Gay life vs. "homosexual" "acts"

[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?

[99percentatheism]

I feel vindicated from all the charges made against me for not being "gay affirming."

I just had to grab this one. I don't think that anyone has made charges against you personally, 99percent ...charges made against your method of delivery of your 'anti-gay' sentiments, yes, but not charges made against you personally. And yet, come to think of it, there could have been a little 'spill-over' at times that is hard to avoid . . .

I am vindicated by the New Testament witness. And all of the attacks I have endured in threads is little more than time-consuming nuisances. Take for example a "real" marriage. In Christian truth, it is man and woman/husband and wife. That immutable fact bears repeating unfortunately in today's instagram world.

[Ooberman]

Semen ingestion is wrong.

Unsubstantiated claim. There is condemnation of the act in that statement, but not for the person who first started it? Why can't one call it wrong and the person wrong for doing it?

What system of morality calls things wrong, but not the person wrong for doing it?

Are people right in doing everything, but certain acts are inherently wrong?

So:
1. What makes it wrong?
2. Was the person who started it wrong?
3. Does "wrong" mean "evil" or "to be avoided if possible, but not inherently bad"?


Just a friendly warning, please don't answer in any way that would disparage another religion or belief. Posts are getting flagged.

[Haven]

Why is it odd? It's not my fault that homosexuals have a community and culture. I chose a nice looking apartment in West Hollywood before I even knew I was living in a gay community. It wasn't long after that I knew I was.

West Hollywood (especially in the 80s) is no more typical of gay America than Miami Beach is typical of straight America. Even West Hollywood today isn't the way it was 30 years ago.

Go to a real town. Talk to real gay people -- young professionals, married couples, families with kids. You'll see we aren't all like the partiers in WeHo, just like all straights (or should I say "heterosexuals" ) aren't like the junkies in South Beach bars.

"Straight, anti-gay types." You can't seem to stay away from propaganda. I am a Christian. I choose to live like one. As often as I can.

And you aren't using propaganda (with "homosexuals" and "gay agenda" and the like)? I've simply stated the fact that you are (I assume) straight and opposed to homosexuality, transgender identities, and TLGBQA+ (transgender, lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer / questioning, asexual, and other non-heteronormative or cisnormative people). That's not propaganda, that's a fact.

I am not a Christian, I'm a Kindness-revering, scientific naturalist atheist, and I choose to live like one as often as I can. That means making decisions based on reason and evidence and treating others with respect and love -- regardless of religion, gender, race, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic. I am opposed to bigotry and hate, but I don't despise bigots and haters -- I just want them to renounce their hateful ways and learn to accept and love others.

It is also not my fault that gay culture is antithetical to a Christian life. Marriage is man and woman/husband and wife in the New Testament. Maybe you should be looking for "anti's" where they exist. As in anti-Christians.

Fundamentalist religious (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, any religion) culture is antithetical to a Kind life. Marriage is a loving, faithful relationship between consenting adults according to logic, reason, and compassion.

I'm not anti-Christian, I'm anti-bigotry and anti-fundamentalism -- Christian-based or not.

Yes, the Evangelical community (Church) is having a good effect on many neighborhoods. Some neighborhoods, not all of course. For example, look at how many people want to mimic a Christian marriage. How many city dwellers are leaving the city for the-Church-on-almost-every-street-corner suburbs?

http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/03 ... us/359714/

[KCKID]

Marriage is a loving, faithful relationship between consenting adults according to logic, reason, and compassion.

Right, whether they be gay or straight. And, why would anyone argue with that? I mean, really . . .?

[KCKID]

I feel vindicated from all the charges made against me for not being "gay affirming."

I just had to grab this one. I don't think that anyone has made charges against you personally, 99percent ...charges made against your method of delivery of your 'anti-gay' sentiments, yes, but not charges made against you personally. And yet, come to think of it, there could have been a little 'spill-over' at times that is hard to avoid . . .

I am vindicated by the New Testament witness.

Yes, so you keep saying. And, where is that New Testament witness that apparently vetoes homosexual intimacy between two consenting adults? I just can't seem to locate it it in my King James Version of the Bible. Book, chapter and verse ...please.

