Christian Reasons to Support Gay Rights

[micatala]

I offer this thread as a Christian who supports gay rights as an admittedly forward challenge to my brothers and sisters in Christ.

In Acts Ch. 14 and 15, Luke describes James and the other Apostles discussions which led them to exempt Gentiles from well over 99% of the Law of Moses. The main reason they did so was to avoid putting an excessive burden on Gentiles. Implicit in their decision was the issue that expecting everyone to follow these traditional rules, rules that many saw as outdated, would be a drag on the new movement.

Today, we see polls like this one that indicate many young people leaving the church or the faith because of the negative attitude displayed by many religious people towards gays and lesbians.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/2 ... ign=buffer


1) Would it not make sense for Christians to lay aside anti-gay rhetoric, including quoting of Biblical verses that are claimed to condemn homosexuality, if for no other reason than it is counter-productive to evangelism?

2) Does not Jesus' own ministry, and the actions of the Apostles as described in Acts 15 give ample precedent for laying aside Biblical verses that seem to allude to homosexuality?


I will note that Christianity has by and large already set aside many precepts now seen to be archaic, including the idea that women should never speak in church, and that we should simply accept any and all governments as instituted by God and worthy of our obedience. The Declaration of Independence, in particular, repudiates this notion, outlined by Paul in his letters.

I will note that Jesus is quoted in the gospels as explicitly laying aside aspects of the law, and that he was criticized by many of his fellow believers, especially those who were arguably most religious, for doing so.

I will point out that the faith of those conservative believers rather quickly became a small minority as compared to Christianity.


It really comes down to this:

3) Is non-acceptance of homosexuality so central to Christianity that Christians should cling to traditional notions against homosexuality, or can we lay those aside as tangential to the central message of the gospel?

[Danmark]

As long as we live by opposing standards we cannot but be at odds on the subject of homosexuality. But when it comes to the word of God, one may be all for it or all against it. My speech is based on the word of God ....

What you call the 'word of God' is actually just the word of man. One example among many is polygamy which is discussed more specifically on this thread:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 783#694783

In essence, polygamy is a practice which the Bible does not condemn, yet most Christians treat it as if it were a sin. Laws prohibiting polygamy are another example of how human customs and culture get transformed into religiously sanctioned morality. None of this has anything to do with some god. It is purely the result of humans creating religions to reinforce human made laws or morals, or to justify what they wanted to do. The history of Mormonism in America is a perfect example. First the LDS church said God decreed polygamy was proper and good; perhaps a Mormon's duty under some circumstances. Later when the church wanted to get Statehood for Utah, "God" revealed to the LDS leaders that polygamy was wrong.

[Clownboat]

For you, Clownboat.
Here are my answers to the questions you ask:

Question #1

Do you, or do you not feel that homosexuals should be able to marry the person they love like you and I can currently (assuming you are not homosexual)?

You and I both know of course, that a person should be free to marry the person that he dearly loves. That's an example of an unalienable right.

But how may we apply this logic to people of the same sex? There is no such thing as a truly homosexual person.

Thank you for admitting your discrimination.
Discriminate:
to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality:

The Bible says that you will know them by their fruit. You are discriminating against our fellow humans. I find that personally disgusting and that reflects on your "fruits". At least you feel justified in your discrimination because of a god concept.
It is sad to me that you are OK with this and continue to justify your discrimination.

Marriage is a family orientated institution.

Please show that these words are true. I personally have straight friends that have never had children and don't ever plan to. Who are you to tell them that they are doing it wrong. Please show your work.
One couple I am friends with, the wife got cancer and had to have a hysterectomy. They wanted kids, but now cannot. Would you really like to claim that they are not married? How can they have children after all, she is missing the needed parts. Please show that you are consistent or that you are not consistent.

Why officially encourage anyone engaged in any practice apart from the protocol of humanity that simply wont work for him or the rest of us? Why support any effort to plug appliances into each other expecting them to empower each other without an outlet or expecting outlets to empower appliances by plugging them into each other (if somehow possible)?

What is it with Christians that cannot see past the sex? There are countless things I love about my wife, sex is one on the long list. Yet here you are talking about appliances that don't plug in while acting like you are oblivious to the other aspects that a relationship offers.

It's like you are saying this: "I don't approve of how you have sex, therefore, you should not be allowed to marry, should not be allowed to adopt children and not be allowed to...." Meanwhile, I'm going to make comments about how you are doing sex wrong. You get the point I trust.

One may ask, What if those of the same sex passionately love each other?" I would then ask what kind of love is he speaking of between them?

This insinuation is disgusting IMO. Please show that you speak the truth that homosexuals don't have the same type of love as heterosexuals.

The topic of love is very broad and Love in a marriage is much more than mere sensual love.

Please examine your words here. It's almost like you are admitting that there is more to a relationship than just sex. Perhaps things like being able to come home from work to the one you love. Having someone you can trust and tell anything too. Someone who cares for you that will comfort you in a time of need. Someone to make important life decisions with, and on and on...

