Will gays EVER be accepted by mainstream Christianity?

[KCKID]

The Mainstream Christian Church (i.e. the 'Christian Church' in general) appears to have an unshakable belief that gay people cannot possibly be Christians. Therefore gay people will always be regarded as 'lepers' because the mainstream Church believes that homosexuality is against the will of God and the actual practicing of such is a 'grave sin'. This is in spite of the fact that nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality referred to as a grave sin. This more comes from the minds of people who have received a life time of brainwashing into believing this. Where homosexual activity IS mentioned in scripture it almost always - in fact, PROBABLY always - refers to the practice of idolatry and not as WE today refer to homosexuality. There are those Christians who are so appalled at the notion that gay people might desire to integrate with 'actual Christians' within their Church community that they suggest gays start their own denomination ...minus the 'Christian' prefix, of course, which would be sacrilege. Such folks want nothing to do with homosexual people and their minds appear to be set on this.

Below is a recent item from The Guardian that tells of the plight of gay Christians in Uganda. In our particular neck of the woods (probably the majority of those of us who participate on the forum) gays have no fear of state imposed death or life imprisonment as do those in places such as Uganda. Gays do, however, have a stigma placed on them by most Christians that results in rejection by the mainstream Church and, indeed, by God himself. And, of course, the rejection of God is tantamount to death or, worse still, eternal torment. The latter makes the penalty imposed on gays in Uganda pale by comparison.

Will mainstream Christianity ever be accepting of people whose only 'sin' is that they happen to be gay ...i.e. an involuntary sexual attraction between two people of the same gender? If not, why not? Please, give your HONEST reasons.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/f ... ry-kampala

Sunday is a special day in Uganda, the conservative east African country that is threatening to put gay people behind bars for life. On Sunday you can see families flocking to churches all over the country for prayer, wearing their best clothes.

The sermons are predictable. Church leaders will pray for divine intervention against the corrupt leaders, poverty and the potholed roads, and then finally call doom upon the country's homosexuals who are sinning against the Christian God and ruining African culture.

But not at a tiny church tucked away in one of Kampala's suburbs. Here, gay people meet in devoted challenge to mainstream denominations that have declared them outcasts. With dread-locked hair and in jeans and bathroom slippers, members of this congregation would stand out in the prim and proper evangelical church I sometimes go to. I feel overdressed in my white dress.

"Here we are all about freedom," Pepe Onziema, a gay rights activist tells me. "It is a universal church. We welcome people whether gay or straight."

The gates may be open but the road to the church that calls itself a friendship and reconciliation centre is not paved with sleek cars or thronged with believers. The worshippers trickle in. They take their seats, but not before surveying the crowd furtively, trying to identify everyone. Their life depends on this vigilance.

In Uganda, police raid homes and arrest those they suspect to be gay. Homosexuality is an offence under the penal code. The president, Yoweri Museveni, refuses to pass a bill that seeks to strengthen the punishments for homosexuality to include life imprisonment, but isn’t under pressure to do so. Conservative Christian churches, under the auspices of the Uganda Joint Christian Council, refuse to accept homosexuals in spite of more gay-friendly approaches from parent churches abroad. The anti-gay furnace is fanned by American evangelical churches that have made it their mission to free Africa of homosexuality, saying it is alien to African culture.

The gay Ugandan church seeks to spread an alternative gospel of love and acceptance for all. On this particular Sunday, it is the memorial of David Kato, a gay rights activist who was murdered in 2011. So the numbers are bigger than usual. When the church was started by Bishop Christopher Senyonjo (who has since been thrown out of the Anglican Church for ministering to gay people), the gay community in Uganda attended devotedly. But with arrests and growing anti-gay sentiments, threats to their lives and arrests, fewer and fewer people come to the church.

"Our numbers have reduced ever since we started in 2008," Denis, the chaplain and a primary school teacher, tells me. "It is worse now that the bill has been passed." If Denis's employees knew of his orientation or his calling, he would certainly lose his job. "This is the only place we can feel at home. Here we can worship God without feeling guilty or fearing persecution."

Joining a gay congregation in Uganda is risky but Onziema says it is necessary in a society that greatly values community. For on Sundays, when many Ugandans spend time with their families, most gay people have nowhere to go. "Coming here lets us know that we are not alone and gives us the strength to continue the struggle," Onziema says.