Moreover, what would be the logical reason for homosexual intimacy violating the 'New Testament witness'? Should not we adults be allowed to think and behave like adults without the need for some ancient and stern 'school ma'am' watching over us with a big stick?

And all of the attacks I have endured in threads is little more than time-consuming nuisances.

Well, no one forces you to participate in these threads. You can drop out whenever you like. Strong comments, particularly when they read in such a manner as to demean another fellow human being, often result in just as strong comebacks from people. This is to be expected, even though, at times, perhaps coming close to violating forum rules.

Take for example a "real" marriage. In Christian truth, it is man and woman/husband and wife. That immutable fact bears repeating unfortunately in today's instagram world.

Well, in 'biblical truth' it was 'man and property'. It would seem that there was no such thing as gender equality. Why do you ignore this fact and instead make such a fairy story-ish "and they lived happily ever after in wedded bliss" thing out of it when that was likely not the case at all? Yes, it was man and woman or man and several women if the man could afford it. While it was expected that one would marry, the same as today, marriage was clearly not mandatory. While Jesus' - and your buddy Paul - may have referenced marriage as 'man and woman' neither of them participated in marriage at all. So, should we by example not marry at all?

Using any such ancient life-style as a rule or a guide for we of today is ludicrous. There is no reason why we should be expected to stagnate in the past simply because 'a book sez'. Besides, Christians can and will always be able to marry those of the opposite gender. No one is preventing that ...regardless of how many homosexuals choose to marry one another in the future. Christians running around frantically yelling, "The sky is falling" The sky is falling" simply because people of whom they disapprove desire to marry deserves to be ignored.

[99percentatheism]

Haven

Why is it odd? It's not my fault that homosexuals have a community and culture. I chose a nice looking apartment in West Hollywood before I even knew I was living in a gay community. It wasn't long after that I knew I was.

West Hollywood (especially in the 80s) is no more typical of gay America than Miami Beach is typical of straight America. Even West Hollywood today isn't the way it was 30 years ago.

"Straight America?" Not part of a Christian perspective. "Christian Life" is part of a Christian's life. The LGBT community is far different than a Christian community. Christians do not support promiscuous hookups in bathrooms, public parks and dark parking lots. There is no equivalent to Rent Boys in Christian morality.

Go to a real town. Talk to real gay people -- young professionals, married couples, families with kids.

The same could be said of Voodoo. Go to Haiti, meet really, really nice Voodoo practioners. Etc., etc., etc.. Before I was a Christian, I did just that in New Orleans. Incredibly nice professional people. Had kids and everything.

You'll see we aren't all like the partiers in WeHo, just like all straights (or should I say "heterosexuals" ) aren't like the junkies in South Beach bars.

"LGBT rights activists" howl with discriminatory fenzy when public bathrooms are made off-limits for hookups.

Here ya go:

Mayor Naugle angers gay community - Sun Sentinel
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/browar ... orygallery

Broward tourism promoters tell Mayor Naugle to stop criticizing gays ... A line of Broward leaders in government, civil rights, gay rights and religion took the stage ...

I just googled: mayor naugle gay rights

And bingo!

"Straight, anti-gay types." You can't seem to stay away from propaganda. I am a Christian. I choose to live like one. As often as I can.

And you aren't using propaganda (with "homosexuals" and "gay agenda" and the like)?

Homosexuals are people that engage in homosexuality or want to as a matter of thought process right? The Gay Agenda has been implemented since the Mattachine Society and the Gay Liberation movement in the early part of the 20th century. And took off with propagandistic fever since the Stonewall riots.

I've simply stated the fact that you are (I assume) straight and opposed to homosexuality, transgender identities, and TLGBQA+ (transgender, lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer / questioning, asexual, and other non-heteronormative or cisnormative people).

I am no more opposed to people doing sexual things or believing they are some other gender or that wear other gender clothing any more than I am opposed to Voodoo practioners doing their thing. I am contending for the Christian faith in all honesty, ethics and morality.

That's not propaganda, that's a fact.

It's propaganda. Otherwise, "Queer" would still be the moniker. And I see that you want to dump "homosexual" now as that too carries an oddity factor right? "Gay" is not all that safe in today's youth culture. I have taught several classes in Real Life 101 to private school and public school teens. I am fascinated how even they know that tolerance is not the same thing as affirming. But they are so frightened to be labeled a "homophobe, a "bigot" or "hateful," that they just go along to get along. But I notice that as they grow in the faith, that fear subsides and is out into place and turned into resolve.