Yet you would restrict such things because of how a couple has sex. What's worse is you are justifying this bigoted discrimination of our fellow humans off of a book written by ancient desert nomads that didn't have written language. It's not my fault you are OK with this, nor can I help but feel pity for the place you are in due to once being in that vary same place myself. Perhaps you will one day be set free which hopefully will allow you to love your fellow humans like I do. All of them. Atheists, homosexuals, Muslims..... all included.

But I will not go into detail about it here. Even heterosexual couples may carry out "love" affairs that really isn't love. A couple that spends a night for illicit sex of adultery is not engaged in an act of true love. Otherwise they would not have engaged in the wrongful act.

Who do you think you are? Why on earth should we allow you to dictate what is real "love" or why something that happens between consenting adults is "wrong"? Seriously? Do you feel like you are a special messenger of some god concept sent here with a special message or something?

- Should they qualify for tax breaks that you and I and our significant others would qualify for?

Homosexuals do useful work like heterosexuals and should thus be legally treated as two guys or two ladies.

But for what reason should they be given tax advantages that pertain to a function only possible with heterosexuals like marriage?

You are being a bigot unless you will go on record saying that straight couples that can't or choose not to have children should also not be given tax brakes. Will you do that, or will you demonstrate what I claim?

IMO, I have shown that you discriminate and that you are a bigot towards homosexuals. Feeling like you have a god on your side might work for you, but IMO, you should work on not discriminating or being a bigot. If there is a loving god out there, I would imagine he would disprove of such behavior.

Mouse traps do not work when one part is missing. Neither does marriage with one sex missing.

How insulting! Please show that this claim is true.
Just a bit higher you mentioned things about relationships that don't involve sex, but now mysteriously are back to condemning your fellow humans because of how they have sex (I assume that is what you meant with your "mouse trap missing a piece".

Heterosexuals do not marry only to be pronounced as married, but to be licensed to carry out the same mandate given to the first man and woman that's only meant for people of unlike sexes.

Therefore, homosexuals cannot marry and be with the ones they love because of what this book says? Yup, this book right here with talking donkeys, snakes, worldwide floods that cannot be evidenced, genocide and sexual slavery.
You might as well point to the Qu'ran and attempt to argue that women should have their bodies covered in public.

I speak only what I know to be universally true. Trusting me is up to you.

It would be foolish IMO to trust a discriminating bigot (I mean this descriptively) that cannot show that their claims are true. Don't you agree?

In the moral sense, what do you think is so terrible for a person to buy a $400K high performance sports car only to use it in a demolition derby besides the wasted money even if he had great pleasure doing so?

There is nothing immoral about such a thing. The truth is, a maker of a car would be happy about such a thing IMO. It might mean another 400k purchase is on the way.

So would the Builder of our fearfully and wonderfully made bodies be insulted when the body and its members that was received free are used in a way that they weren't made for.

Here it is again. "You're having sex wrong! Therefore you should not be allowed marry the person that you love and come home to them after work, share hobbies with, make life decisions with and all the other stuff that people in relationships can do.

Before I can restrict things that I hold dear for myself to my fellow humans, you will need to supply a better reason than that they are having sex wrong. Did you not know that many straight people have oral and anal sex? How far in the sand is your head?

Would the silly move have hurt anyone? Although not physically, there is always the danger that some may be influenced to carry out similarly stupid acts. Don't we remember the person that crashed a light plane into a bank building some time after the 911 incident?

Speaking of stupid acts. I personally find it stupid that people will kill themselves over unproven god concepts, but I also find it stupid that people are willing to discriminate, act bigoted and say things that hurt their fellow humans over god concepts as well.

Do you think we should protect people that discriminate and act bigoted towards their fellow humans? What if they claim support from some un-evidenced god concept? What if the flying spaghetti monster revealed himself to me and said that it is wrong for churches to be tax exempt. Should I be able to make an argument against the tax free status because of some imagined god concept claim. I would hope you would say "no". I would hope you would then take some time to reflect.

- Should they be able to visit their loved ones on their death beds like you and I currently could (assuming your married)?

I have no problem with a homosexual partner visiting the other's deathbed.

This requires them to be married. Have you changed your stance?

Could you walk into a gay bar for example, and look at a person of the same sex and choose to get aroused?

No. I will not become aroused.

Then for you, like me, it is not a choice. If being homosexual was a choice, you and I could choose to be aroused. Does this not mean that you are willfully discriminating and being a bigot towards a certain portion of the human population over something they don't have a choice in being?
Did you choose what color of skin you have?
Have you heard about the "Curse of Ham":
The story's original objective was to justify the subjection of the Canaanites to the Israelites, but in later centuries, the narrative was interpreted by some Muslims, Jews and Christians as a curse of, and an explanation for, black skin, as well as slavery.

IMO, your discrimination against homosexuals is no different than those that would discriminate against people with black skin because they believe some biblical Curse of Ham claim.