You can see both hope and fear in the eyes of the congregation as they read Bible verses proclaiming God's protection over them and sing "What a friend we have in Jesus".

Here, there are no thunderous shouts of praise, speaking in tongues or Bible-thumping that is characteristic of the evangelism that is so trendy in the country. In the quiet worship of Uganda's gay community, there is a still hope and the kind of courage you can only muster after you have seen it all and there is nothing left to fear. Sunday is also the day gay people in Uganda cast off their masks to chat about the latest fashion, cars and celebrities.

"You thought we were going to pray that God stops the anti-homosexuality bill," Mugisha, the head of Sexual Minorities Uganda, asks me with laughter and mischief in his voice. "It will not pass. We do not need to pray for that."

Mugisha is for a moment free from his job, his life, fighting for the basic human rights of gay people. "I come here for the community. It is better than staying home alone," he says. As the service ends, members of the congregation are asked to say something in memory of David Kato, whose spirit of resilience they will need as they walk out of the church into their daily routine.

"We know he did not die in vain," Mugisha says. "One day we shall be accepted."

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 452 by 99percentatheism]

Prove that. There are absolutes in the New Testament. And, when violated, repentance is the answer. Not the becoming like an anti Christian. In fact, the New testament is literal about that.

I don't have to prove that there are lots of things in the bible that are very blunt but people simply disregard as figurative. Like burning of witches forcing women who are suspected of adultery to drink a concoction that would abort a baby that was conceived through adultery. Stoning of disobedient children. Eating shellfish. Slavery. Etc etc.

There are absolutes throughout the bible and people who follow the bible that disagree with those absolutes simply address them as figurative.

Heresy is the one unforgivable sin. So I cannot go to heaven no matter what then even if I decided I was wrong right? Or was the bible just being figurative?

Jesus the extremest. Only agrees with His fellow extremists. Not the liberal theologians and their followers.

Quote:
'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?


And THAT reason??? Marriage.

Yet he didn't say anything about gays did he? He didn't say don't accept them for who they are and he did not say they should not have the right to marry did he?
Completely silent in that regard. So yeah you inferred and interpreted that to mean gay marriage cannot be tolerated in a civil society much less accepted.

Point being you can interpet it any which way you want. And you can even accept LGBT members without accepting gay marriage. Yes it is only folks like the westboro baptist church and owners of conversion therapy camps that don't accept gays.

[Haven]

If I and a billion of other Bible affirming Christians don't, we are called homophobes, haters, intolerant, fundamentalists, EXTREMISTS and are vilified by secular and non and anti Christian forces. And of course liberal/progressive religious activists.

I fail to see the problem with this.

It looks like tolerance must be demanded.

Why shouldn't we demand tolerance?

To say that marriage is not about legitimizing sexual behavior is not in keeping with reality. Why is the white gown still important? Um, for a woman.

At this point, it's really just tradition. I doubt that most people getting married see the white gown as an oppressive, patriarchal sign of (a woman's) virginity, even though that was its origin. It's become institutionalized -- it's just "what you wear when you get married."

If that were true, then Christians that uphold the reality of the immutability of what a "Christian marriage is, which is totally definable as man and woman in the New Testament, wouldn't be vilified and defined negatively. They would be defined as Christians doing the right thing as Christians should.

How is it relevant what fundamentalist Christians believe? This is a secular nation, and LGBTQ+ rights are secular matters.

Do you think Jesus is an idiot?

I think he was a product of his time, which means he was sexist, racist, and probably homophobic (even though the Bible never records Jesus mentioning homosexuality).

His discussion that evoked this response was talking about adultery. That would put it in the classification of sexuality. Eh hem, behavior.

I'm so tired of repeating this, but being gay has nothing to do with sexual acts, it's about attraction and romantic orientation. A person can be gay and never have sex. Why can't you understand this?

People that hunt are vilified for not refusing to hunt like the animal rights legion demand.

I fail to see the problem with this.

Reality does not seem to be agreeing with you. Ask Soulforce and Matthew Vines.
They are indeed forcing every Christian to be pro homosexuality. Promoting gay behavior causes schism in the Denoms that are forced to accept it.

Promoting gay rights in the church isn't "forcing" anyone to do anything. Advocating a cause isn't coercion.

