Question about the Homosexuality [Archive]

Teallaura

June 18th 2006, 09:29 AM

In many discussion regarding the homosexuality debate homophobia is viewed by some as the equivalent of racism. I would be interested in hearing opinions on whether this is an accurate correlation from an ethical perspective. And if so or not why. Thanks.

*If this is not the right thread for this question please let me know and I will move it elsewhere.No, it's not. Look at the terms. Racism implies an unwarranted judgment based on an unwarranted bias against a given race. But homophobia implies an irrational fear. Controlling one's undue bias is a great deal easier - and can be rightfully expected of the person (society expects a great number of attitudes to be conformed to the norm, and an unwarranted one would certainly fall into that category).

An irrational fear - which is what a phobia is - is not so easily controlled, and using the formal definition of the word, cannot be controlled by the person. It's a borderline mental illness - not affecting other levels of rationality (hence not requiring hospitalization or other drastic measures) but still outside the realm of the person's unassisted control. It is therefore inappropriate to expect that fear to be put aside for political or social reasons. The individual would have the freedom to choose to get help - or to merely live with it if the phobia is not otherwise debilitating. The marginally mentally ill (if indeed they genuinely have said phobia) have rights, too.

The word, as Jnthn rightly points out, has lost much of its meaning as it became a whip to silence dissent. But here there is a crucial difference - it is not necessarily unwarranted to discriminate based on behavior (we tend to discriminate pretty severely against murderers, for example). Unlike race, which is intrinsic, behavior in humans is not intrinsic. And in recent years liberal researchers have begun to come to the conclusion that sexuality changes (or can change) over a person's lifetime. That behavior goes completely out the window as an intrinsic quality at that point.

Even King did not dispute discrimination on the basis of behavior - behavior often being the direct result of the 'content of one's character'.

Xorex

June 20th 2006, 07:42 PM

[QUOTE=Teallaura]No, it's not. Look at the terms. Racism implies an unwarranted judgment based on an unwarranted bias against a given race. But homophobia implies an irrational fear. Controlling one's undue bias is a great deal easier - and can be rightfully expected of the person (society expects a great number of attitudes to be conformed to the norm, and an unwarranted one would certainly fall into that category).

An irrational fear - which is what a phobia is - is not so easily controlled, and using the formal definition of the word, cannot be controlled by the person. It's a borderline mental illness - not affecting other levels of rationality (hence not requiring hospitalization or other drastic measures) but still outside the realm of the person's unassisted control. It is therefore inappropriate to expect that fear to be put aside for political or social reasons. The individual would have the freedom to choose to get help - or to merely live with it if the phobia is not otherwise debilitating. The marginally mentally ill (if indeed they genuinely have said phobia) have rights, too.

That's helpful. It is difficult for me to find people who will talk about this issue in a reasonable way - debates are fraught with emotion and the words "homophobic" or "heterosexist" are weilded like clubs. Or "immoral" "degenerate" "love the sinner hate the sin" and that sort of thing. I like to hear reasoned argument from both perspectives once in a while.

The word, as Jnthn rightly points out, has lost much of its meaning as it became a whip to silence dissent. But here there is a crucial difference - it is not necessarily unwarranted to discriminate based on behavior (we tend to discriminate pretty severely against murderers, for example). Unlike race, which is intrinsic, behavior in humans is not intrinsic. And in recent years liberal researchers have begun to come to the conclusion that sexuality changes (or can change) over a person's lifetime. That behavior goes completely out the window as an intrinsic quality at that point.

That's it in a nutshell - race is an intrinsic quality with no moral value in and of itself whereas sexuality is behaviour (although the jury is out on whether the preference is genetic or not) how you act on the preference is a choice. Thanks for helping me clarify that. I was never comfortable when people equated homophobia with racism but had difficulty understanding why exactly.

It is a word which has taken on a life of it's own in terms of meaning. If you're against homosexuality your "homophobic" whether you actually have an irrational fear of it or not. Good point.

Even King did not dispute discrimination on the basis of behavior - behavior often being the direct result of the 'content of one's character'.

Indeed.

HerodionRomulus

July 11th 2006, 02:33 PM

A black person who is also gay will tell you that in practical terms, there is no difference.

Dr. King strongly supported equal rights for all including gay people. The organizer of the 63 March on Washington was openly gay.

Behavior does not matter except of course for behavior which is harmful to others. "Love one another" means don't mistreat someone.

Whether sexual orientation is a choice or not is irrelevant.
Religion is a chosen behavior. Anyone here born Christian? Didn't think so.
Should we discriminate in housing, hiring, marriage rights, etc based on religious choice?

However, gay people will tell you they were born gay and did not choose. My two gay siblings definitely maintain that it is no choice.

Even whom you love is not a choice in some sense.
Lots of people will tell you that they were smitten/fell-in-love with their wife/husband/partner from the moment they laid eyes on them.

Mister900

October 28th 2006, 08:33 AM

HerodionRomulus

October 29th 2006, 10:02 AM

I think it is best to see homosexuality as a behaviour, and not an identity. Furthermore there is absolutely no evidence for a biological cause for homosexuality. There are thousands of cases of identical twins where one twin is heterosexual and the other is homosexual. As each twin share the exact same DNA, it makes the possibility of a "gay gene" extremely unlikely.

But even if there was a genetic disposition to homosexuality, would that justify it? If I was born with a genetic disposition towards alcohol, would that mean it is okay for me to become an alcoholic? No, we should control our sinful urges, which is exactly what God has commanded us to.

Let us not forget that the only form of sex that is acceptable to God is between a husband and wife. Premaritial heterosexual sex is just as unacceptable as homosexual sex.

There is evidence for a biological basis, but as this is a relatively new area of research, there is yet no conclusive evidence, but the research does tend towards that view.
As to twins, almost half of all twins match in orientation. This shows that there is a biological component. If there was not, then twins would match at the standard 4% rate and not 50%. Ask a genetic statistician.

Let us not forget that sex acceptable to God is between a man and several women. David had 8 spouses, Abraham married his SISTER and had a concubine. Jacob had 4. Solomon had too many.

If morality is NOT relative, where are the fiery pulpits poundings against the INCEST of Abraham and Sarah? Didn't God order A&S to have sex? So God approves of INCEST?

Soyeong

October 29th 2006, 01:02 PM

Let us not forget that sex acceptable to God is between a man and several women. David had 8 spouses, Abraham married his SISTER and had a concubine. Jacob had 4. Solomon had too many.
We see in Deuteronomy 17:14-20 for example, that kings are not supposed to have multiple wives. So just because they had multiple wives doesn’t mean that God approved of it.

If morality is NOT relative, where are the fiery pulpits poundings against the INCEST of Abraham and Sarah? Didn't God order A&S to have sex? So God approves of INCEST?
Think about it...it would seem that Adam and Eve would be the only two people who could have sex without it being called incest. Obviously incest, and possibly polygamy had to be allowed in order to populate the earth. There wasn’t anything against incest until the law of Moses, which did not appear until hundreds of years later.

HerodionRomulus

October 30th 2006, 01:49 PM

So, morality IS relative to the situation.

And what pressing need to populate the world drove Abraham to marry his SISTER?

Or are you asserting that incest is only wrong for those who are under the Law?

jason

October 30th 2006, 04:02 PM

jason

October 30th 2006, 04:09 PM

Behavior does not matter except of course for behavior which is harmful to others. "Love one another" means don't mistreat someone.
Are you saying self destructive behavior should be ignored ? And you can't love an alcholic by buying them a bottle of whiskey, that is to hate them, not love them. You may not force them into rehab against their will, but you don't enable or encourage their behavior if you love them.

Religion is a chosen behavior. Anyone here born Christian? Didn't think so.
Should we discriminate in housing, hiring, marriage rights, etc based on religious choice?
No, but homosexuals are not discriminated against in those ways. IF anything the law is biased in their favour on many things in a way it should not be. They have the same access to all of the thing listed above as everyone else in the community does. That they choose not to exercise some of them is not the societies fault.

Jason

HerodionRomulus

October 30th 2006, 04:44 PM

Are you saying self destructive behavior should be ignored ? And you can't love an alcholic by buying them a bottle of whiskey, that is to hate them, not love them. You may not force them into rehab against their will, but you don't enable or encourage their behavior if you love them.

No, but homosexuals are not discriminated against in those ways. IF anything the law is biased in their favour on many things in a way it should not be. They have the same access to all of the thing listed above as everyone else in the community does. That they choose not to exercise some of them is not the societies fault.

Jason

It is not self-destructive, at least no more so than anything else. There are PLENTY of well-adjusted, reasonably content and stable gay people in the world, just as there are plenty of loonie-tune heterosexuals.

Or was Fr Mychal Judge, who was openly gay, being self-destructive when he sacrificed his life to save others on 911?

And your comparison to alcoholism is not valid. A person can drink and not be an alcoholic.

An to think that gay people have not and do not still endure discrimination in employment, finances and many areas shows your crashing ignorance of reality.
In fact, how can you POSSIBLY state that gay people are not discriminated against when it comes to marrige rights? Have you been living on Vulcan for the past few years?

Tladatsi

October 30th 2006, 05:17 PM

I would not say "equivalent" but it is similar. I will not attempt a theoretical but rather comment on a practical level. Have homosexuals been denied the rights enjoyed by heterosexuals. Certainly. Have blacks (and other non-whites) been denied rights enjoyed by whites. Yup.

One big difference is that homosexuals can remain in the closet if they so choose and "pass" as heterosexuals and thus be denied no rights. Most blacks (in the US anyhow) cannot do this (this is an artifact of how race is defined in the US, where if you have slightest hint of black ancestry, you are black. In other countries this is not how it works). Homosexuals of course occur in all social strata, from the very bottom to the very top (think Cheney). However, black folks are disproportionately absent from the upper strata and found in excessive numbers in the lowest strata.

Carrying the similarities forward, there have been both formal and informal mechanisms to enforce the denial of these rights. The most extreme of which is mob violence and murder. Both homosexuals (almost entirely men) and blacks (men again) have been murdered and beaten by mobs motivated by fear and hatred.

So this is not some abstract discussion of sematics or debate etiquette but a matter of, well, life and death. Homophobia is not just some unease about thinking about two men together or a literal read of Leviticus, but includes violent and dangerous outcomes.

In many discussion regarding the homosexuality debate homophobia is viewed by some as the equivalent of racism. I would be interested in hearing opinions on whether this is an accurate correlation from an ethical perspective. And if so or not why. Thanks.