This is bigoted and no amount of inventing a god concept to justify what I consider horrendous treatment of others makes it OK

There's a vast difference between knowing and acknowledging the real Creator spoken of in the DOI that gave us our unalienable rights and in inventing some meaningless "god concept."

This is where I believe you are wrong. You believe that some invented god concept is actually something that can be known (sure it can be acknowledge. I acknowledge the idea of what a unicorn is after all). What you cannot do is show that these words you just spewed are true. I deny that you have some special knowledge that escapes the rest of us unless and until you can show that such a thing is true. DOI? = digital object identifier???

How did the nation of Israel originate? Is it real? Don't you believe that the DOI is based on truth that man was created? If yes, has the Creator not any right to set standards?

Please show that man was created. I have enough of an understanding about evolution to reject such a claim. Again, perhaps if I believed you were some special messenger sent by a god to deliver a message, then that would be different. I don't believe you are though. No offence intended.

As I said to Help3434, If you are not satisfied with proof for all of my statements, I as a witness can only assure you that I share only what is universally proven.

Perhaps you don't know what proof is? Can you please, please, pretty please allude to the proofs you have offered?

A major concern of "bigoted" Christians like me is the slippery slope syndrome. If homosexual marriage is made fully normal and legalized, would its promoters be fully satisfied? Or would there anything next in line to be pushed on society? Will it be the acceptance of ones marriage to "dearly beloved" Doggy with marital benefits? What about marriage of more than two? And on and on.

IMO, you should feel ashamed for what you have just done. Comparing homosexuality with bestiality.

Do you not realize that sex between consenting adults is not the same thing as f'ing a dog! Shame on you. The worst part about all this is looking at it from the outside and realizing that you feel justified in your IMO atrocities (the comparison you just made, the discrimination and the bigotry) because of some god concept you have decided to believe is real.

God or no god, believe or don't believe. I care not, but why must some people discriminate, act bigoted and cause harm to their fellow humans because of their beliefs.

Worst part, you have the Lutherans for example that use the Bible and claim that homosexuality is fine. Then we have people like you who use the same book to discriminate and compare homosexual relationships to having sex with animals. Both groups are equally justified too, but why would un-evidenced god claims be enough for someone to discriminate?

Who's right, you or the Lutherans (and others)? At least the Lutherans are not causing harm to their fellow humans.
If only they had the correct understanding of god though. Right?

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to post 211 by Clownboat]



Hello Danmark, McCollugh, and Clownboat,


For you, Danmark:

This answer is to post# 204

Erexsaur wrote:


May I please make it clear that we Christians do not discriminate against homosexuals?

Have you considered the many ex-homosexuals that are happy they overcame the sin? Should we have robbed them of the relief by failing to inform them?

Danmark wrote:

I disagree with these two claims, Earl.

The first is demonstrably wrong, tho' it is true some Christians do not discriminate. Many who claim to be "Christian" call them "perverts" and deny them employment or discriminate against them regarding access to health care along with more violent forms of discrimination. Simply calling them "sinful" for engaging in long term, committed, responsible relationships, sanctioned by various governments via civil marriage, is discrimination + insult.

Every single one of us whether homosexual or not are guilty of wrong of which we need to be warned. Wrong is wrong regardless what form it takes. No one escapes the responsibility to repent from wrong--NO one! May I ask what figure of sovereignty gave the idea that homosexuals are exempt because they are homosexuals? What authority is able to tell us that what the Bible says is wrong is not wrong? Even though we must never judge, it IS our responsibility to inform of wrong. We both agree that you don't respect people by keeping them ignorant.

Danmark wrote:

Your second claim is unsupported. What can be demonstrated are the many "Christian" efforts to chide and abuse and shame gays to change a part of their nature that is as immutable as race. There is ample evidence to suggest gender attraction exists on a continuum.


According to a 2005 statement by the American Psychological Association:

Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectionate attraction toward others. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female), and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior). Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality.

Certainly, if an individual is somewhere around the center of this continuum, choice is more of an option. But it is cruelty based on ignorance to attempt to force or influence someone on either end to change his or her nature. Many "Christian" groups have tried, only to later give up and apologize for the effort.

Here are three of several groups that oppose the APA and its claim:

Family Research Council
http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf

The National Campaign to Protect Marriage

Focus on the Family (Please read all 4 parts of the link)
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/sociali ... ing-points

One must first realize and admit that his wrongful behavior is wrong before he can be helped and thus delivered.

Exodus shut down but there are still others that are continuing the work.


My answers to Post 206:

Erexsaur wrote:

A major concern of "bigoted" Christians like me is the slippery slope syndrome. If homosexual marriage is made fully normal and legalized, would its promoters be fully satisfied? Or would there anything next in line to be pushed on society? Will it be the acceptance of ones marriage to "dearly beloved" Doggy with marital benefits? What about marriage of more than two? And on and on.

Danmark wrote:

Not that I agree with any of your arguments, the 'slippery slope' argument is particularly spurious, not to mention insulting. First, "homosexual" marriage IS legal. Second, it is absurd and insulting to compare it to "marriage" between people and non humans.