I am not a Christian, I'm a Kindness-revering, scientific naturalist atheist, and I choose to live like one as often as I can.

Kindness-refering naturalist atheist??? In a materialistic universe? How? It contradicts naturalism every bit as much as it makes you feel warm and fuzzy redefining marriage. And let's hope you don't ponder the word "love" as something that really exists. Not in an unguided universe. "Love" is a myth at best. Better thought of as a delusion or escapist reaction to doing what really needs be done to the sick and lame. The whole notion of "love" evolving into care for and nurturing of the sick, weak and the lame, is almost materialistic hypocrisy.

That means making decisions based on reason and evidence and treating others with respect and love -- regardless of religion, gender, race, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic.

Based on "reason?" "Respect and love?" Where was that invented in a materialistic universe? C'mon now, I was an atheist in every sense of the word. Love and caring have no materialistic reason behind them in nature. And, when trying to "reason" your way into same gender sexuality, with science as a impassionate guide . . . you have only the word pseudo that can be applied there. There is scientifically, no such thing as same gender sexual intercourse. Not according to the science of biology, anatomy and physiology. All have to be defied to be made politically correct. Just because a blooded up Alpha male Orangutan goes after a tinier male Orangutan for sexual release is hardly a call for defining that as love and a civil right. Even Bonobo's have to do sexual intercourse correctly . . . as in scientifically and naturally correctly . . to beget new Bonobo's.

I am opposed to bigotry and hate, but I don't despise bigots and haters --

I'd like to see you define the words based on reason and science. In the naturalistic earth, one can see that bigotry and hate makes one a successful breeder. And that is the only way better mutations can become better individuals, that in turn become better herds. Selfish genes do not reproduce in same gender couplings. Not even in those redefined as in a marriage.

I just want them to renounce their hateful ways and learn to accept and love others.

I'd like to see materialists renounce the word "love" for the delusion that it is. Unless they can produce a penal system in nature somewhere? Take for example, an older water buffalo that is driven away from his females by a younger, stronger water buffalo for "naturalistic" scientific principles to be played out.

It is also not my fault that gay culture is antithetical to a Christian life. Marriage is man and woman/husband and wife in the New Testament. Maybe you should be looking for "anti's" where they exist. As in anti-Christians.

Fundamentalist religious (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, any religion) culture is antithetical to a Kind life.

Jesus was an absolute fundamentalist. I'd like to see anyone try to disprove that assertion.

Marriage is a loving, faithful relationship between consenting adults according to logic, reason, and compassion.

Marriage until the Gay Agenda was thought of as man and woman/husband and wife. No one has ever tried to "outlaw" same sex marriage, because it has never been legal. Until the implementation of the Gay Agenda.

I'm not anti-Christian, I'm anti-bigotry and anti-fundamentalism -- Christian-based or not.

Have you ever looked up what defines someone as an anti-Christ?

Yes, the Evangelical community (Church) is having a good effect on many neighborhoods. Some neighborhoods, not all of course. For example, look at how many people want to mimic a Christian marriage. How many city dwellers are leaving the city for the-Church-on-almost-every-street-corner suburbs?

http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/03 ... us/359714/

That has nothing to do with those in the city leaving for a better life in the Burb's. And of course joining Mega Churches.

[Goat]

Haven

Why is it odd? It's not my fault that homosexuals have a community and culture. I chose a nice looking apartment in West Hollywood before I even knew I was living in a gay community. It wasn't long after that I knew I was.

West Hollywood (especially in the 80s) is no more typical of gay America than Miami Beach is typical of straight America. Even West Hollywood today isn't the way it was 30 years ago.

"Straight America?" Not part of a Christian perspective. "Christian Life" is part of a Christian's life. The LGBT community is far different than a Christian community. Christians do not support promiscuous hookups in bathrooms, public parks and dark parking lots. There is no equivalent to Rent Boys in Christian morality.

Wow. It seems to me that a lot of Roman Catholic priests, and George Rekkers might disagree with that. There are a lot of cases in the Protestant church too... and just remember, ted haggard is completely heterosexual...