*If this is not the right thread for this question please let me know and I will move it elsewhere.

jason

October 30th 2006, 05:22 PM

It is not self-destructive, at least no more so than anything else. There are PLENTY of well-adjusted, reasonably content and stable gay people in the world, just as there are plenty of loonie-tune heterosexuals.
The statistics suggest otherwise.

And your comparison to alcoholism is not valid. A person can drink and not be an alcoholic.
Sure, but you don't love an alcholic by buying them booze, just as you do not love a homosexual by telling them that what they are doing is fine.

An to think that gay people have not and do not still endure discrimination in employment, finances and many areas shows your crashing ignorance of reality.
Lots of people endure discrimination in all manner of things. Nothing is perfect, but there are laws in place making such behavior actionable. You can't really ask for more than that.

In fact, how can you POSSIBLY state that gay people are not discriminated against when it comes to marrige rights? Have you been living on Vulcan for the past few years?
What are they denied exactly ? Marriage in terms of a government sanctioned relationship is not a right, it is a priviledge that is extended to couples the government has a vested interest in encouraging the relationship of, because it produces the next generation of the state. And homosexuals have exactly the same access to that institution as everyone else. That they want something different does not mean they are being discriminated against. It is not discrimination to treat unequal cases unequally.

Homosexuals are free to do as they please in terms of setting up house together, have ceremonies, organising finaces and wills as they wish. They simply don't get the governments regulation of their relationship, just as friends and acquantainces are not regulated.

There is no issue of rights or liberties involved, but one of regulation by the state.

The real irony with the push for same-sex "marriage" is that homosexuals have whined for years about not having their lives interferred with, and not they are demanding government interference. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Jason

Storico

November 19th 2006, 10:51 PM

I'm opening this can of worms back up. (I tried to sit on my hands to prevent myself from typing, and I failed miserably. :ahem: )

First off, I'd like to look at the whole thing from a very different perspective. Rather than homosexuality being "only biological" or "only a choice", there ARE other options. Here are a few of them, and I'm offering them for consideration, rather than because I endorse any one of them:

- ALL sexual expression, heterosexual or homosexual, is thought by many to be a social convention. In other words, we ALL willingly act in a certain way. After all, if a man and a woman are in a relationship together, they willingly display it in public (at least in North America) just as willingly as a same sex couple would. Our various roles are scripted partly by our own expectations and partly by others'.

- ALL sexual orientation, heterosexual or homosexual, may indeed have biological components. A "gene" isn't the only biological aspect that controls or influences us. All babies, for instance, have chemical components (ie, hormones) washing over their brains prior to birth. There've been studies suggesting that people who are bisexual, homosexual or lesbian have been more exposed or less exposed to male or female hormones than other babies.

- If your argument is "homosexuality is not biological, it's a choice", consider this: if you are heterosexual, would it be easy for you to "pass" as a homosexual or a bisexual? Could you get up every morning, go to work, and try to "pass" just to ensure that you'd be treated fairly? If it's a choice, would you be able to choose to love a member of your own sex? And consider this, too: if you were discriminated against (ie, people taking cheap shots at you, making jokes around you, calling you names, protesting *think Fred Phelps*) would you change if you could? And if you couldn't change, would you try and be proud of who you were just so you could get along in life?

Those are just a few points to consider.

Secondly, I'd like to offer a national perspective: I do live in a country where any individual, gay or straight, is allowed to marry. Canada legalized same-sex marriage a while ago, and quite frankly, I'm glad: those who put value on the institution of marriage have the choice, here, to marry the partner of their choice. And people who don't want to marry don't have to. Nobody's forced, and it was a long and hard political fight to pass this. I'm proud of our politicians for ensuring that what some of the public needed was given.

Thirdly and finally, I'd like to offer a personal perspective on the entire issue: just for the record, my vote is that forcing yourself into a different orientation is either impossible or close enough to it. It's a BIT like being right handed -- nothing about you on the OUTSIDE suggests that you're right handed, but just try and do EVERYTHING left handed for a while, and see how strange and awkward and out of place that would feel. (And yes, I know sexuality is different than what hand you write with.)

But take it from someone who's tried to change aspects of themselves: the aspects don't go away. You can't wish them away, you can't fake them away, you can't hate them away. So what did I do? I embraced everything about me. And that, folks, is one of the key components to passing the class "how to be a balanced individual 101". :wink:

HerodionRomulus

November 20th 2006, 02:02 PM

Well put Storico.

I'd like to add that the similarities to left-handedness are striking.
Around 4% of all people are lefties, just as about 4% are 100% gay.
Handedness is determined very very early in life, probably before birth.

Lefties were once subjected to some social criticism. For instance, my sister-in-law is left-handed. In the first grade, she was forced to use her right. She was disciplined if she tried to use her left, even having her left hand tied to force her to use the right.
Fortunately, her second grade teacher knew better and helped her develop what was natural for her.

Some people are able to use both hands to some extent, I am right, but a few things, like using a fork to eat, can be done as easily with left as right.
Just as some people are mostly gay, but can have straight sex with little problem.

God_is_personal

February 8th 2007, 06:58 PM

MJ Smith, you shared, "In many discussion regarding the homosexuality debate homophobia is viewed by some as the equivalent of racism. I would be interested in hearing opinions on whether this is an accurate correlation from an ethical perspective. And if so or not why. Thanks."

Nice to meet you, MJ . . . I like how you are hospitable and appreciative of what people have written to you, here.

The gay thing . . . I don't buy it...going by what I have read in the Bible, plus my actual experience with gays and ones who promote homosexuality.

This is a Bible study thread; so I'll offer a few things I have discovered in the Bible, and my context with which I understand these things.

We have the "classic" death penalty command in Leviticus 20:13 >
> this along with death penalty for adultery . . . Leviticus 20:10
> death for raping another man's fiancée . . . Deuteronomy 22:25-27
> death for lying about your being a virgin in order to trick a guy into marrying you . . . Deuteronomy 22:13-21
> death for consentual sex of a virgin with a man not her fiancé
> on we could go > kidnapping and selling a man . . . Exodus 21:16 > THIS, I consider, could mean death penalty for all those anti-homosexual religious folks involved in the kidnapping and sale of African community leaders and family members as slaves!!!
> "'He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.'" (Exodus 21:17) So, not just females and gays are getting dealt with, here.

We have Romans 1:18-32, showing me how ones who refused God were released from His control, to where they were weak enough to give in to those "vile passions" (Rom. 1:26) and "lusts of their hearts" (Rom. 1:24). The implication, here, is these emotions took these people over, once they were away from God's caring control of love, enough so these dominating and DICTATORIAL emotions could get the better of them, and make them against choice to do what they did. THAT is dictatorship...oppression emotional, IN the person!!! NOT love!!! God's love is gentle > Jesus says "'I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls,'" in Matthew 11:29. So, those dominating, ungentle emotions are NOT of God's love.

So, if ones are saying their "preference" is "genetic" and therefore they have no choice . . . this would mean genes are their DICTATORS!!! Do they see what they are saying about themselves??????

It IS oppression, then, including how ones are being brainwashed into actually believing they have to stay that way.

I'll take a breath; I'm just getting started. Others are welcome to post here, too.

But one more thing > "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love." This is 1 John 4:18...showing how FEAR is NOT a thing of God's love, but that God's love ALMIGHTY can easily cast out fear. So, God CAN remove those dominating and cruel things from us > He is able to easily and breezily and beautfully remove fear OR those manipulating fake-sexual passions that can seem so convincing but are a pathological lier like the fear is (and like worry is, as a form of fear > worry cruelly lies to and abuses us...worse than many a bad boyfriend or girlfriend ever has; yet, we trust and obey our worry!). Therefore, going by the Bible . . . homophobia, IF it is FEAR, is also evil...perversion from love. And . . . which is worse > the OUTWARD homosexual behavior which is perversion from sex, OR homophobia which is fear and therefore perversion from God's own love???

Scottme

February 11th 2007, 09:29 PM

beoba

February 12th 2007, 05:38 AM

Clipping your post to avoid swerving off topic:

Should we discriminate:
[...]
...in marriage rights? Yes. Marriage should be limited to 2 people of the opposite sex.

Why?

Scottme

February 12th 2007, 10:04 PM

Clipping your post to avoid swerving off topic:

Why?

Because it's best for the 2 people involved, it's best for their respective extended families, it's best for procreation, and it's best for any children involved. It's the way marriage was designed by its Creator. It's analogous to an engine that's designed to run on gasoline not performing well on diesel fuel.

beoba

February 13th 2007, 01:45 AM

Scottme

February 13th 2007, 01:51 AM

Isn't it a little presumptuous to assume that you know what's "best" for other people? What makes your "best" any better than anybody else's?

Nothing, but it's not my best.

beoba

February 13th 2007, 02:04 AM

Wow, fast reply, my compliments :o

Nothing, but it's not my best.

In that case, no reason to be putting your nose in other people's business.

Scottme

February 13th 2007, 02:09 AM

Wow, fast reply, my compliments :o

In that case, no reason to be putting your nose in other people's business.

I was responding to a question that was asked in an earlier post.

Storico

February 13th 2007, 11:56 PM

Because it's best for the 2 people involved, it's best for their respective extended families, it's best for procreation, and it's best for any children involved. It's the way marriage was designed by its Creator. It's analogous to an engine that's designed to run on gasoline not performing well on diesel fuel.

Scottme,

"It's best for their respective families" -- Best for them in what way... because it makes them more comfortable?

"It's best for procreation" -- And yet, not all heterosexual people procreate or indeed even can do so.

"It's best for any children involved" -- I'd say, ideally, having two loving parents is best for any children involved.

"It's the way marriage was designed by its Creator" -- the creation and union of one man and one woman are mentioned in Genesis, although marriage isn't mentioned there. Throughout the Bible, different marital structures are discussed, including *VERY* holy men who apparently had several wives without ever seeing God's wrath. Overall, though, yes. It seems heterosexual relationships were created by God. (Mind you, the absence of mentioning another sort of relationship doesn't mean it wasn't designed by God, too. The Bible makes no mention of physical fitness, but we'd all say that it's indeed healthy to exercise. Unrelated topic, but an example of something the Bible's silent on and yet we still find works for us.)

Not intending to argue at all, but I come into this discussion with my own biases and opinions, and at times, I have the sort of day where I just won't be able to sleep unless I get them out there. :wink:

Edited to add: one thing that needs to be said is that in Jesus' time, homosexuality was equated with rape, and indeed, the only biblical examples we have of it are in the context of rape or abuse. I can't help but wonder what Jesus would think of a monogamous, married gay couple. In his earthly life, he would never have seen or imagined anything of the sort and yet in the world today (in certain parts of it) we can certainly see exactly that scenario playing out, and playing out beautifully.