So was slavery and segregation legal. Did that make it good? Dr. King reminded us that law that's not Bible based is no law at all.

Danmark wrote:

It makes as much sense [but is not insulting] to suggest that if Christians are free to worship nonexistent, fictional characters like God, the next thing to fear is that all of us would be required to worship fictional characters, or dogs for that matter. To suggest that THAT "slippery slope" is an argument to prevent religious freedom fits the "logic" you used for your "slippery slope" argument.

God of the Bible forbids worshiping fictional gods. Is Israel fictional? Aren't you familiar with prophecy concerning Israel that came to past? Where have you been? Please don't forget- DUH- run from the abundant evidence of the reality of God.

- - -

Answer to your post #209:

Erexsaur wrote:

After a person reads a Geology or Shakespearean book (for example) to the last page and has learned its contents, he is finished with it. But the Bible contains far more than pages of text. Unless enlightened by the spirit, (please excuse the "calculus") the reader is like a black and white TV receiver that's unequipped to process the color information. The spirit reveals the "color" information that the natural mind misses and also mirrors the reader. He that's testified of in the scriptures wants to converse with you personally.

I assure you as a witness that the things I speak is only what's universally proven. Your best proof is when God proves Himself. Quitters never win. Please trust me.

Danmark wrote:
Let's analyze just this passage for now.
1st you say the Bible is longer than book on Geology or a play by Shakespeare. This is true and makes one point only: it is longer. Shakespeare's total output of words is greater than the number of words in the Bible. This also only proves one thing. In other words, your point is pointless. What you call your "calculus" calculates nothing meaningful.

2d You make the claim that has been made here previously by dozens of others. It has never been proved; that some have a special gift for reading and understanding the Bible, because they have "the spirit." Prove it. You claim to be a technical writer. Where are your facts? What evidence do you have? This claim of 'spirit help is just a false blanket statement, an effort to unjustifiably claim one's own interpretation is superior because one claims to have this "spirit." Prove it. Demonstrate it.

I was not speaking about length when I said that the Bible contains more.

If you have a conscience, you are a spiritual being connected to God by your conscience. Do you need to be specially gifted to read a magazine? Have you found it hard to read the Decalogue or the Golden Rule? Was interpretation of these passages hard? God has great good that awaits those that continually trust and seek Him. But please don't tell me you need to be spoon-fed proof unless I not believe you.

Danmark wrote:
This is a debate forum, not a pulpit. We want facts, not faith. On this forum it is expected, nay demanded, that you support your claims. You haven't given a speck of support for yours.

What's wrong with the facts that I shared with you? Do they sound too much like what comes across a pulpit? The main character spoken of on a pulpit is the Creator that gave us unalienable rights. Why then shouldn't we include words of the main Character in our discussion of homosexuality? In addition, what comes across the pulpit (from the Bible) is the basis of my thinking well of you. Should we otherwise debate and debate and debate ad infinitum apart from the Biblical standard that clarifies issues? Or should we be like kids that discuss critical issues apart from their parents?

Danmark wrote:
Then you talk about "quitters." Who is a quitter? Why is quitting bad? If one is engaged in a dangerous or dysfunctional task, it is good to quit. If one has a false belief, it is good to quit trying to support the false belief. Quit exploring the dead end and try to find truth so you can get out of the cave and back into the light.

OK. Only make sure you properly distinguish what and what not to quit.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


For you, McCollugh

This is an answer to your post# 208


You said,

God does not converse with me personally, even though I prayed and studied the Bible full time for two years. Couldn't the same things be said about the Urantia Book, the Book of Mormon, the Guru Granth Sahib or the Quran?

You have conversed with God when you prayed. Didn't you give thanks, ask for protection, or confess wrong? Weren't you relieved afterwards? God speaks through your conscience thats connected to Him.

Other "good books" may have some good things to say. But the Bible is unique among all and nothing comes close to it! Have you ever read Proverbs? No other religious faith has a claim to a savior like Jesus Christ that died the death we deserve and rose again. No other religion claims, "it is done" instead of requiring you to "do this-do that." We must beware of taking it lightly only because we were told so many times.


You quoted my statement,

There is no such thing as a truly homosexual person.

And then replied,

And you know this because ? Is this an opinion based on your religion? Should it not be an inalienable right for others to make up their own minds on this issue?

Of course "others" (all) have their right to make up their mind on this issue! But don't you think it good for someone to point out the danger of a possible wrong decision?

As for your phrase, "And you know this because," I "know this" through observation: The hardware (male or female body) has no provisions to carry out the homosexual characteristics found only in the virus infected software. Can software cause a scanner to perform as a printer? Neither can the mind cause one sex to perform like the opposite. If someone programs a computer to be a wife, the only way it can carry out its intended function is by it printing on the screen, "I am a wife." But that would be a lie. What would one think of a user that would be satisfied to the point that he thinks he doesn't need a real wife?

Who in his right mind would create software to cause hardware to depart from its intended function to carry out a function unintended and thus impossible for its makeup?