Saying a man is another man's "husband" and a woman is another woman's "wife" is far more like saying a turtle is a frog. In Christian truth, neither exist.

You keep asserting that there is a such thing as "Christian truth," but you've yet to provide any kind of argument for Christianity actually being true. So please do that. Why do you believe Christianity is true? What evidence do you have to support your beliefs?

Sodomy and adultery laws were abolished in the 70's and society celebrated promiscuity. AIDS was ushered in in the 80's. Abortion as birth control still slaughters millions.

AIDS wasn't "ushered in," it formed as a result of natural biological evolution. Are you trying to say that AIDS is your god's punishment for LGBT rights? If so, what evidence could you possibly present to support that?

That's demonstrably false. Promiscuity and other sexual freedoms has actually killed people that had nothing to with the individual promiscuous individual. Celebrating homosexuality will affect children as soon as they enter the education system.

Support your claim or retract it.

Homosexual "marriage," which of course finds no support from the New Testament, has been legal in history. And found itself out of favor. Even in non Christian societies. Why is it so repulsed and rejected I wonder? (Not really.)

Because some people are driven by irrational hatred, fear, and a lust for power? Why has slavery been legal in almost every society at some point? What about racism?

Look up the history of pederasty. And that includes the desires of Sappho.

You're still trying to compare homosexuality to pedophilia? I'm sorry, but at this point that's just an ad hominem attack against gays, and it violates the rules of the forum and basic human decency.

[Danmark]

Wow, a call for full scale persecution? How honest.

Moderator Warning

Personal attacks on other debaters honesty, sarcastic or otherwise violate both the rule against civility and the rule against personal attacks.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Wordleymaster1]

[Replying to post 456 by 99percentatheism]

I'm a Christian. A mainstream kind.

While I doubt that seriously, I'll take your "word" for it. That doesn't mean you speak for all of Christiandom. So YOU may never accept them, but main stream Christianity will given time.
This is a problem with your religion: it can be anything to anyone. It splinters like dry wood. Over and over and over again. Which happens when all you have to place your belief on is the thoughts of others.

I don't agree with the gay ones. Neither does the New Testament.

You do know that there's debate over what the New Testament actually says about gay people, yes? But what did Jesus himself say about them? Isn't Jesus in the New Testament?

They can't. So it's not important.

If they can't scare you, then why did you bring it up?!? I point out here that this is your seeming MO: you bring up things that don't matter to the conversation.
It don't make no sense

Obviously reality says otherwise.

Maybe in your reality. You can complain about anything you want. Kindly don't push off those nervous fears onto others. I'm gay. I don't much care if you accept me in your religion or not. But if I did, it's still none of your business. You can leave and find a religion that hates gays and live your life as you see fit.

I will always complain about heresy.

That much is very obvious

Not for the good when it becomes just like the secular world and its ways

Women and people involved with inter racial marriage would disagree with you here.

The part created by people.

Which is the entire religion.

[99percentatheism]

Haven

If I and a billion of other Bible affirming Christians don't, we are called homophobes, haters, intolerant, fundamentalists, EXTREMISTS and are vilified by secular and non and anti Christian forces. And of course liberal/progressive religious activists.

I fail to see the problem with this.

Of course you do.

It looks like tolerance must be demanded.

Why shouldn't we demand tolerance?

Demand or not, it is the only thing you can expect to get. Affirmation and acceptance are then NOT on the table of demands.

I fail to see the problem with that.

To say that marriage is not about legitimizing sexual behavior is not in keeping with reality. Why is the white gown still important? Um, for a woman.

At this point, it's really just tradition. I doubt that most people getting married see the white gown as an oppressive, patriarchal sign of (a woman's) virginity, even though that was its origin. It's become institutionalized -- it's just "what you wear when you get married."

Parents and men seem to think otherwise. Good parents and good men that is. The ones that still see purity as anything but a hate crime.

If that were true, then Christians that uphold the reality of the immutability of what a "Christian marriage is, which is totally definable as man and woman in the New Testament, wouldn't be vilified and defined negatively. They would be defined as Christians doing the right thing as Christians should.

How is it relevant what fundamentalist Christians believe? This is a secular nation, and LGBTQ+ rights are secular matters.

Not only do I firmly agree with you, I hold that definition completely now don't i?

Do you think Jesus is an idiot?

I think he was a product of his time, which means he was sexist, racist, and probably homophobic (even though the Bible never records Jesus mentioning homosexuality).