I'd like to think that Christ wouldn't have a knee-jerk reaction of hatred or condemnation or rejection. That's so much like the reaction so many of us have -- surely He'd be different.

Scottme

February 16th 2007, 12:54 AM

Scottme,

"It's best for their respective families" -- Best for them in what way... because it makes them more comfortable?

"It's best for procreation" -- And yet, not all heterosexual people procreate or indeed even can do so.

"It's best for any children involved" -- I'd say, ideally, having two loving parents is best for any children involved.

"It's the way marriage was designed by its Creator" -- the creation and union of one man and one woman are mentioned in Genesis, although marriage isn't mentioned there. Throughout the Bible, different marital structures are discussed, including *VERY* holy men who apparently had several wives without ever seeing God's wrath. Overall, though, yes. It seems heterosexual relationships were created by God. (Mind you, the absence of mentioning another sort of relationship doesn't mean it wasn't designed by God, too. The Bible makes no mention of physical fitness, but we'd all say that it's indeed healthy to exercise. Unrelated topic, but an example of something the Bible's silent on and yet we still find works for us.)

Not intending to argue at all, but I come into this discussion with my own biases and opinions, and at times, I have the sort of day where I just won't be able to sleep unless I get them out there. :wink:

Edited to add: one thing that needs to be said is that in Jesus' time, homosexuality was equated with rape, and indeed, the only biblical examples we have of it are in the context of rape or abuse. I can't help but wonder what Jesus would think of a monogamous, married gay couple. In his earthly life, he would never have seen or imagined anything of the sort and yet in the world today (in certain parts of it) we can certainly see exactly that scenario playing out, and playing out beautifully.

I'd like to think that Christ wouldn't have a knee-jerk reaction of hatred or condemnation or rejection. That's so much like the reaction so many of us have -- surely He'd be different.

Storico,

It's best for their respective families if they don't have to pretend they aren't disgusted by their relatives' same-sex relationship, or not pretend and then find themselves discriminated against for speaking out.

Absolutely ZERO same-sex couples are able to procreate, with each other at any rate.

You'd say that, but you'd be incorrect. Ideally, absolutely, a loving male father and female mother who are married is the best scenario for raising children. Doesn't everyone want what's BEST for children?

Homosexuals are never referred to as "gay" in the Bible. Homosexuality is far from being gay. That's simply a marketing term that someone came up with to gloss over what homosexuality really is. Homosexuality has caused more death, despair, violence, pain, and heartbreak than anything on this planet other than abortion. Jesus could not condone a lifestyle that is so diametrically opposed to His Will for His Creation.

Jesus would tell homosexuals the same thing he tells all unrepentant sinners: "REPENT!"

When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." - Mark 2:17

Do you believe Hell exists? If so, why does it exist?

beoba

February 16th 2007, 07:48 AM

The statistics [for proportions of crazy/non-crazy heterosexuals and homosexuals] suggest otherwise.

Wait, whose statistics? Sorry, I didn't notice this message when replying before.

Storico,

It's best for their respective families if they don't have to pretend they aren't disgusted by their relatives' same-sex relationship, or not pretend and then find themselves discriminated against for speaking out.

Oh, poor them, having to deal with their relatives' differences! Who would dare subject anyone to such a trial! Obviously, my distant relatives' feelings should take first priority over anything else in my life! Because, by golly, if Aunt Petunia is uncomfortable with my kitchen, then I need to drop everything and remodel it then and there.

Absolutely ZERO same-sex couples are able to procreate, with each other at any rate.

Should we ban infertile marriages? Given your reasoning so far, why not?

You'd say that, but you'd be incorrect. Ideally, absolutely, a loving male father and female mother who are married is the best scenario for raising children. Doesn't everyone want what's BEST for children?

Should we ban single parents and working parents? Given your reasoning so far, why not?

Is a gay parent worse than no parent at all?

Homosexuality has caused more death, despair, violence, pain, and heartbreak than anything on this planet other than abortion.

Could you explain how homosexuality outranks disease in causing death and despair?

I'm also fairly sure that genocide, war, and infomercials would give homosexuality a run for its money in the "violence, pain, and heartbreak" department.

Jesus could not condone a lifestyle that is so diametrically opposed to His Will for His Creation.

Jesus would tell homosexuals the same thing he tells all unrepentant sinners: "REPENT!"

When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." - Mark 2:17

Which do you think is more likely of gaining Jesus' dislike? A lesbian couple living down the street, or Fred Phelps?

Do you believe Hell exists? If so, why does it exist?

Not sure what you mean here. Feel free to clarify if my guess is wrong: Is Hell the only thing that's keeping you moral?

Scottme

February 17th 2007, 01:06 AM

Oh, poor them, having to deal with their relatives' differences! Who would dare subject anyone to such a trial! Obviously, my distant relatives' feelings should take first priority over anything else in my life! Because, by golly, if Aunt Petunia is uncomfortable with my kitchen, then I need to drop everything and remodel it then and there.
A kitchen is hardly a good comparison in attempting to prove your point in this discussion.
Should we ban infertile marriages? Given your reasoning so far, why not?
Only if the participants in the marriage would be homosexuals.
Should we ban single parents and working parents? Given your reasoning so far, why not?
Single parent and working parent households are easily explained to children. Lying to children is the only way to attempt to explain how having a homosexual couple as their parents is a good thing.
Is a gay parent worse than no parent at all?
No, a happy heterosexual parent(s) would be good for children. A homosexual parent, however, would definitely be worse than no parent at all as long as the social worker and Foster parents taking care of them weren't homosexuals.
Could you explain how homosexuality outranks disease in causing death and despair?
No, but why defend a segment of society that started and continues to spread a devastating disease that wouldn't exist without homosexuality? I could also mention that there are homosexuals who actually seek out the disease and others who are more than willing to give it to them. How sick is that? And even sicker, perhaps, are homosexuals who know they have the disease and give it to others without warning them.
I'm also fairly sure that genocide, war, and infomercials would give homosexuality a run for its money in the "violence, pain, and heartbreak" department.
You forgot liberals in that list.
Which do you think is more likely of gaining Jesus' dislike? A lesbian couple living down the street, or Fred Phelps?
They are of equal liklihood.
Not sure what you mean here. Feel free to clarify if my guess is wrong: Is Hell the only thing that's keeping you moral?
I asked a simple yes or no question with a follow-up question. The love of Jesus Christ keeps me moral. I don't want to let Him down.

beoba

February 17th 2007, 04:49 PM

A kitchen is hardly a good comparison in attempting to prove your point in this discussion.

Okay, provide an argument explaining why.

Only if the participants in the marriage would be homosexuals.

What's the difference?

Single parent and working parent households are easily explained to children.

Lying to children is the only way to attempt to explain how having a homosexual couple as their parents is a good thing.

"If I can't explain it to my 3-year-old, it should be illegal."

No, a happy heterosexual parent(s) would be good for children. A homosexual parent, however, would definitely be worse than no parent at all as long as the social worker and Foster parents taking care of them weren't homosexuals.

You've yet to explain your reasoning here, outside of restating "it would be better/worse".

No, but why defend a segment of society that started and continues to spread a devastating disease that wouldn't exist without homosexuality?

You mean Africans? Have you looked at the numbers (http://www.avert.org/worlstatinfo.htm) lately?

If people didn't have to hide their sexuality in the early 80's, wouldn't that have enabled them to get tested, rather than fear "discovery" by their peers if they are seen walking out of a local clinic?

Wouldn't it have been easier to stop this before it started if politicians at the time weren't able to ignore it like they did (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/06/08/EDG777163F1.DTL)?:

Reagan would ultimately address the issue of AIDS while president. His remarks came May 31, 1987 (near the end of his second term), at the Third International Conference on AIDS in Washington. When he spoke, 36,058 Americans had been diagnosed with AIDS and 20,849 had died. The disease had spread to 113 countries, with more than 50,000 cases.

Now, imagine where we'd be today if AIDS got as much coverage as SARS did in its early days. In the entire lifetime of that epidemic, there were ~8100 cases (http://www.who.int/csr/sars/country/table2004_04_21/en/index.html).

Should we blame asians for SARS? What about avian flu (only 271 cases/165 deaths (http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/country/cases_table_2007_02_03/en/index.html))?

I could also mention that there are homosexuals who actually seek out the disease and others who are more than willing to give it to them. How sick is that? And even sicker, perhaps, are homosexuals who know they have the disease and give it to others without warning them.

Yes, homosexuals, like heterosexuals, can be are awful people. When you hear about a murder, rape, theft in your town, do you ever think "Oh, those crazy heterosexuals! When will they ever learn?"

Storico

February 18th 2007, 12:32 AM

I'm not entirely sure this forum's a debate forum. All the same, I go on record as standing behind what I've always thought: I personally am in no way disgusted by or against straight or gay relationships. My standard for relationships is that both partners be human, both partners be adult, and both partners be willing to treat one another with love and respect. That's it. Gender, ethnicity, etc etc doesn't matter to me. Some Christians would disagree with me STRONGLY, and since this forum is more about the Biblical aspects of leading a Christian life, I have to firmly state that my own view is not the majority view, and that's okay with me. I hope everyone can still be friends and play nice. :tongue:

Scottme, you made several statements in response to my post (yours that I'm referring to is #28 in this thread). To answer you simply, you and I seem to disagree on several issues, but I don't think this is the place to hash out those issues. Apologetics 301 would work better, as would the Basketball Court.

Cheers.

Lili

February 19th 2007, 10:31 PM

Storico,

It's best for their respective families if they don't have to pretend they aren't disgusted by their relatives' same-sex relationship, or not pretend and then find themselves discriminated against for speaking out.While I have recently become convinced that homosexual behavior is sinful and homosexual marriage is not valid, I do not think that your argument is good. By your reasoning, interracial marriage is bad if one's relatives are disgusted by it. One's disgust is not a reliable guide for determining what is right and wrong. As Christians, we should base our morals on scriptural principles.

As far as legality, I don't care whether or not the government allows gay marriage. Just because it's a sin doesn't mean the government needs to forbid it. After all, idolatry is a sin yet idolatrous religions should not be banned. If people aren't harming others or violating their rights, or doing something that is destructive to society, leave them alone.

