The Vitriol of the Pro-Gay Agenda

[dbohm]

In a debate currently occurring under the title of "Can you choose what gender you are attracted to?", I have been called a homophobe, ignorant and bigot by people who I otherwise have a high regard for in this forum.

Nowhere did I even say that homosexuality was even so much as immoral in my posts. Yet because I was putting forward a secular argument against gay marriage that is opposed to the current pro-gay agenda, I'm called any number of names.

Is this really the way to debate what is currently a very controversial and significant issue for everyone? Is it a legitimate tactic to shout down your opponents by calling them ignorant bigots because they have reasoned concerns?

[99percentatheism]

@otseng

In a debate currently occurring under the title of "Can you choose what gender you are attracted to?", I have been called a homophobe, ignorant and bigot by people who I otherwise have a high regard for in this forum.

As others have mentioned, it is understandable why those who oppose homosexuality would be called a homophobe, ignorant, and a bigot. If one engages in a gay thread, one should not be surprised at being called names.

WHAT??? How is it to be considered "understandable?" No one should expect to be called names. Especially recent political neologims (newspeak) directed towards decent Christians such as: "Homophobia and heterosexist, hatred, hate group, bigotry etc., etc.." IF ANYTHING the opposition to homosexuality should be seen as something uttelry natural and healthy. And of course if one is a Christian, the opposition of homosexuality is completly orthodox and acceptable. Which used to be a protected right of the American citizenry (to date).

The accpetance of charging hate speech (another newspeak term) towards people that will not affirm gay sex shows society sinking into danger of all being ruled by a very tiny elite. Intolerance of expressing an anti-homosexuality stance should be seen as an enemy of freedom. We have seen recently that courts have told Christians that they are free to "worship" in private but not speak their beliefs in public. That is the destruction of the First Amendment.

Of course, one should not call anyone a name or personally attack anyone on the forum; it is a violation of the rules. So, as a note to all, please do not accuse another, explicitly or implicitly, of being ignorant or a bigot or any other names.

Then why the comfort from the "Pro Gay" adherants to using violations over and over and over and over again? Does this not show that the complicity is held by the authorities here? Shouldn't www.debatingchristianity.com just come out and say it is a gay affirming website and let all the proponents of homnosexuality have another website to congregate in? Like anotheer soulforce site?

The best response to name calling is to maintain civility (which from what I can tell you are doing a good job). I think (or hope so) that it's possible to discuss controversial issues with civility.

I will pray for dbohm. That he can walk thr path of Jesus, Peter, Paul and Jude when dealing with homosexuality and gay marriage activists and their legions of supporters here.

We do not all have to agree with another. We can passionately present our own views and arguments. We should have mutual respect for another as human beings. But, we should never resort to name calling under any circumstance.

Are you addressing everyone here or just the Evangelical Christians? The numbers of non and anti Christians here that continue to bash and bully the Christians that will not show obeisance to a pro gay paradigm is so widspread, one could say they see an exclusively pro-gay theme here couldn't they?

Why not just develope a program that will not allow for "homophobe, bigot and hatred, etc., etc.," and other politically expedient labeling to be allowed in gay threads?

If being anti-homosexuality and not affirming of gay marriage is a violation of the rules here, then Jesus, Peter, Paul and Jude would get banned soon after posting their beliefs aboiut marriage and sexuality would they not? And Jesus of course never said an affirming word about homosexuality. Not one word.

[otseng]

WHAT??? How is it to be considered "understandable?" No one should expect to be called names.

I said it was understandable. I did not say it was acceptable.

Shouldn't www.debatingchristianity.com just come out and say it is a gay affirming website and let all the proponents of homnosexuality have another website to congregate in? Like anotheer soulforce site?

Where did you get that from? Have you not even read any of my posts in the Can you choose what gender you are attracted to? thread?

Are you addressing everyone here or just the Evangelical Christians? The numbers of non and anti Christians here that continue to bash and bully the Christians that will not show obeisance to a pro gay paradigm is so widspread, one could say they see an exclusively pro-gay theme here couldn't they?

I'm addressing everyone.

