Gay life vs. "homosexual" "acts"

Debating issues regarding sexuality

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Haven
Guru
Posts: 1803
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:23 pm
Location: Tremonton, Utah
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 52 times
Contact:

Gay life vs. "homosexual" "acts"

Post #1

Post by Haven »

Many anti-gay fundamentalist Christians oppose equal rights for the lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) community on the basis that sexual acts between members of the same sex are immoral according to Christian scripture and teaching. These individuals often equate queer identities with those sexual acts, and use that connection to argue in favor of denying LGB people equal protection under the law.

While I dispute that the Bible condemns same-sex sex, for the sake of this discussion I will accept the premise that they is wrong under Christianity.

That aside, homosexuality, and, more broadly, gay life, is so much more than what we do in the bedroom. One's sexuality impacts her/his relationships (obviously), social activities, choice of friends, civil rights, (and often) appearance, voice, and other external characteristics. These have nothing to do with sexual acts, but are all part of gay (and straight!) experiences.

Debate question: Is gay life all about "homosexual" "acts?" Is there more to the LGB experience than sex? Should LGB people have fewer rights because some conservative Christians don't like gay sex?
♥ Haven (she/her) ♥
♥ Kindness is the greatest adventure ♥

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #51

Post by Danmark »

East of Eden wrote: From a Christian perspective (which I realize you may not care about), those with same-sex feelings are in the same situation as a single heterosexual or a married man in a bad, sexless marriage, i.e. they aren't to act on those feelings. I'm not being a hypocrite here, when I married at 30 I was a virgin. My wife appreciates that.

It is always possible to do the will of God.
I don't know that hypocrisy is necessary for this point of view, but when someone claims to speak for God or for all of Christianity 'arrogance' comes to mind, along with 'blasphemy.'

The point that Strider and others have made, that many Christians appear to single out what they call 'homosexuality' as a special sin, has been reinforced by the fact that no one has posted on this subtopic for nearly two months until you did today.

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #52

Post by East of Eden »

Danmark wrote:
East of Eden wrote: From a Christian perspective (which I realize you may not care about), those with same-sex feelings are in the same situation as a single heterosexual or a married man in a bad, sexless marriage, i.e. they aren't to act on those feelings. I'm not being a hypocrite here, when I married at 30 I was a virgin. My wife appreciates that.

It is always possible to do the will of God.
I don't know that hypocrisy is necessary for this point of view, but when someone claims to speak for God or for all of Christianity 'arrogance' comes to mind, along with 'blasphemy.'
You have a strange definition of blasphemy, I don't consider quoting God's Word to be that.
The point that Strider and others have made, that many Christians appear to single out what they call 'homosexuality' as a special sin,
It isn't a special sin, it is the point that Christian doctrine is most under attack today though. Martin Luther said something to the effect that if you preach the Gospel except the one controversial issue of your day, you aren't really preaching the Gospel. The same could be said for those who tried to justify racial discrimination in the past.

IMHO gay activists are simply using the church, as the last stronghold against their immorality, as a tool to justify their perversion.
has been reinforced by the fact that no one has posted on this subtopic for nearly two months until you did today.
I didn't know there was a time limit.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #53

Post by Danmark »

East of Eden wrote:
Danmark wrote:
East of Eden wrote: From a Christian perspective (which I realize you may not care about), those with same-sex feelings are in the same situation as a single heterosexual or a married man in a bad, sexless marriage, i.e. they aren't to act on those feelings. I'm not being a hypocrite here, when I married at 30 I was a virgin. My wife appreciates that.

It is always possible to do the will of God.
I don't know that hypocrisy is necessary for this point of view, but when someone claims to speak for God or for all of Christianity 'arrogance' comes to mind, along with 'blasphemy.'
You have a strange definition of blasphemy, I don't consider quoting God's Word to be that.
The point that Strider and others have made, that many Christians appear to single out what they call 'homosexuality' as a special sin,
It isn't a special sin, it is the point that Christian doctrine is most under attack today though. Martin Luther said something to the effect that if you preach the Gospel except the one controversial issue of your day, you aren't really preaching the Gospel. The same could be said for those who tried to justify racial discrimination in the past.

It is 'blasphemy' to pretend to claim to speak for God.

IMHO gay activists are simply using the church, as the last stronghold against their immorality, as a tool to justify their perversion.
has been reinforced by the fact that no one has posted on this subtopic for nearly two months until you did today.
I didn't know there was a time limit.
You've completely missed the point. So let me explain it to you. In the intervening two months, NO one spoke to this issue or complained about 'homosexuality' or preached on it being a 'perversion.' It seems that for just a very few debaters here, this issue is THE issue. I never hear them railing against adultery with such a steady stream of invective.