McCullough wrote:
From this I must conclude that you are speaking of the sex act. If you were speaking of procreation, then to be consistent you would exclude from the benefits of marriage infertile couples. And there is nothing else that heterosexual couples must do differently than homosexual couples. So, to me it boils down to this: you would exclude a loving couple from the legal and social benefits of marriage because you cannot figure out how they manage to enjoy sex with each other. Therefore, I really don't trust you.

But couples do not willfully choose to be infertile. When one talks about sex, the characteristic act is presupposed even if the ability is lost.

Erexsaur wrote:

So would the Builder of our fearfully and wonderfully made bodies be insulted when the body and its members that was received free are used in a way that they weren't made for.

McCollough wrote:
Your religious faith denies that God could have made gays the way they are, therefore you must deny their very existence. You must demean and belittle the loving relationships that they have. I don't really like your religion.

My religious faith is based on the absolute authority of God's word called the Bible. But this authority must be ignored in order for one to support unbiblical behavior as normal. To say that God would make a person go against His command in Genesis 3 is to distort God's character.

Erexsaur wrote:

Quote:
Could you walk into a gay bar for example, and look at a person of the same sex and choose to get aroused?
No. I will not become aroused.

McCollough wrote:
And the point of this inquiry seems to be lost on you. You claim that homosexuality is a choice, albeit a sinful one. But you cannot even imagine yourself being capable of making that choice. Why not? You know that you are capable of deceit, gluttony, greed, adultery, theft and/or idolatry, why not homosexuality? Perhaps it is not a choice after all. Maybe that is the way God made them. When parental expectations and social norms all point towards heterosexuality, why would any sane person decide to be gay?

Although never having made the choice to be homosexual, I made other bad choices because of the fallen nature. We were all born with the sinful nature curable only by the power of the cross that's the central message of the Bible.

Erexsaur wrote:

I as a witness can only assure you that I share only what is universally proven.

McCollough wrote:
No, you do not. There are many who disagree with your conclusions and you ideas cannot be supported with objective evidence.

What do you call objective evidence? Is the rightness of ones statement measured by the number that disagree?

Erexsaur wrote:

A major concern of "bigoted" Christians like me is the slippery slope syndrome. If homosexual marriage is made fully normal and legalized, would its promoters be fully satisfied? Or would there anything next in line to be pushed on society? Will it be the acceptance of ones marriage to "dearly beloved" Doggy with marital benefits? What about marriage of more than two? And on and on.

McCollough wrote:
I find it odd when Christians use the slippery slope argument against homosexual marriage using polygamy. It seems that homosexuality is explicitly condemned by the writers of the Bible, but polygamy not so much. There is no condemnation of taking a second wife anywhere in the pages of the Bible. In fact, there are numerous examples of polygamous patriarchs. None of the are condemned of criticized for that.

So your argument sounds like this to me. If we allow for something that is an abomination to be recognized and approved, it might just lead to people demanding to do something that was quite ok for the fathers of our faith. Oh No!

But that does not mean that God approved the acts. Those that carried them out suffered consequences. The Bible is honest also to show misdeeds of heroes that brought undesirable consequences.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

To Clownboat.

This post answers your post# 211.



I thank you and the rest of you guys for promoting me to the Top Bigot position and I'm very happy that yall see me as the biggest BIGOT in the who-o-o-o-ole world! I really, really, really appreciate that! Thank you!


Only remember that for one to say that a person is a bigot when he uses scripture to warn against homosexuality, he MUST doubt the authority of scriptures. This eventually leads to believing the whole Bible wrong.

In reference to my statement, "Marriage is a family orientated institution," you said,

Please show that these words are true.

Have you read Genesis 1:26-28, 2:23-24 and Genesis 3:20?


During your attempt to answer my statement, "Why officially encourage anyone engaged in any practice apart from the protocol of humanity that simply wont work for him or the rest of us? " you included the following statement,

What is it with Christians that cannot see past the sex?

May I ask if anyone should ever proceed further beyond a faulty foundation?

The fact that a couple may be unable to reproduce by medical reasons or by choice serves no reason for anyone to choose a mate that's rendered totally useless for reproduction because he or she is of the wrong sex. That's the equivalent to using the wrong tool. Would Boss-Man appreciate the use of a screw driver to tighten a hex nut?

I have visited several sights that left me with the idea that any effort to exit the gay lifestyle is futile, totally ineffective, and abusive. Is it really? Here is a quote I found on one: "Like many LGBTs, I spent years going through reparative therapy and other "ex-gay" programs before accepting myself as a gay man, out and proud." Such claims make it appear as if very strange that I watched ex-homosexuals joyfully testifying on Christian TV broadcasts.

Even though impossibility claims may abound, the cross-centered Biblical gospel contains the fuller's soap that's able to totally clean up any and everything found impossible for man with his best effort. Do you remember the woman with the issue of blood (Mark 5:5-34)? I'm able to say this because if it wasn't for the gospel, I would not have been able to overcome my own otherwise impossible faults-and I mean impossible!