Yawn. How conditioned a response is that. Sounds extremely Bart Ehrman to me.

His discussion that evoked this response was talking about adultery. That would put it in the classification of sexuality. Eh hem, behavior.

I'm so tired of repeating this, but being gay has nothing to do with sexual acts, it's about attraction and romantic orientation.

Attraction and romantic for what end result?

It's silly to treat this subject like we are talking about a trip to the mall.

A person can be gay and never have sex. Why can't you understand this?

The gay agenda.

People that hunt are vilified for not refusing to hunt like the animal rights legion demand.

I fail to see the problem with this.

I know that. All progressives think alike. The group think is tight and inescapable. I have dealt with these subjects and their proponents for a very long time now.

Reality does not seem to be agreeing with you. Ask Soulforce and Matthew Vines.
They are indeed forcing every Christian to be pro homosexuality. Promoting gay behavior causes schism in the Denoms that are forced to accept it.

Promoting gay rights in the church isn't "forcing" anyone to do anything. Advocating a cause isn't coercion.

Not according to the gay agenda tactics employed by its legion of activists. Any reading of Vines and Soulforce proves that. It is by force and compulsion with little doubt about it. Actually no doubt about it.

Saying a man is another man's "husband" and a woman is another woman's "wife" is far more like saying a turtle is a frog. In Christian truth, neither exist.

You keep asserting that there is a such thing as "Christian truth," but you've yet to provide any kind of argument for Christianity actually being true. So please do that. Why do you believe Christianity is true? What evidence do you have to support your beliefs?

Thread derail.

Post an OP somewhere else, or just link the many that make the same demand you are now. Reality shows that the gay agenda has no foundation or place of "affirmation" in the New Testament. Even if you want to sell the NT as a book of myths. No pro-gay myths in those booklets either.

In baseball that would have you striking out.

Sodomy and adultery laws were abolished in the 70's and society celebrated promiscuity. AIDS was ushered in in the 80's. Abortion as birth control still slaughters millions.

AIDS wasn't "ushered in," it formed as a result of natural biological evolution. Are you trying to say that AIDS is your god's punishment for LGBT rights? If so, what evidence could you possibly present to support that?

I couldn't care less about how AIDS was spread in any promiscuous community. It has no dread to a Christian. But I notice now the "gay community" seeks a pre-promiscuity HIV prophylactic drug now.

The doomed of forgetting history.

That's demonstrably false. Promiscuity and other sexual freedoms has actually killed people that had nothing to with the individual promiscuous individual. Celebrating homosexuality will affect children as soon as they enter the education system.

Support your claim or retract it.

Blood Transfusions and certain lifestyle choices of the individual giving the blood has killed an innocent person. Children born from STD infected parents have suffered the consequences. Death even.

Homosexual "marriage," which of course finds no support from the New Testament, has been legal in history. And found itself out of favor. Even in non Christian societies. Why is it so repulsed and rejected I wonder? (Not really.)

Because some people are driven by irrational hatred, fear, and a lust for power? Why has slavery been legal in almost every society at some point? What about racism?

racism is never going to be driven from human beings. A pipe dream is that. Pederasty, "sex-slavery" totalitarian ruling classes is a real concern for societies. Even ancient ones. Same ol' same ol'.

Look up the history of pederasty. And that includes the desires of Sappho.

You're still trying to compare homosexuality to pedophilia?

Pederasty is not pedophilia. Pedophilia can happen in an opposite gender formation. Pederasty is a same gender configuration. I am not conditioned to react to stimuli in the typical political correctness style. So, I can address reality well. I mean, please, try to disprove my reference to Sappho.

Youth (which does not mean just children) have been used by ruling elites for their sexual pleasures (to find untainted bodies) throughout history. Even ancient Greece was repulsed by pederasty.

I'm sorry, but at this point that's just an ad hominem attack against gays, and it violates the rules of the forum and basic human decency.

The word "gays" is of recent invention. It is a neologism. And of course part of an agenda. History is not an ad hom attack.

You cannot hide behind outrage to ignore reality.

[Clownboat]

Haven

If I and a billion of other Bible affirming Christians don't, we are called homophobes, haters, intolerant, fundamentalists, EXTREMISTS and are vilified by secular and non and anti Christian forces. And of course liberal/progressive religious activists.