God_is_personal

February 21st 2007, 05:03 PM

Lili shares > "While I have recently become convinced that homosexual behavior is sinful and homosexual marriage is not valid, I do not think that your argument is good. By your reasoning, interracial marriage is bad if one's relatives are disgusted by it. One's disgust is not a reliable guide for determining what is right and wrong. As Christians, we should base our morals on scriptural principles." Concerning "scriptural principles" > we have Leviticus 20:13. But this is dealing with the ACT of sodomy. Romans 1:18-32 deals with what is deeper. HAVE you read Romans 1:18-32??? What do you get out of this?

Also, Lili shares, "As far as legality, I don't care whether or not the government allows gay marriage. Just because it's a sin doesn't mean the government needs to forbid it. After all, idolatry is a sin yet idolatrous religions should not be banned. If people aren't harming others or violating their rights, or doing something that is destructive to society, leave them alone." (THIS is different, that one would admit homosexuality is wrong, but not call for legal banning of homosexual "marriage'!) There are heterosexual people who gamble, who are married...while they betray their families by wasting money so needed to care for their families; so maybe ones who do this should be banned from marriage. (Does one's sexual organs make that much of a diff as to if they should be considered desirable to legally marry?) Or - - if someone smokes...potentially ruining children with one's example > should such a potentially dangerous person be allowed around kids? It's obvious, to me, Lili, how already ones are picking and choosing who they attack legally, while favoring others.

But "God is no respecter of persons" (see Acts 10:34) . . . ah-HAH, a scriptural perspective, here. So . . . picking and choosing which wrong persons to attack legally, I would say, is respect of persons. And we have, "For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges.Therefore 'put away from yourselves the evil person.'" (1 Corinthians 5:12-13) So, I can see that a Christian's job is to deal with ones who are wrong, IN the church. But God takes care of ones NOT in the church. So, if homosexuals want to do whatever and can get it legalized, that's not in God's kingdom...along with legalization of plenty of other wrong stuff.

(And, by the way, it does say "God resists the proud", in both James 4:7 and also in 1 Peter 5:5. So, if gays ARE wrong, we have God Himself personally r-e-s-i-s-t-i-n-g them!!! I'm sure His resistance is VERY effective. Consider Romans 1:18-32. But if ones HAVE wrongly treated gays, in the name of religion...this would also be wrong...not just perversion from sex, but perversion from how Jesus has us love. So, I can see how NOW God could be granting gays a "settlement", by allowing them to marry...as an in-your-face rebuke to fakers hypocritical who have so criticized gays while not as openly dealing with how they themselves have been very wrong.)

WHY are just the homosexuals getting such attention; but, also, why are they crying out like they're the ones getting so much discrimination, as though they get more than others? Isn't it discrimination to favor a nicer looking female over one a little plump or whatever NOT so great looking? (Ones have so muchso suffered socially and emotionally because of THIS sort of discrimination, which is promoted more or less by our having beauty pageants, and putting mostly very attention-getting females on TV and in movies; why aren't gays active against THIS - - IF they really do not believe in discrimination?) THIS is respect of persons, which is promoted or not spoken clearly against, even in a lot of church culture claiming the Bible. And, for that matter . . . it seems gays also can be very choosy to favor ones who look better, nicer, etc. So, I'd say a bunch of us are just making things up to serve our purposes.

Another thing > Jesus says that "where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." (in Matthew 6:21) Ones treasure their pleasure. If you mess with one's TREASURED pleasure, I can assure you you will be dealing with a person who is acting like a raving lunatic, in most cases. (When we get denied what we especially want, ANY of us can get very emotionally tumultuous and nasty. I'd say a lot of "personality disorders" trace back to how ones did not get pleasures they wanted > if they had been getting fulfilled in loving all people, instead of just USING ones for what they want . . . I'd bet they wouldn't bother with getting emotionally messed up about ones treating them wrong, but they'd get on with staying busy in the perfect satisfaction of caring about others. And in God's love we have His protection almighty > "And who is He who will harm you if you become followers of what is good?" - - 1 Peter 3:13) And pleasure sexual is very nice feeling AND intense; so it is a very sought-after treasure pleasure. And when you try to tell ANY person his or her very valued pleasure is wrong . . . you will get a lunatic reacion, maybe, and/or you will be told "I can't help it," "I can't change," or whatever. So, I'd say the gay thing is merely one more thing of preference for pleasure...like a lot of other things are.

And in their pleasure seeking, ones can get so degraded. WHY? You would think people getting the pleasure they want would be happy. But they are depending too much on physical sensations and excitement and just people and THEMSELVES, in order to make themselves FEEL good...instead of first seeking to share personally with God in His love. So, away from the perfect peace and pleasantness of God's love . . . whose spirit are we in? > "the spirit who now works in the children of disobedience," we have in Ephesians 2:2. That spirit of Satan feels AWFUL; so in this spirit we can be VERY desperate to feel something nicer than our loneliness, frustration, stuff of our nasty arguing, depression, unforgiveness, etc. So, we try to use pleasures to try to make those lousy feelings go away. It doesn't work...not for anyone.

Yankee_Doodle

February 27th 2007, 01:30 AM

Only in the sense that people can use the terms "homophobe" and "racist" as bludgeons against critics. In my experience they can be used as a debate tactic which slams the door on discussion. In my opinion, the term "racist" has lost a lot of it's power due to misuse, where as "homophobe" is just bad language.

To address the underlying issue I don't think there is direct equivalence between disliking someone for their race and their sexuality. Race/ethnicity is inescapably genetic, but race as expressed in its biological sense has no moral dimension. Sexuality is a much more malleable thing. It is self evident that sexuality can be controlled to the point where celibacy is a life-long option and that sexual orientation or preference can be re-jigged at a behavioural level. This renders the genetic debate over sexuality largely academic

J

Excellent insight. I agree with you 100%. So far the studies I've heard about linking sexual preference to genetics was a debunked study by LeVay, who studied the brains of homosexuals that died of AIDS, and animal & insect studies (fruitflies & sheep). The studies supporting an environmental connection are much more developed; although the APA has chosen to no longer classify homosexuality a mental illness (a political decision in my view). Homosexuals are generally much more depressed than the society at large, even those in areas extremely tolerant of them. It is true, however, that psychotherapy generally doesn't work (although I've read studies that indicate a highly motivated homosexual can be changed through therapy....quite similar to addiction, where generally an unmotivated addict will not respond to treatment; I guess you really have to want & be ready to change).

Viewing is as a creed is an interesting thought; however, the idea of comparing sexual preference to a religious belief system, as JP asserts, honestly seems strange when given some thought. Inversely that would imply that heterosexuality is a creed. That seems like a widening of the definition of creed beyond its reasonable meaning.

HerodionRomulus

March 1st 2007, 01:01 PM

Storico,

Homosexuals are never referred to as "gay" in the Bible. Homosexuality is far from being gay. That's simply a marketing term that someone came up with to gloss over what homosexuality really is. Homosexuality has caused more death, despair, violence, pain, and heartbreak than anything on this planet other than abortion. Jesus could not condone a lifestyle that is so diametrically opposed to His Will for His Creation.

Flat out wrong. The word "homosexual" is far more recent than "gay." Your ignorance of this fact does not change anything. It certainly was not a "marketing" word.

Homosexual was invented in the late 19th century.
Gay was attested to in writing in 1367 ce. and was used in a sexual sense thereafter, although it was mostly confined in use to gay people until the last few years when it became safe enough for gay people to be honest and open.

Yankee_Doodle

March 1st 2007, 01:48 PM

Flat out wrong. The word "homosexual" is far more recent than "gay." Your ignorance of this fact does not change anything. It certainly was not a "marketing" word.

Homosexual was invented in the late 19th century.
Gay was attested to in writing in 1367 ce. and was used in a sexual sense thereafter, although it was mostly confined in use to gay people until the last few years when it became safe enough for gay people to be honest and open.

As far as I know homosexuality is called neither homosexuality or gay by the Bible. It is simply referred to in the context of a homosexual act (as we presently understand a homosexual act). That is, Leviticus 20:13 (I'm paraphrasing) a man who lies with another man as he lies with a woman shall be put to death.

Obviously Christians should understand that redemption is available to all people (unless you're a Calvinist I suppose). Therefore, Christ's love is open to a homosexual person, albeit homosexuality remains a sin. My own view is conflicted as far as gay rights in the secular sense. I do oppose gay marriage, but I am becoming exceedingly inclined to support civil unions (although I remain undecided on this issue).

In law marriage is more than a contract, and therefore it is not wholly governed by contract law (unless there's a prenuptual or separation agreement....and even then the laws differ from contract law because our marriage laws are designed in large part to facilitate child bearing). A civil union is basically a hybrid form of a contract, which in my view people should have a right to enter into unless there's an underlying public policy reason to prohibit it. Simply not liking gay people is not enough (invidious discrimination is never a valid reason to prohibit parties from entering into a contract). To me a gay union is not a marriage. The very word marriage has always been understood to mean a union of man & woman for the purpose of an everlasting union & to start a family and bear & rear children.

Look, I know most gay people are good, law abiding, hard working people who simply want to be left alone. I had a friend who asked me what about the gay couple who has lived together & been loyal to one another for 30 years. One partner dies (assume it was the bread winner) and the other partner is left in the cold, with no income and well, nothing. One could say well if the bread winning partner wanted to leave his dowery to the stay at home partner he could have indicated such in his will. This is true, however, an outside contract cannot serve as a codicile to a will unless it properly attested to. Thus, if one promises the other I'll leave an annuity to you if I die first, even if they enter into a standard contract its not good enough to withstand an attack at a probate hearing. Therefore, there probably should be a civil union option to facilitate this type of union. However, my main point of contention is the slippery slope it will create. I would be much more inclined to support civil unions if we had a gay marriage amendment definining marriage as between a man & a woman. Just my two cents

HerodionRomulus

March 1st 2007, 02:59 PM

Yankee_Doodle

March 1st 2007, 04:35 PM

Making one's partner the heir in a will is no guarantee.
There have been many instances where the family of the deceased was able to break the will and leave the remaining partner with nothing. There is a current case now where the family is trying to prevent the legal heir (partner) from getting anything.

HR, I agree. Actually I was trying to say that a mere contractual arrangement is not adequate.

However, I will say that the chief factor a probate court searches for is the testators intent. Certainly if a family member can prove that the decedent made a dying declaration or something like that (generally a rare occurence) then maybe they will rule contrary to a written will; but this is very hard to prove. Most states have laws if a decedent dies intestate (without a will) then the kin of the decedent takes (states generally distribute the estate of decedents who die intestate in one of a few different ways, but it's always a spouse through marriage, kids, siblings, parents, first cousins, granparents, etc. who take, not a gay lover regardless of the length of the relationship); however, where the decedent has no spouse or children ,he or she may leave any amount of money or other property to anyone, any charity, or anything (including perhaps even a pet), and their wishes will almost always be honored (unless a showing of incapacity is made....but if the testator made his or her will with an attorney then challenging the validity of the will at probate has a low probability of success).