The cross of Christ is man's ONLY hope (1 Corinthians 2:2).

If Boss-Man made it available for us all, for what reason is there not to use it? Is anyone better than the Boss (God)? But if you think God is fictitious, go to your job and tell your boss that he is the same.


Now that you guys have made me Top "Bigot," only remember that I will guard this position very jealously! I want no one on this forum to be a bigot but ME! Any kind of talk that resembles bigotry will be dealt with by my jumping on the talker with both feet wishing that I had four! Be careful! I AM the ONLY "bigot."

Take care,
Earl

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 211 by Clownboat]



Hello Danmark, McCollugh, and Clownboat,


For you, Danmark:

This answer is to post# 204

Erexsaur wrote:


May I please make it clear that we Christians do not discriminate against homosexuals?

Have you considered the many ex-homosexuals that are happy they overcame the sin? Should we have robbed them of the relief by failing to inform them?

Danmark wrote:

I disagree with these two claims, Earl.

The first is demonstrably wrong, tho' it is true some Christians do not discriminate. Many who claim to be "Christian" call them "perverts" and deny them employment or discriminate against them regarding access to health care along with more violent forms of discrimination. Simply calling them "sinful" for engaging in long term, committed, responsible relationships, sanctioned by various governments via civil marriage, is discrimination + insult.

Every single one of us whether homosexual or not are guilty of wrong of which we need to be warned. Wrong is wrong regardless what form it takes. No one escapes the responsibility to repent from wrong--NO one! May I ask what figure of sovereignty gave the idea that homosexuals are exempt because they are homosexuals? What authority is able to tell us that what the Bible says is wrong is not wrong? Even though we must never judge, it IS our responsibility to inform of wrong. We both agree that you don't respect people by keeping them ignorant.

Danmark wrote:

Your second claim is unsupported. What can be demonstrated are the many "Christian" efforts to chide and abuse and shame gays to change a part of their nature that is as immutable as race. There is ample evidence to suggest gender attraction exists on a continuum.


According to a 2005 statement by the American Psychological Association:

Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectionate attraction toward others. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female), and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior). Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality.

Certainly, if an individual is somewhere around the center of this continuum, choice is more of an option. But it is cruelty based on ignorance to attempt to force or influence someone on either end to change his or her nature. Many "Christian" groups have tried, only to later give up and apologize for the effort.

Here are three of several groups that oppose the APA and its claim:

Family Research Council
http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf

The National Campaign to Protect Marriage

Focus on the Family (Please read all 4 parts of the link)
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/sociali ... ing-points

This "wrong" is only wrong in the eyes of a certain, very conservative Christian faction. That does not make it wrong. These 'Christian' groups oppose science whenever the facts contradict their theories, from the age of the Earth, to evolution, to accurately understanding homo sapiens.

Finally, it is not for YOU to judge who is right and who is wrong, according to Jesus of Nazareth. This is simply none of your business and violates scripture.

Furthermore, you have not answered any of the questions I've put to you. Instead you've simply stated "wrong is wrong." This does not an argument make.

The Family Research Council has been designated a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center, along with dozens of other "Christian" organizations, including the Westboro Baptist Church
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_or ... #Anti-LGBT

Be careful of the company you keep.

[help3434]

But that does not mean that God approved the acts. Those that carried them out suffered consequences. The Bible is honest also to show misdeeds of heroes that brought undesirable consequences.

But you are not being honest about how polygamy is characterized in the Bible. The Old Testament contains the law of Moses, which contains many verses concerning sexual relations and marriage , but does not prohibit a man from taking more than one wife. In fact in several places the Old Testament talks about God giving men more than one wife. Read 2 Samuel 12:8
also
Numbers 12:1-15
Here Miriam is punished for criticizing Moses for marrying another wife.

[McCulloch]

God does not converse with me personally, even though I prayed and studied the Bible full time for two years. Couldn't the same things be said about the Urantia Book, the Book of Mormon, the Guru Granth Sahib or the Quran?

You have conversed with God when you prayed. Didn't you give thanks, ask for protection, or confess wrong? Weren't you relieved afterwards? God speaks through your conscience thats connected to Him.

I no longer believe that I conversed with God when praying. I spoke, yes, but there is absolutely no way to distinguish between God responding through feelings and conscience and imagining that God responded these ways.

Other "good books" may have some good things to say. But the Bible is unique among all and nothing comes close to it!

I have heard this claim by Christians and similar claims by Muslims about their book. Having read the Bible, I no longer believe that claim.

Have you ever read Proverbs?

Yes, I have read Proverbs. Have you read Poor Richard's Almanac?

You quoted my statement,

There is no such thing as a truly homosexual person.

And then replied,

And you know this because ? Is this an opinion based on your religion? Should it not be an inalienable right for others to make up their own minds on this issue?

Of course "others" (all) have their right to make up their mind on this issue! But don't you think it good for someone to point out the danger of a possible wrong decision?

Surely we all have the right to point out the dangers of the decisions that people might make. And we all have the right to point out that those dangers are largely just imagined.