If being anti-homosexuality and not affirming of gay marriage is a violation of the rules here, then Jesus, Peter, Paul and Jude would get banned soon after posting their beliefs aboiut marriage and sexuality would they not?

Who said not affirming gay marriage is a violation of the rules?

And Jesus of course never said an affirming word about homosexuality. Not one word.

I don't recall Jesus saying much about homosexuality.

[dianaiad]

WHAT??? How is it to be considered "understandable?" No one should expect to be called names.

I said it was understandable. I did not say it was acceptable.

Shouldn't www.debatingchristianity.com just come out and say it is a gay affirming website and let all the proponents of homnosexuality have another website to congregate in? Like anotheer soulforce site?

Where did you get that from? Have you not even read any of my posts in the Can you choose what gender you are attracted to? thread?

Or (chiming in here) mine, in several different threads?

Are you addressing everyone here or just the Evangelical Christians? The numbers of non and anti Christians here that continue to bash and bully the Christians that will not show obeisance to a pro gay paradigm is so widspread, one could say they see an exclusively pro-gay theme here couldn't they?

I'm addressing everyone.

If being anti-homosexuality and not affirming of gay marriage is a violation of the rules here, then Jesus, Peter, Paul and Jude would get banned soon after posting their beliefs aboiut marriage and sexuality would they not?

Who said not affirming gay marriage is a violation of the rules?

And Jesus of course never said an affirming word about homosexuality. Not one word.

I don't recall Jesus saying much about homosexuality.

I noticed that, too: while He did mention marriage in the context of male/female, he never said a word about same sex relationships, pro or con, as far as we know from the bible. This, of course, means that neither the anti-gay rights folks OR the pro-gay rights folks can use His words to support their view, not really.

It's not easy to stay civil when engaged in topics this controversial; certainly I have fallen short of that more often than I'm comfortable remembering, but we have to try. As well (and I am more on this post in support of otseng and addressing everybody else than responding to him), if those who are opposed to gay marriage for religious reasons don't set an example of civility and 'long-suffering,' given Christ's opinion on being judgmental and kind, then aren't we being hypocrites?

It may not be fair, but not everything is.

[99percentatheism]

dianaiad

WHAT??? How is it to be considered "understandable?" No one should expect to be called names.

I said it was understandable. I did not say it was acceptable.

Shouldn't www.debatingchristianity.com just come out and say it is a gay affirming website and let all the proponents of homnosexuality have another website to congregate in? Like anotheer soulforce site?

Where did you get that from?

Have you not even read any of my posts in the Can you choose what gender you are attracted to? thread?

Or (chiming in here) mine, in several different threads?

Silencing dissenting voices of gay culture is suport as the gay activists see it.

Are you addressing everyone here or just the Evangelical Christians? The numbers of non and anti Christians here that continue to bash and bully the Christians that will not show obeisance to a pro gay paradigm is so widspread, one could say they see an exclusively pro-gay theme here couldn't they?

I'm addressing everyone.

I certainly don't see that. It seems clear that silencing the historic opposition of homosexuality is seen as a support and win for the gay agends and its legions of adherants and proponents. The celebrations show this.

If being anti-homosexuality and not affirming of gay marriage is a violation of the rules here, then Jesus, Peter, Paul and Jude would get banned soon after posting their beliefs aboiut marriage and sexuality would they not?

Who said not affirming gay marriage is a violation of the rules?

That's the feeling here. Where are the numbers that get to oppose gay liberation here? They are as silenced as the Christians in the catacombs.

And Jesus of course never said an affirming word about homosexuality. Not one word.

I don't recall Jesus saying much about homosexuality.

I noticed that, too: while He did mention marriage in the context of male/female, he never said a word about same sex relationships, pro or con, as far as we know from the bible.

The solid evidence in the New Testament that gay sex is a sin is undeniable but to only the most die-hard avoidance to that reality. Homosexuality is a death sentences to the Torah Jesus read aloudd in the Temple.

Somehow I don't think Jesus's silence on gay matters is affirmation, celebration and support for gay liberation.

This, of course, means that neither the anti-gay rights folks OR the pro-gay rights folks can use His words to support their view, not really.