[Haven]

"Straight America?" Not part of a Christian perspective. "Christian Life" is part of a Christian's life. The LGBT community is far different than a Christian community.

Many Christians are TLBGQA+.

Christians do not support promiscuous hookups in bathrooms, public parks and dark parking lots. There is no equivalent to Rent Boys in Christian morality.

Most TLGBQA+ people are against these things as well. Please, lay aside the stereotypes.

The same could be said of Voodoo. Go to Haiti, meet really, really nice Voodoo practioners. Etc., etc., etc.. Before I was a Christian, I did just that in New Orleans. Incredibly nice professional people. Had kids and everything.

Vodun (Voodoo) is just another religion, no different than Christianity or Islam. It's no more evil than any other faith.

"LGBT rights activists" howl with discriminatory fenzy when public bathrooms are made off-limits for hookups.

I'm almost certain you're making this up. Show me one example of LGBT rights activists "howling" about making bathrooms off-limits for hookups. Just one.

Here ya go: Mayor Naugle angers gay community - Sun Sentinel
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/browar ... orygallery

This was not about "hookups," it was about an ignorant bigot making hateful comments about and directing homophobic slurs at the gay community.

Mayor Naugle is a bigot, no different than the Klan members who used to run his state nearly 100 years ago.

Homosexuals are people that engage in homosexuality or want to as a matter of thought process right?

The term "homosexual" (as applied to a person) is outdated and offensive, no different than "negro" or "oriental." Please refrain from using it.

Homosexuality is not something that can be "engaged in." It is a sexual orientation, an immutable trait (like skin color or height). It has nothing to do with any action, sexual or otherwise.

The Gay Agenda has been implemented since the Mattachine Society and the Gay Liberation movement in the early part of the 20th century. And took off with propagandistic fever since the Stonewall riots.

That is the religious right interpretation of the gay equality and civil rights movement, yes.

For people who stand on the right side of history, these organizations and movements were about freeing gays and other TLGBQA+ people from oppression and discrimination.

I am no more opposed to people doing sexual things or believing they are some other gender or that wear other gender clothing any more than I am opposed to Voodoo practioners doing their thing. I am contending for the Christian faith in all honesty, ethics and morality.

Then why can't you keep your "morality" in your church where it belongs, instead of trying to influence society with it (through gay marriage bans, etc.)?

It's propaganda. Otherwise, "Queer" would still be the moniker.

"Queer" is still very much used among TLGBQA+ (often collectively called "queer," especially in academia) people. I'm proud to be a queer man.

And I see that you want to dump "homosexual" now as that too carries an oddity factor right?

I (and other queer people) want to dump "homosexual" because it is used as a term of abuse by the religious right.

I am fascinated how even they know that tolerance is not the same thing as affirming. But they are so frightened to be labeled a "homophobe, a "bigot" or "hateful," that they just go along to get along. But I notice that as they grow in the faith, that fear subsides and is out into place and turned into resolve.

I know that "tolerance" isn't the same as "affirmation." I tolerate religion-induced bigotry, for example, but I certainly don't affirm it.

Personally, I couldn't care less about "tolerance." I want TLGBQA+ people to be accepted and affirmed in society, seen as full and equal members in this nation and world, not merely "tolerated" as a nuisance.

Kindness-refering naturalist atheist??? In a materialistic universe? How?

How does Kindness contradict naturalism? It's a philosophical concept, an internal ethic and a social disposition -- how does it require the supernatural?

And let's hope you don't ponder the word "love" as something that really exists. Not in an unguided universe. "Love" is a myth at best. Better thought of as a delusion or escapist reaction to doing what really needs be done to the sick and lame. The whole notion of "love" evolving into care for and nurturing of the sick, weak and the lame, is almost materialistic hypocrisy.

Love doesn't really exist -- it's a biological and social construction. That doesn't mean it can't have real consequences in the social world, or promote caring and kind behavior.

Based on "reason?" "Respect and love?" Where was that invented in a materialistic universe? C'mon now, I was an atheist in every sense of the word. Love and caring have no materialistic reason behind them in nature.

Love and caring (and other forms of cooperation) promote the survival of the human species, which is evolutionarily advantageous.