I fail to see the problem with this.

Of course you do.

Please explain the "problem"
Also, your cult thinking is showing through if you didn't notice. The need to create an us vs them, in this case, the "them" is secular and non and anti Christian forces. Dun dun dun! I does make me chuckle a bit though.

It looks like tolerance must be demanded.

Why shouldn't we demand tolerance?

Demand or not, it is the only thing you can expect to get. Affirmation and acceptance are then NOT on the table of demands.

99%, the question was, "why shouldn't we demand tolerance".

I fail to see the problem with that.

From your answer (non answer actually), it appears you were not following along, so we should not be surprised if you don't see a problem with people not being tolerant.

At this point, it's really just tradition. I doubt that most people getting married see the white gown as an oppressive, patriarchal sign of (a woman's) virginity, even though that was its origin. It's become institutionalized -- it's just "what you wear when you get married."

Parents and men seem to think otherwise. Good parents and good men that is. The ones that still see purity as anything but a hate crime.

Now you are just being silly. Take a few breaths. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the color of your wedding dress will not affect if you are a good parent nor a good man.
Do you have any examples of purity being called a hate crime, or is this just more emotional mumbo jumbo from you. Again, more cult think, now there is a purity hate group for you to fight against. Rally the troops!

How is it relevant what fundamentalist Christians believe? This is a secular nation, and LGBTQ+ rights are secular matters.

Not only do I firmly agree with you, I hold that definition completely now don't i?

Once again, you failed to understand the question:
"How is it relevant what fundamentalist Christians believe?"

Yawn. How conditioned a response is that. Sounds extremely Bart Ehrman to me.

You asked if he thought Jesus was an idiot. He answered. Do you have an actual response, if not, your a reply "sounds extremely childish to me".

I'm so tired of repeating this, but being gay has nothing to do with sexual acts, it's about attraction and romantic orientation.

Attraction and romantic for what end result?

What "end" does attraction serve? I assure you that I for one am attracted to lots of females, almost all of which I have had zero sexual relations with, so I'm curious about this "end" you refer too.
As far as romance goes. Ask your wife if she enjoys a romantic evening and see if her answer will have anything whatsoever to do with sex.

It's silly to treat this subject like we are talking about a trip to the mall.

It's silly to me to not treat this subject like slavery and equal rights. Anything but a trip to the mall I agree.

A person can be gay and never have sex. Why can't you understand this?

The gay agenda.

I propose this is more "cult think". Rally the troops and fight the imaginary gay agenda!

I know that. All progressives think alike. The group think is tight and inescapable. I have dealt with these subjects and their proponents for a very long time now.

More cult think? Progressives are also an enemy? How long is your list?

Not according to the gay agenda tactics employed by its legion of activists. Any reading of Vines and Soulforce proves that. It is by force and compulsion with little doubt about it. Actually no doubt about it.

Oh my how the enemy grows from one paragraph to the next. These evil progressives with their agendas have a legion of soldiers to battle against. Please.

AIDS wasn't "ushered in," it formed as a result of natural biological evolution. Are you trying to say that AIDS is your god's punishment for LGBT rights? If so, what evidence could you possibly present to support that?

I couldn't care less about how AIDS was spread in any promiscuous community. It has no dread to a Christian.

Christians are just as susceptible to the AIDS virus as any other human. Your claim is silly.

The doomed of forgetting history.

I suggest you consider slavery and equal rights.

Blood Transfusions and certain lifestyle choices of the individual giving the blood has killed an innocent person. Children born from STD infected parents have suffered the consequences. Death even.

Not sure what this has to do with homosexuality specifically. Do you also make enemies of those who give blood?
What does giving blood have to do with the claim you made:

Celebrating homosexuality will affect children as soon as they enter the education system.

racism is never going to be driven from human beings.

This is not a sufficient justification for your unequal treatment of homosexuals IMO.

A pipe dream is that. Pederasty, "sex-slavery" totalitarian ruling classes is a real concern for societies. Even ancient ones. Same ol' same ol'.

Still not a justification.

Pederasty is not pedophilia. Pedophilia can happen in an opposite gender formation. Pederasty is a same gender configuration. I am not conditioned to react to stimuli in the typical political correctness style. So, I can address reality well. I mean, please, try to disprove my reference to Sappho.