The bigger issue is how can the home maker partner really know if their partner won't screw them? Perhaps they (like a spouse in a traditional marriage) sacrifices a great deal in terms of their own career for the sake of the partnership; only to rely on the promises of their partner that they'll be included in his or her will. IMHO that's not a just amount of protection. Like I said, my concern with civil unions lies not with the concept of it necessarily (all though I concede, partly), rather it's the slippery slope it creates.

If the slippery slope issue were addresed (by a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man & woman) then I would be more inclined to support civil unions. I would think a partner in a civil union should be entitled to a statutory distrubution of a portion of their partners estate (although a smaller portion than a spouse in a traditional marriage given homosexuals cannot bear children) if a civil union law were to be relevant. If a state allows homosexuals to adopt, then if there are children a whole other set of rules should apply (this does not mean I support gay adoption, but if gay adoption is implimented by a state then IMO traditional parental rights should follow, including the notion that kids require financial support if a partner dies before the kid(s) reach majority).

shadowmaster

March 1st 2007, 04:41 PM

Yankee_Doodle

March 1st 2007, 07:03 PM

Yankee_Doodle

March 13th 2007, 12:29 AM

In many discussion regarding the homosexuality debate homophobia is viewed by some as the equivalent of racism. I would be interested in hearing opinions on whether this is an accurate correlation from an ethical perspective. And if so or not why. Thanks.

*If this is not the right thread for this question please let me know and I will move it elsewhere.

The jury is out right now on whether homosexuality is genetic or environmental; however, most available evidence shows it is mostly environmental with perhaps a biological component (I admit, however, I reach this conclusion with about an hours of research completed 5 minutes ago). Even the biological research is discovering that prenatal stress and not genetics per se may be a component (because family history studies do not support genetics in the traditional sense, like found in say heart or kidney disease). The media is treating the genetics proposition like an answered question, when obviously it's not (or better stated genetics is probably not a significant component).

Therefore I would say it's appropriate for a Christian to treat homosexual practice like you would treat any other groups of people who have practices contrary to holy scripture (e.g. pagans, pornographers, etc.). Understand that it's wrongful behavior, but also that they will be judged by God, not you or I. We live in a free country & it's not the sort of practice that reasonably can be outlawed. Therefore, why break a sweat over it? We can get our message out there & hope they listen and repent. We treat all with Christian kindness but know that all who live their lives in a state of sin will face their reckoning before God & as the Bible states will burn in hell.

Yankee_Doodle

March 13th 2007, 09:49 AM

I would add that the paradox IMO is how do we balance secular democracy, tradition, and religion when it comes to what some view as gay rights. Do we provide a mechanism for gays to have some sort of legal union? I would separate civil unions and marriage in two distinct catagories. The former is more about the right to contract, the latter from a secular standpoint is really about our traditions as a nation.

The first question is really whether government has a legitimate interest in promoting a certain type of family structure? IMO the answer is clearly yes. This is a very broad proposition, however, it basically holds that we must balance our desire to support traditional marriage and good parenting, with the reality that some families will to spite our best efforts break up. For example, I think the advent of no-fault divorce was a bad idea, however, I also recognize that divorce is occassionally best for all parties. Moreover, I find no logical application of the institution of marriage to homosexuals. This latter notion is supported by our tradition & history, and is not solely a religious doctrine. Civil unions is a less clear question under these guidelines. The question is can a reasonable case be made that propositions like civil unions, gay adoption, homosexual tolerance classes for school kids, and I would even add abortion on demand is harmful to families? Obviously the first question is what would constitute harm to families?

IMO trends that erode the notion that the traditional nuclear family is the preferred state of being, which thereby cause the number of traditional families to decline, can reasonably be thought to be harmful to families. Certainly, all the things mentioned in the above paragraph falls into this catagory. However, what measurable harm will result that the government can be said to actually have a legitimate interest in? Searching for precedent in this area is no easy thing. In fact one has to go back to the ancients to get an idea of how devaluing the family structure leads to erosion of the state. The obvious example is Greco-Roman culture. While certainly the Goths(then other East German tribes like the Lombards & Vandals) put the final nail in the Roman coffin, the weakness of Rome itself (which left them vunerable to attacks like the Visigoth sack of Rome) was the degeneration of their culture. Homosexuality & bisexuality were rampent. Abortion was not only widespread but it was unpopular to have children. Birth rates declined far below replacement & Romans no longer had an affinity for civic service (which is what made them great in the first place). Basically they became decadent, preferring a life of leisure over civil or military service. They left those "lower" callings (as they came to define it) to non-Romans. This would have fine accept the Romans went from being great at assimilating immigrants (the beginning of thier history is marked with great success in assimilating different groups) to terrible at it (their rejection of the Goths & utter repute for them resulted in well deserved consequences). So we can add bigotry to the list of things that cause an eventual break down in the state.

All this being said, how do we balance these facts with the our own traditions of fairness & justice for all? In the first instance we should understand that just because any particular group wants something doesn't automatically make it right, fair, or just. Moreover, is it fair for any group to desire something that is so out of bounds with tradition & common sense; and so potentially harful to our union? Isn't there a balance we must strike between the desires of the few and the needs of the many? The answer is yes. Racial bigotry is often cited as a template by gay rights groups. However, we know bigotry is an evil contrary to the good of the nation & the fabric of our families which hold it together. We know there's no basis in reason for racial discrimination in areas such as marriage and adoption. However, gay rights (as its framed today) has no such support. In fact I would argue that the very definition of what is bigotry against homosexuals has been scewed far beyond the bounds of logic. To say that one who stands against gay marriage is somehow homophobic is IMO ridiculous. To say that denying entry into the institution of marriage or parenthood to those who have no logical or traditional synergy with it makes us incapable of fairness or equity toward gays is a radical and unreasonable view. Today it is considered discrimination to deny a job or housing based on sexual preference. This is the proper application of our tradition of fairness.

The problem I have with educational tolerance programs that promote an anti-Christian lifestyle is wholly another issue. One could argue many logical reasons for these programs, however, I view them as probably the most harmful idea touted by the gay rights crowd. However, IMO this illustrates the problems inherent when we have a Department of Education mandating rules down to states & school districts. It's one thing to madate math & science excellence (which finds support in the Constitution under promoting science). However, the Dept. of Ed has gone far beyond the bounds of our Constitution & our federalist system. However, I blame our diminishing morality on the weakness of churches today. Most mainline denominations don't even really evangelize anymore. Rather than sticking to the word of God, they have reacted to diminishing church attendance by liberalizing rather than evangelizing. I don't view what the goverment does or doesn't do as a particularly important factor in the strength of our democracy. I believe any country is only as strong as its people. Right now we're in a state of decline that only God's church can reverse; not our government.

Yankee_Doodle

March 13th 2007, 02:33 PM

apologies all for the spelling & grammatical mistakes in my previous post. I had to leave in a rush & didn't have time to edit it (but after all that thought I figured I may as well go ahead & post it).

easyboy201

March 14th 2007, 10:56 PM

Yankee_Doodle

March 14th 2007, 11:29 PM

Safe enough for gay people to be honest and open?!!
You mean like in the Bible verses - "thou that wearest the gay clothing"? :lol:

This is a joke right? Homosexuality is pretty much the same as adultery. Sex regardless of the will of God. It is not for us to judge those outside the church. You guys are going to sin anyway. You live for it.
But inside the church it is blatently putting oneself before Christ and that person should be put out of the church.

How goes it EB?? certainly homosexuals are living in a state of sin. The NT & OT repeats this adequately enough and very clearly that it is an aberration before God. Adultery is an excellent comparison.....however, to say a sinner should be thrown out of the church is IMO a different thing? Christ came for the sinner. However, I think your frustration is coming from the same place mine is. Homosexuals don't merely want entry to a church (which no one should ever be denied) but they want us to change scripture. It would be like saying to the drunkard it's okay to keep being a slothing drunk, that old stuff in the Bible was interpretted wrong (you know those real ambiguous passages in say John like.....neither a adulterer, or coveter, or drunkard, or thief will enter the Kingdom (I'm paraphrasing of course)). Or other passages in say Leviticus where God tells Moses that a man who lies with a man as a man lies with a woman shall be put to death. Or where I believe it was Paul discussing a homosexual known by those in his ministry, where he says he will suffer the penalty prescribed by the law (or words to that effect). I'm really not sure what's so hard to understand?

The church calls backsliders, and Christ offers redemption from the harshness of the law if one has sincere belief & commits to turning his or her life around. Sure, the homosexual who commits to Christ may sin again. Even homosexual thoughts (just as thoughts of heterosexual fornications) are sinful, and a sinner who comes to Christ may have sinful thoughts or perhaps perform sinful acts after their justification (as they work toward sanctification); and Christ offers redemption for these sins through confessing to Him. However, if one remains an avowed homosexual they may not ever minister in Christ's church, and the word teaches they will not be saved......period. There might be some Biblical passages that are challenging to interpret, but the ones pertaining to homosexuality aren't one of them. However, sure I guess Christ through His infinite mercy would probably be disappointed if His people started kicking anyone out of His church (that would be sort of acting like the Pharisees). Just some thoughts, but I'm definitely with you on this one EB (about 90% I guess)

easyboy201

March 14th 2007, 11:50 PM

[QUOTE=Xorex;1527627]In many discussion regarding the homosexuality debate homophobia is viewed by some as the equivalent of racism. /QUOTE]

Shadowmaseter wonders: If homosexuality may either be a choice or a genetic predisposition, why not homophobia as well? Does it matter?

Easyboy wonders why Shadowmaster must always talk about himself in third person. :wink:

Well is homosexuality genetic predisposition? The Bible tells us that it is not. It is choice.
Then is homophobia choice? Yes it is. But is it the right choice or the wrong choice?
Depends on the motive. But homophobes may not be selective. You can't say ok to the liar and no to the homosexual. All sin is sin. Homophobes also must be loving, just like anyone, to be right.
You know the saying, love the sinner, hate the sin?

easyboy201

March 14th 2007, 11:57 PM

I found myself acting quite pharisaic the other day.. I critized someone else for their language, instead of bearing with it and acting with love. I know it seem like only a small thing, but those outside the church we cannot judge.
I felt like a real toss afterwards.
Likewise, homosexuals who are in Christ cannot defend their sin, if they are really saved. The must realize that their spirit isn't aligning with Gods.
This is what I mean by thrown out of the church. If they stubbornly revel in their sin, instead of wanting to change and being humble, then they are proud and should scripturally be cast out.