As for your phrase, "And you know this because," I "know this" through observation: The hardware (male or female body) has no provisions to carry out the homosexual characteristics found only in the virus infected software. Can software cause a scanner to perform as a printer? Neither can the mind cause one sex to perform like the opposite. If someone programs a computer to be a wife, the only way it can carry out its intended function is by it printing on the screen, "I am a wife." But that would be a lie. What would one think of a user that would be satisfied to the point that he thinks he doesn't need a real wife?

Who in his right mind would create software to cause hardware to depart from its intended function to carry out a function unintended and thus impossible for its makeup?

I have to admit that I am completely bewildered by this explanation. I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make.

Are you saying that human sexuality has been clearly and deliberately intended to be the one way that you experience it and that any deviation from that standard must therefore be wrong?

From this I must conclude that you are speaking of the sex act. If you were speaking of procreation, then to be consistent you would exclude from the benefits of marriage infertile couples. And there is nothing else that heterosexual couples must do differently than homosexual couples. So, to me it boils down to this: you would exclude a loving couple from the legal and social benefits of marriage because you cannot figure out how they manage to enjoy sex with each other. Therefore, I really don't trust you.

But couples do not willfully choose to be infertile. When one talks about sex, the characteristic act is presupposed even if the ability is lost.

I don't know what century you live in, but in my century, I know of several couples who are willfully infertile.

So would the Builder of our fearfully and wonderfully made bodies be insulted when the body and its members that was received free are used in a way that they weren't made for.

Your religious faith denies that God could have made gays the way they are, therefore you must deny their very existence. You must demean and belittle the loving relationships that they have. I don't really like your religion.

My religious faith is based on the absolute authority of God's word called the Bible. But this authority must be ignored in order for one to support unbiblical behavior as normal. To say that God would make a person go against His command in Genesis 3 is to distort God's character.

As I said, I don't like your religion. If, as you claim, your religion is based on the Bible, then I don't like the Bible. I have found no evidence whatsoever that your Bible is in any way from God.

Quote:
Could you walk into a gay bar for example, and look at a person of the same sex and choose to get aroused?
No. I will not become aroused.

And the point of this inquiry seems to be lost on you. You claim that homosexuality is a choice, albeit a sinful one. But you cannot even imagine yourself being capable of making that choice. Why not? You know that you are capable of deceit, gluttony, greed, adultery, theft and/or idolatry, why not homosexuality? Perhaps it is not a choice after all. Maybe that is the way God made them. When parental expectations and social norms all point towards heterosexuality, why would any sane person decide to be gay?

Although never having made the choice to be homosexual, I made other bad choices because of the fallen nature. We were all born with the sinful nature curable only by the power of the cross that's the central message of the Bible.

So, you could go into a gay bar and choose to become aroused?

I as a witness can only assure you that I share only what is universally proven.

No, you do not. There are many who disagree with your conclusions and you ideas cannot be supported with objective evidence.

What do you call objective evidence?

Objective evidence is evidence that leads any reasonable person to the same conclusion, regardless of their opinion on the matter.

Is the rightness of ones statement measured by the number that disagree?

No, the rightness of one's statement is not measured by the number of people who disagree. However, the claim that one's views are universally proven is shown to be a false claim if there are many reasonable people who disagree. What is it that you mean by universally proven?

A major concern of "bigoted" Christians like me is the slippery slope syndrome. If homosexual marriage is made fully normal and legalized, would its promoters be fully satisfied? Or would there anything next in line to be pushed on society? Will it be the acceptance of ones marriage to "dearly beloved" Doggy with marital benefits? What about marriage of more than two? And on and on.

I find it odd when Christians use the slippery slope argument against homosexual marriage using polygamy. It seems that homosexuality is explicitly condemned by the writers of the Bible, but polygamy not so much. There is no condemnation of taking a second wife anywhere in the pages of the Bible. In fact, there are numerous examples of polygamous patriarchs. None of the are condemned of criticized for that.

So your argument sounds like this to me. If we allow for something that is an abomination to be recognized and approved, it might just lead to people demanding to do something that was quite ok for the fathers of our faith. Oh No!

But that does not mean that God approved the acts. Those that carried them out suffered consequences. The Bible is honest also to show misdeeds of heroes that brought undesirable consequences.

So, how do you know that bigamy is against God's will? The slippery slope argument says that if we accept gay marriage, something that some of the writers of the Bible seem to clearly condemn, it might lead to bigamy, something that no biblical writer has any condemnation for whatsoever. There are numerous instances of bigamous characters in the Bible, and yet there is not one clear prohibition in the Bible against it, with the single possible exception in the New Testament that church leaders (only elders and deacons) must be husband to one wife.
Personally, I really do not know what God approves of or does not. But, if you claim that the Bible is God's communication of his will to humanity, then you have no basis to claim that the societal acceptance of bigamy is a sin greater than the societal acceptance of gay marriage.

Only remember that for one to say that a person is a bigot when he uses scripture to warn against homosexuality, he MUST doubt the authority of scriptures. This eventually leads to believing the whole Bible wrong.