Prove that. The solid evidence in the New Testamnt is that same gender sex, what we today call homosexuality, is extremely bad. "God giving them up" is as bad as it gets. Certainly we should not shwo support for LGBT pride. No more so than saying that Jesus supported the building of Whore Houses becauswe he never said a word about well-kept hopuses of prostitution. In fact, when we see Jesus dining and interacting with sinners, they were repentant. Whether tax collectors or whatever.

It's not easy to stay civil when engaged in topics this controversial; certainly I have fallen short of that more often than I'm comfortable remembering, but we have to try.

Why? ANY dissent is called hate, bigotry and phobia and worse. If we remain silent we are complicit in affirming sins, sinfulness and wanton sinning. That is NOT preaching the Gospel. It is though going along with the world and its ways and denying the Gospel.

As well (and I am more on this post in support of otseng and addressing everybody else than responding to him), if those who are opposed to gay marriage for religious reasons don't set an example of civility and 'long-suffering,' given Christ's opinion on being judgmental and kind, then aren't we being hypocrites?

To a world that is increasingly hostile to the Gospel, no amount of nice-dissension is going to be seen as anything god to the world. Why turn a blind eye to that? No follower of Jesus is to celebrate sins. Either their own or anyone else's.

It may not be fair, but not everything is.

It shows who the bad guys are though. And where to rid yourself of their influence. If Christians embrace cowardice now, many people will suffer on our account. And I mean ON OUR ACCOUNT. Per Jesus.

Dear friends, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice inasmuch as you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. For it is time for judgment to begin with God’s household; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And,

“If it is hard for the righteous to be saved,
what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?�

So then, those who suffer according to God’s will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good.

- 1 Peter 4

We either preach the truth in Christ, or shake the dust from our shoes and allow people their trip to hell and move on. Per Jesus.

[otseng]

It seems clear that silencing the historic opposition of homosexuality is seen as a support and win for the gay agends and its legions of adherants and proponents. The celebrations show this.

Again, what are you talking about? Where is opposition to homosexuality being silenced here? Opposition to any belief is not being silenced on this forum. What we do attempt to silence is uncivility.

Who said not affirming gay marriage is a violation of the rules?

That's the feeling here. Where are the numbers that get to oppose gay liberation here? They are as silenced as the Christians in the catacombs.

Just because you have a feeling does not confirm your claim. Again, who said not affirming gay marriage is a violation of the rules? And who are being silenced? Please provide the post from an admin or a moderator to support what you are talking about.

Somehow I don't think Jesus's silence on gay matters is affirmation, celebration and support for gay liberation.

Which Christian has said that?

What I do feel is that there are many other things that Jesus has spoken about - divorce, greed, hypocrisy, lust, pride, materialism, et al. These things should be what Christians should be focused on addressing. If Jesus never even mentioned something as sinful, I don't think much attention should be spent on it. I'm not saying no attention should be spent on it, but compared to other things, it should be minimal.

However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.

If you suffer here on this forum for being civil, there's no need to be ashamed. But if you suffer for being uncivil and disrespectful, then there's nothing to be proud of.

[Clownboat]

dianaiad

WHAT??? How is it to be considered "understandable?" No one should expect to be called names.

I said it was understandable. I did not say it was acceptable.

Shouldn't www.debatingchristianity.com just come out and say it is a gay affirming website and let all the proponents of homnosexuality have another website to congregate in? Like anotheer soulforce site?

Where did you get that from?

Have you not even read any of my posts in the Can you choose what gender you are attracted to? thread?

Or (chiming in here) mine, in several different threads?

Silencing dissenting voices of gay culture is suport as the gay activists see it.

Are you addressing everyone here or just the Evangelical Christians? The numbers of non and anti Christians here that continue to bash and bully the Christians that will not show obeisance to a pro gay paradigm is so widspread, one could say they see an exclusively pro-gay theme here couldn't they?

I'm addressing everyone.

I certainly don't see that. It seems clear that silencing the historic opposition of homosexuality is seen as a support and win for the gay agends and its legions of adherants and proponents. The celebrations show this.