Christ is indeed merciful, for those that want his mercy.

Yet a homosexual who says "my way is better than God's way" is rejecting God's mercy and therefore has no part with the Body of Christ.
You dig??! :wink:

Thanks Wesley!

How goes it EB?? certainly homosexuals are living in a state of sin. The NT & OT repeats this adequately enough and very clearly that it is an aberration before God. Adultery is an excellent comparison.....however, to say a sinner should be thrown out of the church is IMO a different thing? Christ came for the sinner. However, I think your frustration is coming from the same place mine is. Homosexuals don't merely want entry to a church (which no one should ever be denied) but they want us to change scripture. It would be like saying to the drunkard it's okay to keep being a slothing drunk, that old stuff in the Bible was interpretted wrong (you know those real ambiguous passages in say John like.....neither a adulterer, or coveter, or drunkard, or thief will enter the Kingdom (I'm paraphrasing of course)). Or other passages in say Leviticus where God tells Moses that a man who lies with a man as a man lies with a woman shall be put to death. Or where I believe it was Paul discussing a homosexual known by those in his ministry, where he says he will suffer the penalty prescribed by the law (or words to that effect). I'm really not sure what's so hard to understand?

The church calls backsliders, and Christ offers redemption from the harshness of the law if one has sincere belief & commits to turning his or her life around. Sure, the homosexual who commits to Christ may sin again. Even homosexual thoughts (just as thoughts of heterosexual fornications) are sinful, and a sinner who comes to Christ may have sinful thoughts or perhaps perform sinful acts after their justification (as they work toward sanctification); and Christ offers redemption for these sins through confessing to Him. However, if one remains an avowed homosexual they may not ever minister in Christ's church, and the word teaches they will not be saved......period. There might be some Biblical passages that are challenging to interpret, but the ones pertaining to homosexuality aren't one of them. However, sure I guess Christ through His infinite mercy would probably be disappointed if His people started kicking anyone out of His church (that would be sort of acting like the Pharisees). Just some thoughts, but I'm definitely with you on this one EB (about 90% I guess)

Yankee_Doodle

March 15th 2007, 12:10 AM

Tlalynet

April 18th 2007, 06:48 AM

Kleptomania is considered to be non voluntary, the thives are still charged. Its harsh but it answers the genetic question no matter if it is genetic or not.
OT Law was to keep evils away from the people, Law didnt consider circumstances. Morality, or the law of librety is better and for ultimate judgment but Law kind of has to be flat.
Its good to keep to what you can deal with like 'Is it right or wrong?' rather than trying to figure out someone elses heart, you cant, its just a decoy to avoid the issue anyway.
Thus its better to ask "is this specific action right or wrong?" than to say "Is this way of life right or wrong?" because, of course, theres more to the way of life than the action alone. So in the end we ask, is this sexual act right or wrong? Thats why it can be grouped with adultery as well as a number of other nasty things covered by the Duet like incest and bestiality.
Thats a very specific section of Dueteronomy actually, its a comprehensive list of what acts are wrong. Heres where I go haywire.
The Duet says that if a man lies with a man as he would with a woman its major bad, right, then it says if a woman lies with a woman like she would with a man its major bad... wait... No, it doesen't. Because of that ommision I want to complicate things.
Were lacking a prohibiton of Girl on Girl untill Romans, and that has some specifics. Im a computer programmer nutter so when I read AND I think AND, as if A AND B is Evil then BOTH A and B have to be there or the thing itself isnt evil.
Now, "Because of this God caused women to burn with desire for each other and neglect their natural use." is listed in the When Things Really Go Wrong section of Romans. Its just that the And is a pain, if you take that seriously then a married woman with another married woman... but ill double chekc that, what about abandoning the natual use, is that evil on its own, if it is then nuns have a BIG problem, so the And stands. Personally i can see some problems if women of different husbands where physical like that so i narrow it down to alloweing two women married to the same husband, er, librities.
Now thats a slippery slope that study got me, of course that could only work if poly wasnt against the bible per say and on and on ect.
I say it litely but it was a serious study for me, My wife let me know a year into our marridge that she had some tendancies that way, naturally she said shed keep them down. I (as I do for about anything) studied the issue to help by showing exactly why and where that was wrong, but I failed, I couldnt find the way. Given the circumstances we made an unusall choice for Christians. Expediancy prevailed.

HerodionRomulus

April 18th 2007, 09:37 AM

The Duet says that if a man lies with a man as he would with a woman its major bad, right, then it says if a woman lies with a woman like she would with a man its major bad... wait... No, it doesen't. .

A good point. The Leviticus passage is a law. A law is intended to be specific.
For instance, if a law says that liquor cannot be sold on Sunday, does that prohibit sales on Monday? No.
The same here. The law says men, so lesbians are allowed.
Or maybe Leviticus is not really addressing another issue and not same-sex orientation.

Many experts say that Lv 18:22 refers to temple prostitution, male prostitutes in cultic settings are quite common in the ANE.
Jacob Milgrom, a leading Jewish scholar and an expert on Leviticus, says that it is a prohibition against sex between men within certain degrees of relationship. To simplify, it's wrong for a man to sleep with his father in law but ok to sleep with a stranger. A full and highly technical explanation can be found in Milgrom's 3 volume commentary on Leviticus in the Anchor Bible series.

One final point: since there is legitimate dispute about the application and validity of the few passages which seem to relate to same-sex, perhaps the Church should not be so quick to make definitive declarations. Let's leave it up to the individual person and the relationship to Christ and let's stop trying to do the Holy Spirit's job of conviction of sins.

themuzicman

April 18th 2007, 10:46 AM

There is evidence for a biological basis, but as this is a relatively new area of research, there is yet no conclusive evidence, but the research does tend towards that view.
As to twins, almost half of all twins match in orientation. This shows that there is a biological component. If there was not, then twins would match at the standard 4% rate and not 50%. Ask a genetic statistician.

This is the same kind of evidence that one might us to suggest a genetic basis for Alcoholism. However, no one is claiming that one is an alcoholic from birth.

Let us not forget that sex acceptable to God is between a man and several women. David had 8 spouses, Abraham married his SISTER and had a concubine. Jacob had 4. Solomon had too many.

If morality is NOT relative, where are the fiery pulpits poundings against the INCEST of Abraham and Sarah? Didn't God order A&S to have sex? So God approves of INCEST?

A&S were half-siblings, which wasn't all that unusual in a nomadic culture. And there is no place where God approves or disapproves of A&S's marriage. It existed before God called Abram, and God also hates divorce. So, if God ordered them to divorce, you'd be back here demanding to know why preachers aren't railing against the divorce of A&S.

Thus, there was a pre-existing condition, which wasn't resolvable, and was left in tact.

Michael

HerodionRomulus

April 18th 2007, 12:32 PM

This is the same kind of evidence that one might us to suggest a genetic basis for Alcoholism. However, no one is claiming that one is an alcoholic from birth.

A&S were half-siblings, which wasn't all that unusual in a nomadic culture. And there is no place where God approves or disapproves of A&S's marriage. It existed before God called Abram, and God also hates divorce. So, if God ordered them to divorce, you'd be back here demanding to know why preachers aren't railing against the divorce of A&S.

Thus, there was a pre-existing condition, which wasn't resolvable, and was left in tact.

Michael

So morality "is" realtive?
Isn't God against sex outside of marriage: Hagar?

themuzicman

April 18th 2007, 12:47 PM

Hagar was given to Abraham to be his wife by Sarah.

Michael

HerodionRomulus

April 18th 2007, 04:01 PM

Hagar was given to Abraham to be his wife by Sarah.

Michael

Hmmm, so do you plan to ask your wife to hook you up with some hottie? :lol:

Really Michael, I expected a better reply than that from you.

Is morality relative? If not, then Sarah-as-pimp is just as wrong as Abraham fornicating with Hagar and incest is still wrong. Or are you actually going with the intelligent reply that their moral standards were based on their contemporary cultural norms.

themuzicman

April 18th 2007, 04:19 PM

Hmmm, so do you plan to ask your wife to hook you up with some hottie? :lol:

He didn't ask. She offerd.

Really Michael, I expected a better reply than that from you.

Is morality relative? If not, then Sarah-as-pimp is just as wrong as Abraham fornicating with Hagar and incest is still wrong. Or are you actually going with the intelligent reply that their moral standards were based on their contemporary cultural norms.

Pimp implies that Hagar was a prostitute. That's not the case.

There is some morality that is culturally relative, some that has progressed over time, such as marriage and slavery, and those mainly due to abuses of those institutions making the practice immoral.

However, there is some morality that is constant: Murder, theft, sex outside of marriage, lying, etc.

So, there is an absolute standard, and there are some standards that develop as society develops and practices become immoral, and there are some that are culturally driven.

SO what?

Michael

Tlalynet

April 18th 2007, 10:38 PM

Thanks to everyone who didnt just flame me for being a pro homo nutter who manipulates the bible for my own ends! Thats what im used to anyway, but it was a couple years of study that lead me to my conclutions, I set out to tell her why she shouldnt...
Anyway, the definition of absalute morality im stuck with is that what is moral is whatever is for the highest ultimate good of God and the Universe. Rev Finney put it that way anyway, and it seems to be how the whole law of librety thing Christ gave us works. What is good is a constant, the action taken for the good when within time will be ever changing. Thats why Christians have to be so knoledgeable to carry out their duty effectively.
Its the only model that I can find that doesent fail to the question 'If morality is absalute then why do laws change?'
The aim is the same, the means just change over time.

Tlalynet

April 18th 2007, 10:41 PM

"Hmmm, so do you plan to ask your wife to hook you up with some hottie? "
"He didn't ask. She offerd."

I don't think anyone else here knows how weird that feels...

HerodionRomulus

April 19th 2007, 10:00 AM

He didn't ask. She offerd.

Did that make it right? If so, lots of fellows here are going be hoping and praying their wives follow suit. LOL

Pimp implies that Hagar was a prostitute. That's not the case.

There is some morality that is culturally relative, some that has progressed over time, such as marriage and slavery, and those mainly due to abuses of those institutions making the practice immoral.

However, there is some morality that is constant: Murder, theft, sex outside of marriage, lying, etc.

So, there is an absolute standard, and there are some standards that develop as society develops and practices become immoral, and there are some that are culturally driven.

SO what?