Not quite. There are a few things that the writers of the Bible did get right. If they got everything wrong, it would have been forgotten long ago. But, there is much that is wrong about the Bible.

[Danmark]

[Replying to Erexsaur]

As for your phrase, "And you know this because," I "know this" through observation: The hardware (male or female body) has no provisions to carry out the homosexual characteristics found only in the virus infected software. Can software cause a scanner to perform as a printer? Neither can the mind cause one sex to perform like the opposite. If someone programs a computer to be a wife, the only way it can carry out its intended function is by it printing on the screen, "I am a wife." But that would be a lie. What would one think of a user that would be satisfied to the point that he thinks he doesn't need a real wife?

Who in his right mind would create software to cause hardware to depart from its intended function to carry out a function unintended and thus impossible for its makeup?

This is an excellent example of the false conclusions one can arrive at when he starts with false assumptions. In this case the false assumption is "intelligent design," when the reality is the natural force of evolution. Those who understand and believe in what we actually observe in nature are not surprised by the variation we find in it. Filled with wonder of course, but not shocked when each individual of a species does not perfectly fit the expectation of one who sees people formed from some specific design as if they were formed by a cosmic cookie cutter.

When one believes in the literal truth of the Bible, including creationism, one works under a terrific handicap when analyzing the reality of the world. Gender is a great example of nature's diversity. Forcing everything to fit into religiously derived categories is blinding.
For some help in seeing the reality of gender one could read:
http://web.uvic.ca/~ahdevor/HowMany/HowMany.html

There's also a good article here with a very helpful Venn diagram:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androphilia_and_gynephilia

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 212 by Erexsaur]

God of the Bible forbids worshiping fictional gods. Is Israel fictional? Aren't you familiar with prophecy concerning Israel that came to past? Where have you been? Please don't forget- DUH- run from the abundant evidence of the reality of God.

One of those fictional gods is the one you chose to believe in. The certainty each has in the truth of his particular religious choice makes me think of the fun two good friends often close with when they are discussing issues. "I think you and I are the only ones who truly understand this, . . . tho' . . . sometimes I'm not sure about you."

Although never having made the choice to be homosexual, I made other bad choices because of the fallen nature. We were all born with the sinful nature curable only by the power of the cross that's the central message of the Bible.

And when did you choose to be heterosexual?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 212 by Erexsaur]

If you have a conscience, you are a spiritual being connected to God by your conscience. Do you need to be specially gifted to read a magazine? Have you found it hard to read the Decalogue or the Golden Rule? Was interpretation of these passages hard? God has great good that awaits those that continually trust and seek Him. But please don't tell me you need to be spoon-fed proof unless I not believe you.

I disagree with your analysis about 'conscience' and 'spiritual being.' There is no need to leap to a magical, non empirical rationale or explanation for conscience, consciousness or mind. All of these concepts can be explained by the emergence of consciousness in brain tissue, tho' admittedly there is still much mystery there [thankfully] about the process.

In any event, tho' there seems to a component in humans re: some of our morality being hard wired via evolution and genetics, conscience is explained n a fairly straightforward way by the educational process, or what sociologists call socialization.

We can even see this in animals. My guess is that every dog lover has several stories about his dog acting as if he is ashamed. This can be triggered by a tone of voice or even a look. Tho' there is always a tendency to anthropomorphize our favorite pets' behavior, they certainly act as if they were ashamed. Our favorite family pet, a half collie half German Shepherd would sometimes get ahold of some steak bones. His consumption of these produced a gas that could have ended WWI quickly.

Generally he'd be asleep under the bed in the TV room when someone would respond, "O! Simon!" He'd shake himself from slumber, crawl out from the bed and slowly walk outside.

Mark Twain said 'Man is the only animal that blushes, or needs to,' but I swear that dog gave every indication of blushing except color.

[Beans]

I offer this thread as a Christian who supports gay rights as an admittedly forward challenge to my brothers and sisters in Christ.

In Acts Ch. 14 and 15, Luke describes James and the other Apostles discussions which led them to exempt Gentiles from well over 99% of the Law of Moses. The main reason they did so was to avoid putting an excessive burden on Gentiles. Implicit in their decision was the issue that expecting everyone to follow these traditional rules, rules that many saw as outdated, would be a drag on the new movement.

I included only that much of the comment because it is a misinformed platform. That is not at all what was meant there in Acts concerning adding no further burden to the Gentiles for the evidence in the New Testament is that none of Jesus' Apostles observed that old law, Paul even scolding Peter at one point for forgetting that for a moment under the pressure of association with Jews who were having difficulty understanding that the old law was no longer their regulating force. they were not going to rush into Jerusalem's synagogs and force their fellow Jews to cease observing the law, but it is no sin to attend with those who do observe the law so that communication can be held with them and thus they can be gently educated to the change. So the proof relying on the disciples gathering to certain festivals and meetings is no proof.

And if you push an argument up from an imperfect base you get imperfect conclusions.