Why? What does it have to do with the fact that gays are starting to be accepted by Christianity?

Youth (which does not mean just children) have been used by ruling elites for their sexual pleasures (to find untainted bodies) throughout history. Even ancient Greece was repulsed by pederasty.

Come back to us 99%. We are over here!

I'm sorry, but at this point that's just an ad hominem attack against gays, and it violates the rules of the forum and basic human decency.

The word "gays" is of recent invention. It is a neologism. And of course part of an agenda. History is not an ad hom attack.

History is not, but for example to compare being white or having blue eyes or being gay to Pederasty or Pedophilia would be. The fact that you continue to bring up pederasty in your posts is something you should be ashamed of IMO, yet you aren't it seems. I would assume it is because of this "war" you have invented and are fighting, but I can only guess.

You cannot hide behind outrage to ignore reality.

Please be very specific about this reality you are referring to and for the love of all that is good in this world, please tell me it has nothing to do with pederasty or pedophilia.

[KCKID]

[Replying to post 461 by 99percentatheism]

Hmmm . . .I've been debating this topic with you for what seems like forever, 99percent. However, I don't recall having asked you this simple question: In your opinion WHAT IS IT specifically about homosexuality that is 'wrong'? Why is it wrong? Moreover, if gay marriage becomes nationally recognized - in your case the U.S.A., in my case Australia - in your opinion, WHAT IS IT specifically that will cause 'the sky to fall' and how will this negatively affect society?

Please, just respond to the questions with simple, reader-friendly language and try to keep the 'religious padding' to a minimum. If your answer/s is/are convincing then there might be some of us who could possibly swing your way regarding this topic. But, 'your case' must be convincing. So far that has not been the case so here is your chance to perhaps win over some of us who would normally disagree with you.

Thank you.

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 461 by 99percentatheism]

Hmmm . . .I've been debating this topic with you for what seems like forever, 99percent. However, I don't recall having asked you this simple question: In your opinion WHAT IS IT specifically about homosexuality that is 'wrong'? Why is it wrong? Moreover, if gay marriage becomes nationally recognized - in your case the U.S.A., in my case Australia - in your opinion, WHAT IS IT specifically that will cause 'the sky to fall' and how will this negatively affect society?

Please, just respond to the questions with simple, reader-friendly language and try to keep the 'religious padding' to a minimum. If your answer/s is/are convincing then there might be some of us who could possibly swing your way regarding this topic. But, 'your case' must be convincing. So far that has not been the case so here is your chance to perhaps win over some of us who would normally disagree with you.

Thank you.

Keeping the "religious padding" out of this is not part of debating on this website. This is debating Christianity & Religion. Homosexuality is a behavior. And one that is not supported for a Christian behavior. You obviously know that I do not care nor do I even attempt to speak to what anti Christians care to engage in, unless they are trying to claim Christian acceptance foe their inappropriate behaviors. This is a question of will and freedom to make choices. Homosexuality is a behavior one must choose to engage in. Like the adultery you so often reference. And since adultery and promiscuity is just as celebrated in pop culture as homosexual behavior, the comparison takes on a prophetic nature.

As you know, I use Jude quite often because what he experienced "in the Church" seems strikingly similar to what The Church is enduring now. Peter as well.

Homosexuals and homosexuality have many places to manifest activities. There is no reason to force Christians to become supporters of homosexuals or homosexuality. Why are you demanding that?

[Elijah John]

Haven

If I and a billion of other Bible affirming Christians don't, we are called homophobes, haters, intolerant, fundamentalists, EXTREMISTS and are vilified by secular and non and anti Christian forces. And of course liberal/progressive religious activists.

I fail to see the problem with this.

Of course you do.

Please explain the "problem"
Also, your cult thinking is showing through if you didn't notice. The need to create an us vs them, in this case, the "them" is secular and non and anti Christian forces. Dun dun dun! I does make me chuckle a bit though.

It looks like tolerance must be demanded.

Why shouldn't we demand tolerance?

Demand or not, it is the only thing you can expect to get. Affirmation and acceptance are then NOT on the table of demands.

99%, the question was, "why shouldn't we demand tolerance".

I fail to see the problem with that.

From your answer (non answer actually), it appears you were not following along, so we should not be surprised if you don't see a problem with people not being tolerant.