Michael

Hmmm, sex outside of marriage. Then regardless of her offering it, it was wrong for Abraham to have Hagar or Judah with his daughter in law or....well the list could go on. But I would agree on the others as they violate the basic principle of "love another."

The so what is that homosexuality, at least the prohibition of it, is entirely a cultural phenomenon and has become more accepted in our society today, just as in the past it has been acceptable in some cultures as well as in the Church--specfically during the High Middle Ages when the church even had rites for gay unions. Being gay, being honest in life, having a partner, none of these violate our Prime Directive to be good to others.

themuzicman

April 19th 2007, 11:26 AM

Hmmm, sex outside of marriage. Then regardless of her offering it, it was wrong for Abraham to have Hagar or Judah with his daughter in law or....well the list could go on. But I would agree on the others as they violate the basic principle of "love another."

Hagar was Abraham's wife. Tamar, through the Levrite practice, was Judah's husband. Just because they don't do your marriage ceremony doesn't mean they aren't their wives.

The so what is that homosexuality, at least the prohibition of it, is entirely a cultural phenomenon and has become more accepted in our society today, just as in the past it has been acceptable in some cultures as well as in the Church--specfically during the High Middle Ages when the church even had rites for gay unions. Being gay, being honest in life, having a partner, none of these violate our Prime Directive to be good to others.

As long as you don't commit homosexual acts, you're fine.

Michael

HerodionRomulus

April 19th 2007, 12:11 PM

Hagar was Abraham's wife. Tamar, through the Levrite practice, was Judah's husband. Just because they don't do your marriage ceremony doesn't mean they aren't their wives.

I assume you feel that multiple wives are ok because it was a cultural norm. Fine by me. But with a few hundred wives, maybe we can understand the real reason Solomon went astray. LOL :eek:

As long as you don't commit homosexual acts, you're fine.

Michael

Ok, here we certainly disagree. That is an absurd contention, (no offense intended. ) Celibacy is never mandated, only suggested.

I don't see in Scripture any prohibition against being gay, and if I read you right, neither do you, BUT I also don't see any prohibition against gay sex acts. There is no "thou shalt not have gay sex" nor can one honestly read that into any of the various disputed passages.

S&G not about sex, it's about rape and inhospitality. All the later OT citations ignore same-sex.
Leviticus, not about gay sex unless you are willing to give females a free pass here. Many scholars consider this a prohibition against cultic prostitution though there are several other interpretations.
ISam 18ff Saul seems to believe J&D were having a physical relationship.
Romans is about idolatry, one cannot understand Romans 1 unless the OT passage (WisSol chs 13-15) Paul is following is also considered.
ICor. and ITim. --untranslateable, or at least there is no consensus on it's meaning.

Thanks

themuzicman

April 19th 2007, 12:33 PM

Ok, here we certainly disagree. That is an absurd contention, (no offense intended. ) Celibacy is never mandated, only suggested.

I don't see in Scripture any prohibition against being gay, and if I read you right, neither do you, BUT I also don't see any prohibition against gay sex acts. There is no "thou shalt not have gay sex" nor can one honestly read that into any of the various disputed passages.

Only if you take a very odd and narrow view of these verses. The obvious sense of the view of sex in the bible is that it's only permitted between husband and wife. You can try to explain everything you want away, but in the end, that's the conclusion you have to draw.

S&G not about sex, it's about rape and inhospitality. All the later OT citations ignore same-sex.

It's about both. Obviously the people in S&G were into homosexual sex, and their depravity even brought them to rape.

Leviticus, not about gay sex unless you are willing to give females a free pass here. Many scholars consider this a prohibition against cultic prostitution though there are several other interpretations.

But that's only when you read something into the text.

ISam 18ff Saul seems to believe J&D were having a physical relationship.

That's an academic crock trying to find something that isn't there based upon a different cultural context. Men in India hold hands. That doesn't make them gay.

Romans is about idolatry, one cannot understand Romans 1 unless the OT passage (WisSol chs 13-15) Paul is following is also considered.

Romans 1 speaks of the descent into depravity that follows the denial of the wisdom of God. These are obviously sinful acts in and of themselves.

ICor. and ITim. --untranslateable, or at least there is no consensus on it's meaning.

Except that they are translated, and the context makes the meaning clear.

Yes, I realize that academia has been trying to free homosexual acts from the realm of sin for quite some time now in an attempt to be politically correct. Big deal. The overall sense of scripture is much clearer than you're giving it credit for.

Michael

Tlalynet

April 19th 2007, 02:41 PM

"ISam 18ff Saul seems to believe J&D were having a physical relationship. "
Unless you take a very modern English form of loved you dont have a case there, the root of the translation properly means something or someone that you really like. Its the same as a Father and Son (Gen 22:2 it refers to the bond between Abraham and Issic) Brother and Brother, Or someones favorite food (Gen 27:4) or loving God (Duet 30:16). The statment that Johonthan loved David as himself in no way implies sexuality in the original form.
Lev 20:13 is very plain too, if a man lies with a man like he would with a woman it is abomination. Not really much way around that no matter what person of what title disagrees.
Despite all the equilization talk Men and Women are different, I find I have to take the Text at its word. If it says men and and neglects women then thats what it means. There are different standards for differnt people, I dont mind alcahol but it would be sinfull to drink with a recovering alcaholic.
As for moral relitivism...
There are many ways to make money but that doesnt prove money is a relitive thing (though it is, but for other reasons)
A student of Confusus once observed his actions, one day he blew on soup to cool it off, The next he blew on his hands to warm them up. The student left compaining he could not follow a teacher who did the same action for opposite reasons.
In a simalar way the ultimate goal of morality does not chage, but the action to attain it might becasue of circumstanses. If this where not so there would be no greater heritic than St.Paul, who said he was above the law.
This is why Chrsitians must be dilligent to show themselves approved. To be moral you must deveop rationality and work rather hard to undersand what is good and why.

Mr.Music Man,
Intereing work, Im kind of glad my post brought out a fully pro homo person, it makes the forum more intersting and more benifitial. I quite agree with the sex must be within marrige statement and the statment that a marridge must be between a man and woman. I also belvie that when married the two become one and this permits sex. We might strike up a variance here though,
A represents a Woman while B for a Man
If A and B are one for AB and the Man marries a woman C, two become one for ABC thus permiting relations between A and C.
Its a rare case, espcially nowdays but it works.

MrManNo1

May 15th 2007, 10:42 PM

First of all, I have to say that anyone that thinks that Leviticus "gives women a free pass" is reading far too much into it. It's exceedingly clear what is meant by the passage. If you refuse to accept that, you're lying to yourself, quite simply.

And, second, if homosexuality is completely genetic, then can someone explain to me the odds of Ancient Greece existing where a majority of men were homosexual? Actually, it went so far as, if a man lived with a woman, it was considered to be "wrong". Women were to be used for reproduction. Men were to sleep with other men for sexual purposes. If someone can give me a logical reason why such a big proportion of homosexuals would mysteriously exist in the same region, at the same time, when homosexuality is genetic, I might consider changing my opinion.

Little Shepherd

May 15th 2007, 11:18 PM

Intereing work, Im kind of glad my post brought out a fully pro homo person, it makes the forum more intersting and more benifitial. I quite agree with the sex must be within marrige statement and the statment that a marridge must be between a man and woman. I also belvie that when married the two become one and this permits sex. We might strike up a variance here though,
A represents a Woman while B for a Man
If A and B are one for AB and the Man marries a woman C, two become one for ABC thus permiting relations between A and C.
Its a rare case, espcially nowdays but it works.No, no that doesn't work. That has never worked. In fact, even during the period in which multiple wives were allowed(not encouraged, but allowed) there were strict rules on how to properly honor each wife. And one of those was that your marriage beds with each wife were separate. Having sex with one wife in the bed of another was considered extremely dishonorable. From that it's pretty clear that your sex lives with each wife are to be kept separate.

HerodionRomulus

May 16th 2007, 04:15 PM

Hey, aren't you supposed to be busy blowing up NYC? :lol:

shadowmaster

May 17th 2007, 01:59 AM

Hey, aren't you supposed to be busy blowing up NYC? :lol:

shadowmaster is here to right the wrongs. When is the the explosion to take place?

HerodionRomulus

May 17th 2007, 12:39 PM

shadowmaster is here to right the wrongs. When is the the explosion to take place?

Monday night, 9pm edt/8cdt on NBC.

SFC is having a Marathon Saturday beginning at 5am. But oddly, the schedulebot says it starts wtih Chapter 9 thru 21, then chapters 1-8. Maybe because ch 9 is the key "save the cheerleader, save the world" chapter. :smile:

Tlalynet

June 2nd 2007, 06:12 PM

Hullo again, sorry for the long gap between posting, ive been paralysed a bit and that takes my time.
Thank you for pushing the argument further logically than Ive had to go before Darth, Its good!
First off, Mr. Man, I said just the opposite, to condem where no condemnation is said is being pharasitical. If you read into something its putting something there that isnt there, Im just sticking with what is there and leaving it at that. You have to make guessed additions to make your point.
In case its not clear I agree that Homosexuality in any form is not genetic.
Now Darth, this is more intresting. First off "even during the period in which multiple wives were allowed" This is a bit hazy, there is no said period, its always been allowed somewhere and is now. The cutures that allow it vary a lot so I dont think I can pin down exacly what your talking about. I know Mormons think the way you said, but I disagree strongly with them in a great number of ways concerning treatment of women. I belive that Islam has a very strong policy of not talking about it one way or the other. I do not know of other cultures in much detail however any said prohibition is not spoken of one way or the other in Scripture.

Now, even if it was considered extremely dishonorable, that doesent make a real difference to the debate, what is considered right by culture is only a side show of the question of is it allowed by scripture.

Nazaroo

June 18th 2007, 02:33 PM

No, no that doesn't work. That has never worked. In fact, even during the period in which multiple wives were allowed(not encouraged, but allowed) there were strict rules on how to properly honor each wife. And one of those was that your marriage beds with each wife were separate. Having sex with one wife in the bed of another was considered extremely dishonorable. From that it's pretty clear that your sex lives with each wife are to be kept separate.

Aren't you projecting back in time here? There weren't large government bureucrasies regulating marriages in Abraham's time. It was, as the Scripture says, "every man did what was right in his own eyes".

Jacob may have kept the partying separate between Leah and Rachel, but that can't be taken as an unwritten "law" any more than anything else Jacob did.

The sad fact is, the patriarchs were horrendous sinners, and as the record shows, not great examples or illustrations of God's Laws, however organized or defined.