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #54

Post by East of Eden »

Danmark wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
Danmark wrote:
East of Eden wrote: From a Christian perspective (which I realize you may not care about), those with same-sex feelings are in the same situation as a single heterosexual or a married man in a bad, sexless marriage, i.e. they aren't to act on those feelings. I'm not being a hypocrite here, when I married at 30 I was a virgin. My wife appreciates that.

It is always possible to do the will of God.
I don't know that hypocrisy is necessary for this point of view, but when someone claims to speak for God or for all of Christianity 'arrogance' comes to mind, along with 'blasphemy.'
You have a strange definition of blasphemy, I don't consider quoting God's Word to be that.
The point that Strider and others have made, that many Christians appear to single out what they call 'homosexuality' as a special sin,
It isn't a special sin, it is the point that Christian doctrine is most under attack today though. Martin Luther said something to the effect that if you preach the Gospel except the one controversial issue of your day, you aren't really preaching the Gospel. The same could be said for those who tried to justify racial discrimination in the past.

It is 'blasphemy' to pretend to claim to speak for God.

IMHO gay activists are simply using the church, as the last stronghold against their immorality, as a tool to justify their perversion.
has been reinforced by the fact that no one has posted on this subtopic for nearly two months until you did today.
I didn't know there was a time limit.
You've completely missed the point. So let me explain it to you. In the intervening two months, NO one spoke to this issue or complained about 'homosexuality' or preached on it being a 'perversion.' It seems that for just a very few debaters here, this issue is THE issue. I never hear them railing against adultery with such a steady stream of invective.
Find me someone making a pro-adultery argument and I will respond. No doubt some would come up with an argument that the Bible really doesn't speak against adultery.

The time issue with you is irrelevant, who cares if the response is a day or a month later? Deal with the argument, not red herrings.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #55

Post by Danmark »

East of Eden wrote: Find me someone making a pro-adultery argument and I will respond. No doubt some would come up with an argument that the Bible really doesn't speak against adultery.

The time issue with you is irrelevant, who cares if the response is a day or a month later? Deal with the argument, not red herrings.
Time is an issue because it demonstrates that some are so focused on gays that they seek out posts that are two months old so they can register their protests.

You referred to 'gay activists' "justifying their perversion." Do you call those engaging in extramarital sex 'perverts' as well? Is everyone who violates YOUR * idea of a moral law perverted? Are those who defend the practice of wearing garments made of mixed fabrics "justifying their perversion?"

___________________
*Do you consider all Christians who disagree with your views non Christians who 'justify their perversions?'

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #56

Post by East of Eden »

Danmark wrote:
East of Eden wrote: Find me someone making a pro-adultery argument and I will respond. No doubt some would come up with an argument that the Bible really doesn't speak against adultery.

The time issue with you is irrelevant, who cares if the response is a day or a month later? Deal with the argument, not red herrings.
Time is an issue because it demonstrates that some are so focused on gays that they seek out posts that are two months old so they can register their protests.
You're wrong, I didn't even notice how old it was. Why would I?
You referred to 'gay activists' "justifying their perversion." Do you call those engaging in extramarital sex 'perverts' as well?
They are acting against God's standards like active gays.
Is everyone who violates YOUR * idea of a moral law perverted? Are those who defend the practice of wearing garments made of mixed fabrics "justifying their perversion?"
Not this again, if I were a member of the bronze-age theocracy of Israel you might have a point. Homosexual practice was condemned in the NT, unlike your fabric thing.
*Do you consider all Christians who disagree with your views non Christians who 'justify their perversions?'
Like St. Paul, I don't consider active homosexuals Christians. That is different from someone with same-sex feelings who occasionally falls, sincerely repents and asks forgiveness, and tries to live a better life. There is a difference between an event and a pattern.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #57

Post by Danmark »

East of Eden wrote:
Not this again, if I were a member of the bronze-age theocracy of Israel you might have a point. Homosexual practice was condemned in the NT, unlike your fabric thing.
....
Like St. Paul, I don't consider active homosexuals Christians. That is different from someone with same-sex feelings who occasionally falls, sincerely repents and asks forgiveness, and tries to live a better life. There is a difference between an event and a pattern.
That's the point, you, like Paul, decide which laws of God should be followed and which should not. No one cares what 'you' consider, any more than they care what your wife 'considers a benefit.' What is both blasphemy and arrogance is to claim you speak for God. Paul made the same error. That is why many Christians distinguish "Pauline Christianity" from true Christianity. Please show me where Jesus spoke out against 'homosexuality.'