There is only one sense of the word "atheist" -- a lack of belief in gods. There is no other meaning of this word.

And, when trying to "reason" your way into same gender sexuality, with science as a impassionate guide . . . you have only the word pseudo that can be applied there. There is scientifically, no such thing as same gender sexual intercourse. Not according to the science of biology, anatomy and physiology. All have to be defied to be made politically correct. Just because a blooded up Alpha male Orangutan goes after a tinier male Orangutan for sexual release is hardly a call for defining that as love and a civil right. Even Bonobo's have to do sexual intercourse correctly . . . as in scientifically and naturally correctly . . to beget new Bonobo's.

How is same-sex sexual intercourse somehow not sexual intercourse? That makes absolutely zero sense.

Also, how can you compare rape to consensual sex? How is that rational?

I'd like to see you define the words based on reason and science. In the naturalistic earth, one can see that bigotry and hate makes one a successful breeder. And that is the only way better mutations can become better individuals, that in turn become better herds. Selfish genes do not reproduce in same gender couplings. Not even in those redefined as in a marriage.

Evolutionary advantages of homosexuality.

Evolutionary advantages of cooperation.

I'd like to see materialists renounce the word "love" for the delusion that it is.

No. The word is culturally important and socially advantageous, so it is useful and I will continue using it.

Unless they can produce a penal system in nature somewhere?

What does that have to do with anything in this discussion?

Still: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/041612.html

Fundamentalist religious (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, any religion) culture is antithetical to a Kind life.

Jesus was an absolute fundamentalist. I'd like to see anyone try to disprove that assertion.

Jesus (at least as he was presented in the gospels) was not kind. He was racist, irrational, and vengeful. He contradicted himself numerous times, and threatened people with torture in some afterlife.

Marriage until the Gay Agenda was thought of as man and woman/husband and wife. No one has ever tried to "outlaw" same sex marriage, because it has never been legal. Until the implementation of the Gay Agenda.

I'm still waiting on evidence for this Gay Agendaâ„¢.

[99percentatheism]

Haven

Why is it odd? It's not my fault that homosexuals have a community and culture. I chose a nice looking apartment in West Hollywood before I even knew I was living in a gay community. It wasn't long after that I knew I was.

West Hollywood (especially in the 80s) is no more typical of gay America than Miami Beach is typical of straight America. Even West Hollywood today isn't the way it was 30 years ago.

"Straight America?" Not part of a Christian perspective. "Christian Life" is part of a Christian's life. The LGBT community is far different than a Christian community. Christians do not support promiscuous hookups in bathrooms, public parks and dark parking lots. There is no equivalent to Rent Boys in Christian morality.

Wow. It seems to me that a lot of Roman Catholic priests, and George Rekkers might disagree with that. There are a lot of cases in the Protestant church too... and just remember, ted haggard is completely heterosexual...

Hmm, you are equating the homosexual rape of male youth to the use of Rent Boys.

For the record.

Right? That IS what you just did?

And, Haggard (or rather haggard . . . was asked (and eventually demanded) by his Church authority, to stop his ADULT same gender sexual behavior. Nothing inappropriate about that directive according to Christian truth written as such in the New Testament.

[99percentatheism]

Haven

"Straight America?" Not part of a Christian perspective. "Christian Life" is part of a Christian's life. The LGBT community is far different than a Christian community.

Many Christians are TLBGQA+.

So they say. On this website, that cannot be challenged. But I notice that in the Gospels and the other New Testament witness it is.

Christians do not support promiscuous hookups in bathrooms, public parks and dark parking lots. There is no equivalent to Rent Boys in Christian morality.

Most TLGBQA+ people are against these things as well. Please, lay aside the stereotypes.

Try allowing Christian groups to protest homosexual behavior in public places. They will be called all of the tactics you employ.

History: Stonewall "Inn" was a gay bar that was hassled by non homosexuals called The Police. There was a male prostitution ring that was at that place.

The Stonewall Inn was made up of the dregs of the community. Transgenders and transsexuals were not allowed in many of the gay clubs. And the Stonewall Inn was mostly prostitutes and drug addicts, and drag queens and transgenders. It was not your respectable gay club. -

See more at: http://www.transadvocate.com/interview- ... J4rPd.dpuf

Earlier in the article referenced in the url:

Not surprisingly, the white, gay, Mattachine Society member and author of . . .