At this point, it's really just tradition. I doubt that most people getting married see the white gown as an oppressive, patriarchal sign of (a woman's) virginity, even though that was its origin. It's become institutionalized -- it's just "what you wear when you get married."

Parents and men seem to think otherwise. Good parents and good men that is. The ones that still see purity as anything but a hate crime.

Now you are just being silly. Take a few breaths. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the color of your wedding dress will not affect if you are a good parent nor a good man.
Do you have any examples of purity being called a hate crime, or is this just more emotional mumbo jumbo from you. Again, more cult think, now there is a purity hate group for you to fight against. Rally the troops!

How is it relevant what fundamentalist Christians believe? This is a secular nation, and LGBTQ rights are secular matters.

Not only do I firmly agree with you, I hold that definition completely now don't i?

Once again, you failed to understand the question:
"How is it relevant what fundamentalist Christians believe?"

Yawn. How conditioned a response is that. Sounds extremely Bart Ehrman to me.

You asked if he thought Jesus was an idiot. He answered. Do you have an actual response, if not, your a reply "sounds extremely childish to me".

I'm so tired of repeating this, but being gay has nothing to do with sexual acts, it's about attraction and romantic orientation.

Attraction and romantic for what end result?

What "end" does attraction serve? I assure you that I for one am attracted to lots of females, almost all of which I have had zero sexual relations with, so I'm curious about this "end" you refer too.
As far as romance goes. Ask your wife if she enjoys a romantic evening and see if her answer will have anything whatsoever to do with sex.

It's silly to treat this subject like we are talking about a trip to the mall.

It's silly to me to not treat this subject like slavery and equal rights. Anything but a trip to the mall I agree.

A person can be gay and never have sex. Why can't you understand this?

The gay agenda.

I propose this is more "cult think". Rally the troops and fight the imaginary gay agenda!

I know that. All progressives think alike. The group think is tight and inescapable. I have dealt with these subjects and their proponents for a very long time now.

More cult think? Progressives are also an enemy? How long is your list?

Not according to the gay agenda tactics employed by its legion of activists. Any reading of Vines and Soulforce proves that. It is by force and compulsion with little doubt about it. Actually no doubt about it.

Oh my how the enemy grows from one paragraph to the next. These evil progressives with their agendas have a legion of soldiers to battle against. Please.

AIDS wasn't "ushered in," it formed as a result of natural biological evolution. Are you trying to say that AIDS is your god's punishment for LGBT rights? If so, what evidence could you possibly present to support that?

I couldn't care less about how AIDS was spread in any promiscuous community. It has no dread to a Christian.

Christians are just as susceptible to the AIDS virus as any other human. Your claim is silly.

The doomed of forgetting history.

I suggest you consider slavery and equal rights.

Blood Transfusions and certain lifestyle choices of the individual giving the blood has killed an innocent person. Children born from STD infected parents have suffered the consequences. Death even.

Not sure what this has to do with homosexuality specifically. Do you also make enemies of those who give blood?
What does giving blood have to do with the claim you made:

Celebrating homosexuality will affect children as soon as they enter the education system.

racism is never going to be driven from human beings.

This is not a sufficient justification for your unequal treatment of homosexuals IMO.

A pipe dream is that. Pederasty, "sex-slavery" totalitarian ruling classes is a real concern for societies. Even ancient ones. Same ol' same ol'.

Still not a justification.

Pederasty is not pedophilia. Pedophilia can happen in an opposite gender formation. Pederasty is a same gender configuration. I am not conditioned to react to stimuli in the typical political correctness style. So, I can address reality well. I mean, please, try to disprove my reference to Sappho.

Why? What does it have to do with the fact that gays are starting to be accepted by Christianity?

Youth (which does not mean just children) have been used by ruling elites for their sexual pleasures (to find untainted bodies) throughout history. Even ancient Greece was repulsed by pederasty.

Come back to us 99%. We are over here!

I'm sorry, but at this point that's just an ad hominem attack against gays, and it violates the rules of the forum and basic human decency.

The word "gays" is of recent invention. It is a neologism. And of course part of an agenda. History is not an ad hom attack.

History is not, but for example to compare being white or having blue eyes or being gay to Pederasty or Pedophilia would be. The fact that you continue to bring up pederasty in your posts is something you should be ashamed of IMO, yet you aren't it seems. I would assume it is because of this "war" you have invented and are fighting, but I can only guess.

