have no desire to attempt to refute your stupidity.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 01:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=62374#post62374)
SherBear:
Hardly. The victim of abuse cried on my shoulder, questioning his reasons himself without any prompting from me. I am a good friend and as such, he was happy to talk with me about his issues. I listened, not rooted. As for the other two, I grew up with them and the history and results were obvious without any rooting. Your tone is offensive given you know none of these men. As for the rest of your comments, the proof stands on its own. I have no desire to attempt to refute your stupidity.

There is no proof, and you know it. Homosexuals don't deserve to be treated as outcasts, deviants or freaks. And it really is that simple!

And how would you refute my stupidity anyway? I've been looking for someone to do that for me! :thumb:

Paul

[Sher]

Yesterday @ 08:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=62392#post62392)
lordsnooty:

There is no proof, and you know it. Homosexuals don't deserve to be treated as outcasts, deviants or freaks. And it really is that simple!I don't believe I have EVER said they should be treated as such. However, I don't believe that the curriculum should include homosexual education, graphically outlining details and methods to teenagers. There is ample proof that this has happened and will continue to happen if these bills are passed ... and praise the Lord that it was pushed off for a year in Florida because of public outcry ... innocence, once lost, can never be regained and it is a proven fact that it can and does affect people into adulthood.
And how would you refute my stupidity anyway?By pointing out, for one, that you either didn't look at the information I provided, or have chosen to ignore it ... either way remaining ignorant
I've been looking for someone to do that for me! :thumb:Oh, master of the obvious :bow: I can tell that from your replies.

But seriously ...
Deviant indeed...
Still, much better than your child should grow up to be a halfwitted ignoramus that equates homosexuality with paedophilia or animal-sex.Comments such as these are what tipped me off to the fact that you either didn't read the articles by the DJ, or buried your head in the sand to claim they didn't describe in vivid detail deviant sexual behavior (deviant = differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society). I am too much of a lady to repeat them here but I provided you with the proof that the graphic details of things similar to what you mentioned were being taught. As a parent, which you are not, this is a big concern that our children will be exposed to such teachings, directly or indirectly, because of this agenda to promote and indoctrinate children to their cause. If you chose to teach your future child at home such things (showing them gay films and teaching them about methods of deviant sexual behavior that is usually found only on the most hardcore websites), that would be your "right", but to push this on the child(ren) of any family opposed to such behaviors is repugnant.
I recieved vicious bullying in school for being gay, and I'm not even gay! It's a long story, but you can believe me when I say that it isn't nice. Some middle-school education might have helped those tiny-brained feckwits.I will repeat myself here that I firmly believe ALL bullying to be abhorrent, and I understand your position in this manner, agreeing that education against bullying would be appropriate. Education for homosexuality would not be.

[Patroclus]

deviant = differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society

Homosexuality is generally accepted by society.

How are you going to define "norms?"

I am not trying to be argumentative, just saying that the term is perhaps not the best because of its symantic weight and unporvability.

[brother vinny]

:bump:

[Keepupthefire]

Homosexuality is generally accepted by society.

How are you going to define "norms?"

I am not trying to be argumentative, just saying that the term is perhaps not the best because of its symantic weight and unporvability.

You're first line I have serious problems with. "generally accepted by society?"
I hope you don't mean majority accepts homosexuality.

I think even a lot of non-christians find it unnatural and something to not accepted. I suppose it depends on where you live as well. Urban places tend to educate(and I could debate the term educate for brainwash) children, and adolescents, and even some parents about "tolerence",(I could debate this word as well for we use the same word but with different meanings) discrimination([poor connotation]I happen to love the word and so do a lot of lawmakers...seeing how some laws discriminate against certain behaviours and others are promoted, such as civil obedience).

As for whats the norm? I think thats common sense. Problem is that people tend to make things much more unreasonable such as subjecting the word normal to such scrutiny when they themselves know what normative means.

I haven't had much time to define it in my own words. But I'll give it a try.
Normative(normal): That which is a commonly held belief amongst the majority body. As well as, doesn't go against the natural laws of nature. For example, men do not give birth to babies an it's not normal to believe otherwise. It's absurd to think otherwise.

[bandecoot]

Zombie thread ...salt it down


Oh it was BV ...shotgun it and salt it down. -----Added in edit