The same could be said of Voodoo. Go to Haiti, meet really, really nice Voodoo practioners. Etc., etc., etc.. Before I was a Christian, I did just that in New Orleans. Incredibly nice professional people. Had kids and everything.

Vodun (Voodoo) is just another religion, no different than Christianity or Islam. It's no more evil than any other faith.

That is not my point and you know it. Belief in homosexualism is not different than any other religion either.

"LGBT rights activists" howl with discriminatory fenzy when public bathrooms are made off-limits for hookups.

I'm almost certain you're making this up. Show me one example of LGBT rights activists "howling" about making bathrooms off-limits for hookups. Just one.

Nice spin. But "howling" as in protesting and calling people homophobes and anti-gay bigots for their radical belief that homosexual behavior is repugnant.

Here ya go: Mayor Naugle angers gay community - Sun Sentinel
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/browar ... orygallery

This was not about "hookups," it was about an ignorant bigot making hateful comments about and directing homophobic slurs at the gay community.

Well THAT didn't take long.

Mayor Naugle is a bigot, no different than the Klan members who used to run his state nearly 100 years ago.

I couldn't ask for better support for my assertions.

Homosexuals are people that engage in homosexuality or want to as a matter of thought process right?

The term "homosexual" (as applied to a person) is outdated and offensive, no different than "negro" or "oriental." Please refrain from using it.

Homosexual is a completely appropriate word. It describes behavior accurately. There is nothing wrong with opposing it. Not according to anatomy anyway.

Homosexuality is not something that can be "engaged in." It is a sexual orientation, an immutable trait (like skin color or height). It has nothing to do with any action, sexual or otherwise.

Your opinion and desires are noted. But "homosexuality" does not conjure up images of the Postman delivering junk mail. It is a descriptive word of behavior. An appropriate and as of now, legal word to use.

The Gay Agenda has been implemented since the Mattachine Society and the Gay Liberation movement in the early part of the 20th century. And took off with propagandistic fever since the Stonewall riots.

That is the religious right interpretation of the gay equality and civil rights movement, yes.

It is fact of history. In or outside of The Church. The religious right? Better described as the religious and historically correct.

For people who stand on the right side of history, these organizations and movements were about freeing gays and other TLGBQA+ people from oppression and discrimination.

Can't argue with the impressive power of propaganda. "National Socialism" is by many, thought of as a good thing too. But all of those letters that you present for some kind of community want their behaviors forcefully affirmed by every single person on earth. And that is never going to happen as long as The Church is represented by the truth of its founding. It's interesting, and truly telling, that the "tolerance and diversity crowd" really doesn't seem to want tolerance but absolute rule. How very typical of political power.

I am no more opposed to people doing sexual things or believing they are some other gender or that wear other gender clothing any more than I am opposed to Voodoo practioners doing their thing. I am contending for the Christian faith in all honesty, ethics and morality.

Then why can't you keep your "morality" in your church where it belongs, instead of trying to influence society with it (through gay marriage bans, etc.)?

Why can't the practitioners of homosexual behavior do the same thing? And do you notice how easy the ghettoizing you deliver is presented?

How historically myopic. Something I do not employ. Never once have I ever desired to stop homosexuals from engaging in their chosen behaviors. Nor have I ever tried to say that redefining marriage for the "world and its ways" is something it and they can't do. The behaviors and editing has noting to do with Christian truth and I stand in that reality accordingly. There should be no strife about this. There is Christian life . . . and behaviors and worldviews and opinions and positions antithetical to that. Simple.

It's propaganda. Otherwise, "Queer" would still be the moniker.

"Queer" is still very much used among TLGBQA+ (often collectively called "queer," especially in academia) people. I'm proud to be a queer man.

I wonder what would happen to the report buttons in my posts if I substituted the word Queer for homosexual?

And I see that you want to dump "homosexual" now as that too carries an oddity factor right?

I (and other queer people) want to dump "homosexual" because it is used as a term of abuse by the religious right.

Really? Since when is historically accurate descriptions been inappropriate? There's more to that propaganda tactic than meets the eye. Literally.