If being anti-homosexuality and not affirming of gay marriage is a violation of the rules here, then Jesus, Peter, Paul and Jude would get banned soon after posting their beliefs aboiut marriage and sexuality would they not?

Who said not affirming gay marriage is a violation of the rules?

That's the feeling here. Where are the numbers that get to oppose gay liberation here? They are as silenced as the Christians in the catacombs.

And Jesus of course never said an affirming word about homosexuality. Not one word.

I don't recall Jesus saying much about homosexuality.

I noticed that, too: while He did mention marriage in the context of male/female, he never said a word about same sex relationships, pro or con, as far as we know from the bible.

The solid evidence in the New Testament that gay sex is a sin is undeniable but to only the most die-hard avoidance to that reality. Homosexuality is a death sentences to the Torah Jesus read aloudd in the Temple.

Somehow I don't think Jesus's silence on gay matters is affirmation, celebration and support for gay liberation.

This, of course, means that neither the anti-gay rights folks OR the pro-gay rights folks can use His words to support their view, not really.

Prove that. The solid evidence in the New Testamnt is that same gender sex, what we today call homosexuality, is extremely bad. "God giving them up" is as bad as it gets. Certainly we should not shwo support for LGBT pride. No more so than saying that Jesus supported the building of Whore Houses becauswe he never said a word about well-kept hopuses of prostitution. In fact, when we see Jesus dining and interacting with sinners, they were repentant. Whether tax collectors or whatever.

It's not easy to stay civil when engaged in topics this controversial; certainly I have fallen short of that more often than I'm comfortable remembering, but we have to try.

Why? ANY dissent is called hate, bigotry and phobia and worse. If we remain silent we are complicit in affirming sins, sinfulness and wanton sinning. That is NOT preaching the Gospel. It is though going along with the world and its ways and denying the Gospel.

As well (and I am more on this post in support of otseng and addressing everybody else than responding to him), if those who are opposed to gay marriage for religious reasons don't set an example of civility and 'long-suffering,' given Christ's opinion on being judgmental and kind, then aren't we being hypocrites?

To a world that is increasingly hostile to the Gospel, no amount of nice-dissension is going to be seen as anything god to the world. Why turn a blind eye to that? No follower of Jesus is to celebrate sins. Either their own or anyone else's.

It may not be fair, but not everything is.

It shows who the bad guys are though. And where to rid yourself of their influence. If Christians embrace cowardice now, many people will suffer on our account. And I mean ON OUR ACCOUNT. Per Jesus.

Dear friends, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice inasmuch as you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. For it is time for judgment to begin with God’s household; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And,

“If it is hard for the righteous to be saved,
what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?�

So then, those who suffer according to God’s will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good.

- 1 Peter 4

We either preach the truth in Christ, or shake the dust from our shoes and allow people their trip to hell and move on. Per Jesus.

This has not been posted in quite some time, and seems appropriate to bring up once again:

As a historian, I confess to a certain amusement when I hear the Judeo-Christian tradition praised as the source of our concern for human rights. In fact, the great religious ages were notable for their indifference to human rights in the contemporary sense. They were notorious not only for acquiescence in poverty, inequality, exploitation and oppression but for enthusiastic justifications of slavery, persecution, abandonment of small children, torture, genocide." Religion during most of the history of the West saw the trials visited on mankind in this world as ordained by the Almighty to test and purify sinful mortals... Moreover, religion enshrined hierarchy, authority, and inequality; hated blasphemy; and feared heresy... It was the age of equality that brought about the disappearance of such religious appurtenances as the auto-da-fe and burning at the stake.

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., “The Opening of the American Mind,� The New York Times, 1989.

But Christians are the real victims here...

[Star]

Nowhere did I even say that homosexuality was even so much as immoral in my posts. Yet because I was putting forward a secular argument against gay marriage that is opposed to the current pro-gay agenda, I'm called any number of names.

Maybe you forgot making this post or maybe you're being disingenuous. You imply that it is immoral when you warn of enormous moral implications, stress the importance of the moral debate, draw comparisons to behavior that causes harm, and pit good, right, and natural against wrong.