Jesus did speak very clearly that one should not use hateful terms like 'raca,' or 'fool' [sometimes translated as 'effeminate]. But you seem unconcerned about the word of Jesus when you call others 'perverts.' You also claim you can judge who is 'Christian' and who is not.' This too is contrary to the words of Jesus not to judge. "Who made you the lawmaker and judge?"

Just like Paul, this line of condemnation flies in the face of what Jesus taught.

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #58

Post by Danmark »

East of Eden wrote:
Haven wrote:
Under your own assumptions, how is that rational? If a creator god exists, he/she/it created gay people to be gay.
He didn't create them gay, that happened in the fall, just as many other human negative pathologies.
Why would he/she/it then command them not to pursue the relationships that he/she/it designed them to want?
He didn't design them to want that, any more than He designed cancer or alcoholism.
I find this "fall" excuse just about the biggest and most illogical contrivance imaginable. This version of the 'Christian' excuse theology says that God created everything, BUT he isn't responsible for his creation because of 'the fall.' It's unadulterated horsefeathers invented to get this mythical, non existent all knowing all powerful 'god' off the hook for what he created. Somehow this 'fall' nonsense resulted in 5 or 10% of people being born into same sex preference. But the other 90 to 95% are not affected by this 'fall.' I wonder how much codswallop like this can be swallowed before it is thrown up as the vomit it is.

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #59

Post by East of Eden »

Danmark wrote: East of Eden wrote:
Haven wrote:
Under your own assumptions, how is that rational? If a creator god exists, he/she/it created gay people to be gay.
He didn't create them gay, that happened in the fall, just as many other human negative pathologies.
Why would he/she/it then command them not to pursue the relationships that he/she/it designed them to want?
He didn't design them to want that, any more than He designed cancer or alcoholism.
I find this "fall" excuse just about the biggest and most illogical contrivance imaginable. This version of the 'Christian' excuse theology says that God created everything, BUT he isn't responsible for his creation because of 'the fall.'
He gave us free will, and Adam and Eve misused theirs, just as you misuse yours. Or would you rather we have been robots, forced to obey?
It's unadulterated horsefeathers invented to get this mythical, non existent all knowing all powerful 'god' off the hook for what he created. Somehow this 'fall' nonsense resulted in 5 or 10% of people being born into same sex preference.
Actually about 2-3%.
But the other 90 to 95% are not affected by this 'fall.'
Huh? They are equally lost, short of faith in Christ's atoning death on the cross.
I wonder how much codswallop like this can be swallowed before it is thrown up as the vomit it is.
Debate is better than name-calling. Amazing what some get away with here.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #60

Post by East of Eden »

Danmark wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
Not this again, if I were a member of the bronze-age theocracy of Israel you might have a point. Homosexual practice was condemned in the NT, unlike your fabric thing.
....
Like St. Paul, I don't consider active homosexuals Christians. That is different from someone with same-sex feelings who occasionally falls, sincerely repents and asks forgiveness, and tries to live a better life. There is a difference between an event and a pattern.
That's the point, you, like Paul, decide which laws of God should be followed and which should not.
I don't decide, God did and told Paul and other Bible authors. Is revelation a new concept for you?
No one cares what 'you' consider,
Back at you. Pot, meet kettle.
any more than they care what your wife 'considers a benefit.' What is both blasphemy and arrogance is to claim you speak for God.
It is blasphemous and arrogant, not to mention illogical, to pretend you know God has never revealed Himself to anyone, ever.
Paul made the same error. That is why many Christians distinguish "Pauline Christianity" from true Christianity.
LOL, like we need atheist to identify TRUE Christianity. It was done at Nicea, thank you.
Please show me where Jesus spoke out against 'homosexuality.'
He didn't talk about bestiality either, so what? Sodomy wasn't an issue among Jesus' Jewish audiences, it was to Paul's gentile audience, which was why he spoke about it and Jesus didn't. IMHO if Jesus encountered a repentant gay person He would say the same think He did to the woman caught in adultery, "Go, and sin no more."
Jesus did speak very clearly that one should not use hateful terms like 'raca,' or 'fool' [sometimes translated as 'effeminate]. But you seem unconcerned about the word of Jesus when you call others 'perverts.'
I can use 'abomination' like God said in the Bible if you prefer.
You also claim you can judge who is 'Christian' and who is not.'
No, God in the Bible did, I'm just the messenger.
This too is contrary to the words of Jesus not to judge. "Who made you the lawmaker and judge?"
Grossly out of context. http://www.gotquestions.org/do-not-judge.html
Just like Paul, this line of condemnation flies in the face of what Jesus taught.
No it doesn't.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

Post Reply