You cannot hide behind outrage to ignore reality.

Please be very specific about this reality you are referring to and for the love of all that is good in this world, please tell me it has nothing to do with pederasty or pedophilia.

Moderator Comment

Although you are responding to some provocation, much of your tone in doing so comes accross as sarcastic and condescending. For the sake of civility, please tone it down a notch or two.

Try not to perpetuate by allowing your response to become be a counter-provocation,

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[KCKID]

[Replying to post 461 by 99percentatheism]

Hmmm . . .I've been debating this topic with you for what seems like forever, 99percent. However, I don't recall having asked you this simple question: In your opinion WHAT IS IT specifically about homosexuality that is 'wrong'? Why is it wrong? Moreover, if gay marriage becomes nationally recognized - in your case the U.S.A., in my case Australia - in your opinion, WHAT IS IT specifically that will cause 'the sky to fall' and how will this negatively affect society?

Please, just respond to the questions with simple, reader-friendly language and try to keep the 'religious padding' to a minimum. If your answer/s is/are convincing then there might be some of us who could possibly swing your way regarding this topic. But, 'your case' must be convincing. So far that has not been the case so here is your chance to perhaps win over some of us who would normally disagree with you.

Thank you.

Keeping the "religious padding" out of this is not part of debating on this website.

Well, it is for me since I've debunked your particular 'religious padding' on more than one occasion. You have no place else to go other than your own biased opinions about homosexuality. This is why I asked for your 'personal' opinion since what you come up with on these threads pertaining to this topic don't appear to come from scripture.

This is debating Christianity & Religion.

Yes, it is. And, when it comes to THIS particular topic the only references as per scripture pertain to shrine temple prostitution and pagan idolatry. I've referenced this many times. Even the term 'sodomite' that most Christians use in absolute ignorance to aim at homosexuals means "a (sacred) male prostitute." I don't trust Christians when it comes to accepting their interpretations of their own 'holy manual'. Sadly, so many have not got a clue. They simply hear stuff from their minister, soak it up like a sponge, and then regurgitate what they've heard regardless as to whether it's fact or fiction.

Homosexuality is a behavior.

Yes, as is heterosexuality. Is there something wrong with that? I asked you that in my last post.

And one that is not supported for a Christian behavior.

Says who ...a Christian? Where did they get that from? And, why do they feel the need to know what people do in their bedrooms?

You obviously know that I do not care nor do I even attempt to speak to what anti Christians care to engage in, unless they are trying to claim Christian acceptance foe their inappropriate behaviors.

How can intimate and private behavior by two adults - gay or straight, Christian or non-Christian - be considered "inappropriate" by someone whose business it isn't to begin with?

This is a question of will and freedom to make choices.

Yes, it is. Do you perhaps suggest that folks first check with you to see if their will and freedom to make choices passes muster?

Homosexuality is a behavior one must choose to engage in.

Which has NOTHING to do with you.

Like the adultery you so often reference.

The ONLY reason I reference adultery (as per the Bible) is because YOU don't. I don't care who may or may not be involved in adultery. It's none of my business. However, since YOU have made homosexuality YOUR business you should perhaps give adultery equal or higher billing since SO many more of these folks sit in the pews of YOUR Church. But ...you don't. So, "I" do.

And since adultery and promiscuity is just as celebrated in pop culture as homosexual behavior, the comparison takes on a prophetic nature.

Adultery (in the form of remarriage) is 'celebrated' (or, at the very least, ignored) in the mainstream Christian Church. Why is that? Hypocrisy anyone ...?

As you know, I use Jude quite often because what he experienced "in the Church" seems strikingly similar to what The Church is enduring now. Peter as well.

Yes, I know you do. Thanks to you I'm familiar with these scriptures but I've YET to see any reference AT ALL to homosexuality. Would you care to point out the specific reference/s to homosexuality in the Jude and Peter passages?

Homosexuals and homosexuality have many places to manifest activities. There is no reason to force Christians to become supporters of homosexuals or homosexuality. Why are you demanding that?

I'm not demanding anything. I'm just wondering why the same Church that accepts scriptural adulterers doesn't accord the same acceptance to homosexual people. I find it highly hypocritical, not to mention that it puts mainstream Christianity into disrepute. THAT should be a concern to you, I feel.

Any chance of a response to my previous post?