Post 87...

The question is what relevance that has to the moral, social or legal debate. An alcoholic and drug addict may say they don't choose drink or drugs but that does not make alcoholism or drug addiction good. There is also good reason to think that alcoholism and drug addiction are genetic predispositions.

What is often implied in such statements is that it's 'natural' and 'I'm not hurting anyone' so you have no right to tell me the way I live my life is wrong.

The distinction that is often lost is when 'don't tell me how I choose to live my life is wrong' becomes 'I want the world to say how I choose to live my life is right'. There may not sound like a big difference between those two statements but the legal, moral and societal implications between the two are enormous.

You also continually stated that gays can't have children, even though there are many who do. That is ignorant.

[99percentatheism]

Star

Nowhere did I even say that homosexuality was even so much as immoral in my posts. Yet because I was putting forward a secular argument against gay marriage that is opposed to the current pro-gay agenda, I'm called any number of names.

Maybe you forgot making this post or maybe you're being disingenuous. You imply that it is immoral when you warn of enormous moral implications, stress the importance of the moral debate, draw comparisons to behavior that causes harm, and pit good, right, and natural against wrong.

Do you believe that "preaching another Gospel" is right and good? Is the "honest" thing to do?

What part of gay culture and gay liberation is compatible with the message in the Gospls or letters of the New Testament?

Post 87...

The question is what relevance that has to the moral, social or legal debate. An alcoholic and drug addict may say they don't choose drink or drugs but that does not make alcoholism or drug addiction good. There is also good reason to think that alcoholism and drug addiction are genetic predispositions.

What is often implied in such statements is that it's 'natural' and 'I'm not hurting anyone' so you have no right to tell me the way I live my life is wrong.

The distinction that is often lost is when 'don't tell me how I choose to live my life is wrong' becomes 'I want the world to say how I choose to live my life is right'. There may not sound like a big difference between those two statements but the legal, moral and societal implications between the two are enormous.

You also continually stated that gays can't have children, even though there are many who do. That is ignorant.

If homosexual behavior can produce a child, than it's just as fair Jesus was an Irishman that invented a really good ale and lives in a cottage in Dublin because that isn how I feel.

In fact, Jesus never said a word about not being an Irishman that lives in Dublin.

According to science, this behavior defined as "gay and lesbian" which of course is "same gender sexuality" cannot produce offspring. In human speak an offsoring is a child.

You can't change the goalposts in a natural treatment of sex acts. You can't "equate" a man as a wife biblically. You cannot equate a woman as a husband biblically.

So then there is no such thing as homophobia and hatred of homosexuality and all the other little poltical propaganda labels applied to the opposition to gay liberation. And certainly opposition of gay activism is nothing but a sensible choice. Just nature in its proper order.

[99percentatheism]

otseng

I don't recall Jesus saying much about homosexuality.

Paul did. Peter describes marriage only in definition of man and woman.

Otseng,

Is Jesus God?

Yes or no?

Please

[Star]

Do you believe that "preaching another Gospel" is right and good? Is the "honest" thing to do?

What part of gay culture and gay liberation is compatible with the message in the Gospls or letters of the New Testament?

I don't understand what you're asking in either of these two questions.

If homosexual behavior can produce a child, than it's just as fair Jesus was an Irishman that invented a really good ale and lives in a cottage in Dublin because that isn how I feel.

In fact, Jesus never said a word about not being an Irishman that lives in Dublin.

According to science, this behavior defined as "gay and lesbian" which of course is "same gender sexuality" cannot produce offspring. In human speak an offsoring is a child.

You can't change the goalposts in a natural treatment of sex acts. You can't "equate" a man as a wife biblically. You cannot equate a woman as a husband biblically.

So then there is no such thing as homophobia and hatred of homosexuality and all the other little poltical propaganda labels applied to the opposition to gay liberation. And certainly opposition of gay activism is nothing but a sensible choice. Just nature in its proper order.

I didn't say homosexual behavior can produce children. I said homosexuals can have children. Everything else you posted appears as gibberish to me. The part about Jesus in Ireland was particularly awkward. I don't care what the Bible says.