In fact, some incidents in the OT can be read as scathing indictments of contemporary attitudes, like the impulse that Judah had to burn his daughter (apparently alive) for 'playing the harlot'. Luckily the horrific crime was avoided because God had preemptively allowed evidence of Judah's own guilt and hypocrisy to be kept handy.

The meaning of this story seems to be that harsh judgments like this come from projection and denial, hypocrisy and inconsistency, and is an early illustration of principles expounded by Jesus a thousand years later. "Judge not, that ye be not judged".

If so, we can't look to the OT for teaching on LAW per se, but rather Wisdom about morals and ethics and their fair and merciful applications.

Peace,
Nazaroo

RainPete

June 25th 2007, 09:17 AM

So morality "is" realtive?
Isn't God against sex outside of marriage: Hagar?
Hi, sorry if I'm coming in late

Firstly, I believe morality is best explained as 'contextual' within the framework of being 'led by the Spirit' (Rom 8) and 'love being the fulfilment of the law' (Rom 13:10)

Contextual is different to 'relative' because contextual requires God's wisdom and decision, whereas relative implies a societal / cultural decision.

Secondly, you're mistaking God's grace (His complete acceptance of Abraham) for some sort of condoning what Abraham DID. Remember, Abraham was declared righteous by what he BELIEVED about what God said to him (Gen 15:16.) After this, he makes a mistake by sleeping with Hagar and God doesn't say anything about it because God had accepted Abraham already. He was chosen by God's grace, not by what he did. Abraham and Sarah suffered the consequences of their mistake, but God never said "Good idea!"

Thirdly, and this is where I think it gets difficult, is trying to understand the context of homosexuality. We really do need the Spirit's guidance. Are we REALLY loving people that struggle with homosexual tendencies by condoning what they are doing (and, like them, linking their IDENTITY in with their struggle?)

I can ask this question in our present society and say NO. Because a practising homosexual has to go through a lot of persecution (but let's be honest, not even close to the extent or racism or slavery) and therefore we may be more loving to them by helping them break loose from this struggle instead of giving in to their struggles.

But, what of the way forward? When it comes to transforming our society? Are we REALLY loving our world by condoning practising homosexuality? I have to say, from a historical perspective, this thing eventually becomes a problem for society (I'm thinking of ancient greek society, which I know someone else mentioned) and so the answer could possibly also be 'no.'

What do you think? What is really the most loving thing to do? I don't pretend to have the answer, but would be interested in seeing your answer.

Julio Navarro

August 10th 2007, 04:27 PM

((Before I start, I would like to state that English is my second language and it's troublesome for me to get a certain message across withought getting misunderstood. I would also like to apologise if my grammar or spelling seems rather bad))

This is a subject that I've been faced with during the past year. Although I have tried to debate this with my classmates or any other Christian friend, it has mainly been unsuccesful seeing as the majority are extremely close-minded.

From what I have been able to research, there is evidence (although since the studies are quite new, it isn't a complete fact yet) that there are several birth defect that cause homosexuality to take place for example, the male has a greater quantity of female hormones (Pheromone?)rather than the male Testosterone, and vice-versa, which leads to the attraction to those of the same sex. Homosexuality may also develop (in my point-of-view), withought any chemical defects or any of the sort, but instead by a personal factor, meaning a series of event in one's life, the atmosphere, etc.

I have yet to find a valid reason in which states that homosexuality is a sin or in any way a breach of moral values. Many state that homosexuality is involved in spreadin AIDS, but they should realise that sex between a man and a woman may also spread the decease, not to mention the simple act of touching even the slightest drop of another's body fluids, includin blood, and is therefore not a factor in this debate. Some call homosexuality an act of sodomy, even biblical experts believe that saying that the 'Sin of Sodom and Gommora' is the act of homosexuality is a prejudistic translation and that it merely reffers to sexual depravity in general and in no way is homosexuality included in this category.

Another point I wish to express is the statement that homosexuals are evil, and that is complete and utter ignorance and prejudice. Homosexuals are as evil as any heterosexual, meaning that homosexuals are just as likely to commit homocide, genocide, rape, physical and mental abuse, etc. as any heterosexual anywhere. Note that by calling homosexuals evil is not only wrong, but hipocritical as well, let me give you an example: lets pretend homosexuality is really a sin and a 'perversion of Gods love' (which I think is an ignorant phrase seeing that both 'straight' and 'gay' love is really the same) and any other things you wish to call it; while homosexuals are commiting that 'sin', heterosexuals are carrying out other sins like adultery, murder, rape, theft, and while heterosexuals aren't wrong in their sexual orientation, they are performing other sinful acts. And so the moral of that example is that if you acuse of the homosexuals of commiting one sin and you carry out another, you are in no position to call them 'evil' or 'sinful' and telling them to repent or 'they shall face eternal damnation' because you are also in that same position and that is called being a hypocrite.

Just because the Bible doesn't refer to something directly that doesn't mean it's a sin and I'm sick of people saying 'That is a perversion of God' or 'God is against that' or saying what God or Chirst would do because even if you read the Bible, it doesn't mean you know what they would do. Try comparing and contrasting the Old Testament and the New Testament, in what I have seen, the Old one implies strict rules and God shows little mercy (in which I think is reasonable to do in that time in order to get the message of obediece across) and the New one preaches obedience in a merciful way which to me implies that things change in time including what things are accepted and what things are not with their respective consequences.

I wish to apologise, for my time has been cut short and I will return soon to finish writing my points of view in the matter. In the meantime, I would like to hear your opinions in what has already been written.

Just Some Dude

August 10th 2007, 06:07 PM

Another point I wish to express is the statement that homosexuals are evil, and that is complete and utter ignorance and prejudice. Homosexuals are as evil as any heterosexual, meaning that homosexuals are just as likely to commit homocide, genocide, rape, physical and mental abuse, etc. as any heterosexual anywhere. Note that by calling homosexuals evil is not only wrong, but hipocritical as well, let me give you an example: lets pretend homosexuality is really a sin and a 'perversion of Gods love' (which I think is an ignorant phrase seeing that both 'straight' and 'gay' love is really the same) and any other things you wish to call it; while homosexuals are commiting that 'sin', heterosexuals are carrying out other sins like adultery, murder, rape, theft, and while heterosexuals aren't wrong in their sexual orientation, they are performing other sinful acts. And so the moral of that example is that if you acuse of the homosexuals of commiting one sin and you carry out another, you are in no position to call them 'evil' or 'sinful' and telling them to repent or 'they shall face eternal damnation' because you are also in that same position and that is called being a hypocrite.

Just because the Bible doesn't refer to something directly that doesn't mean it's a sin and I'm sick of people saying 'That is a perversion of God' or 'God is against that' or saying what God or Chirst would do because even if you read the Bible, it doesn't mean you know what they would do. Try comparing and contrasting the Old Testament and the New Testament, in what I have seen, the Old one implies strict rules and God shows little mercy (in which I think is reasonable to do in that time in order to get the message of obediece across) and the New one preaches obedience in a merciful way which to me implies that things change in time including what things are accepted and what things are not with their respective consequences.

I'm going to be fairly brief since I think other people here should be better able to respond in full. First off, you say homosexuality isn't evil because the "love" between homosexuals is equal to the love between heterosexuals. Here, I am going to ask you to define very specifically what love is. Everyone can love each other (love your enemy), and that cannot be used in your defense because than I can say I love my little sister and my mom and my dad and various other whatnot, but no one mistakes that for "hetero" or "homo" love, so if that is your defintion, it doesn't fly. If your defintion is sex, it doesn't fly very well since natural sex comes between male and female, and doesn't work very well between male and male or female and female (and, if I remember correctly, one of the big reasons homosexuality is condemned in the Scriptures is because it is an unnatural and perverted use of the body). So sex doesn't count as love either. If you mean romantic feelings, then romance has to be defined (I can come up with a several different defintions). Another defintion I'm ignorant of?

As for the Old v New, you need to research more. The "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is an Old Testament law. Love your neighbor as yourself is an Old Testament law to, as is the commandment to love the Lord with all your heart and mind and soul and strength. Also, remember the book of Apocalypse (Revelation), where Jesus is the King of kings with the sharp, double-edged sword coming out of his mouth that will destroy his enemies (and at the end, fire coming down from Heaven to burn up His enemies)? How about the woes unto the Pharisees, because they would travel over land and sea to win a convert and make him twice a son of hell as they were? The whole Old v New Testament thing is something the Church has long ago dealt with and taken care of (see the Marcionites of the early centuries A.D.).

Bla g 1

August 13th 2007, 05:47 PM

Suppose that it is innate. Well, so is my desire to have sex with every good-looking babe that would have me. I did not remain faithful to same woman for the last 25 years by doing what my id wanted to. It was a matter of moral choice. This brings us around to our worldview and the origin of morality. Judging by the self-reported worldviews, I don’t think this message board will ever resolve the issue.

woodyster

August 13th 2007, 09:46 PM

Hey guys. Good debate. I've been watching for awhile, and if no one minds, would like to offer my view on the topic.
First: The jury is still out on the whole genetic issue. Many of the studies were in some way statistically flawed such as the twins one which didn't have control groups involving twins raised apart from each other. Since the twins being studied were still in the same household, the social environment could still be just as much to blame.

Second: Genes can influence, but usually they are impossible to predestine. If a person with a predisposition towards alcoholism was raised by Mormans and never strayed from their commandments (therefore never tasting alcohol), the issue wouldn't arise. Social factors are often more powerful influences than genetic ones (such as emotionally absent parents of the same gender and overbearing ones of the same gender, as some studies have linked to homosexuality). Please realize that i am not saying that homosexuals are mentally ill or retarded, but simply extrapolating based on the assumed genetic nature of both.

Third: Even if homosexuality is still genetic, it doesn't speak to the morality of it. As Bla g 1 stated above, humans experience genetically hardwired urges in just about every area (including sex). The urge is not important but how we respond to it. I think that based off of the evidence we have know it is a bit of a strawman fallacy to plead genetics.

And finally, Fourth: In respect to what the bible speaks on the topic, I don't even look to the Levitical account personally as a great many of the laws were fulfilled by Christ and are no longer valid. The New Testament speaks quite clearly on this topic in Romans 1, which is rather relevant in response to point three listed above (the issue of the urge compared to how we respond to it.

And please realize that I am not a "homophobe" (how did that word ever come about anyway? Fear of "same"). I don't agree with homosexuality from a biblical standpoint but believe that it is possible to love homosexuals in the same brotherly way it is possible to love other sinners (of which I admit I am one). I do rather enjoy places like this where (hopefully) people are for stating arguements rather than ad homiems. I promise I'll shut up now.