I am fascinated how even they know that tolerance is not the same thing as affirming. But they are so frightened to be labeled a "homophobe, a "bigot" or "hateful," that they just go along to get along. But I notice that as they grow in the faith, that fear subsides and is out into place and turned into resolve.

I know that "tolerance" isn't the same as "affirmation." I tolerate religion-induced bigotry, for example, but I certainly don't affirm it.

And we tolerate our adversaries. And according to Jesus, we are to love them too.

Personally, I couldn't care less about "tolerance."

I want TLGBQA+ people to be accepted and affirmed in society, seen as full and equal members in this nation and world, not merely "tolerated" as a nuisance.

Validating every description of "the Gay Agenda" as an agenda. I notice that it takes the overriding of many democratic process to force the "acceptance" of homosexuality in society. Or, as is noted in history, the loss of religion to a society. It fascinates me historically, that so many "atheists" champion gay pride in The Church.

Kindness-refering naturalist atheist??? In a materialistic universe? How?

How does Kindness contradict naturalism? It's a philosophical concept, an internal ethic and a social disposition -- how does it require the supernatural?

Philosophical? In nature? In a materialistic universe?

Take a day or two to contemplate your assertion. There is no caring in evolution. Just evolution in evolution.

And let's hope you don't ponder the word "love" as something that really exists. Not in an unguided universe. "Love" is a myth at best. Better thought of as a delusion or escapist reaction to doing what really needs be done to the sick and lame. The whole notion of "love" evolving into care for and nurturing of the sick, weak and the lame, is almost materialistic hypocrisy.

Love doesn't really exist -- it's a biological and social construction. That doesn't mean it can't have real consequences in the social world, or promote caring and kind behavior.

Errrgh. Please reread your position here and thin about it. "promote caring and kind behavior?" There is no such thing to chemicals. If we are simply matter existing as such, then there is no such thing as caring and kind behavior. And, as this "caring and kind behavior" encourages behaviors that have no place in the evolution of a species, then we are dealing with some other kind of influence to the rise of worthless and valueless behaviors being equated to reasonable behaviors.Where is the symbiosis in caring for abnormal individuals? Naturalism weeds out these valueless things. Where does the Momma Duck take her deaf and blind child? That thing is a product of nature that does not care about it. And shouldn't. A Momma Duck caring for and about her slow child makes them both a meal for a valuable predator.

Where's the math for "love" and "caring" in an unguided universe? Since the math starts with a zero, well, there's your answers too.

Based on "reason?" "Respect and love?" Where was that invented in a materialistic universe? C'mon now, I was an atheist in every sense of the word. Love and caring have no materialistic reason behind them in nature.

Love and caring (and other forms of cooperation) promote the survival of the human species, which is evolutionarily advantageous.

Our planet is in peril. If it is not already to late to save it, than we are at a place where "caring and love" means to weed out the unnecessary. And the breeders will always get top billing "in nature."

There is only one sense of the word "atheist" -- a lack of belief in gods. There is no other meaning of this word.

Not according to empiricism. It is a worldview and culture as well. How can you even deny that? C'mon now. There is some respect in that assertion.

And, when trying to "reason" your way into same gender sexuality, with science as a impassionate guide . . . you have only the word pseudo that can be applied there. There is scientifically, no such thing as same gender sexual intercourse. Not according to the science of biology, anatomy and physiology. All have to be defied to be made politically correct. Just because a blooded up Alpha male Orangutan goes after a tinier male Orangutan for sexual release is hardly a call for defining that as love and a civil right. Even Bonobo's have to do sexual intercourse correctly . . . as in scientifically and naturally correctly . . to beget new Bonobo's.

How is same-sex sexual intercourse somehow not sexual intercourse? That makes absolutely zero sense.

Reason, logic, rationalism. As the Catholics so scientifically and physically accurately describe it: intrinsically disordered. That is provable if we take emotionalism out of the agenda and allow reason to drive the issues. But that would mean allowing naturalism to have its proper place in the matter. And somehow, human behavior rises above naturalism when "passions" are at stake.

Also, how can you compare rape to consensual sex? How is that rational?

There is no such thing as rape in nature. Unless of course you want to start arresting Alpha Males of (lower) animal species in nature. Start with Lions please. Let's see how the gay pride movement does there?

I'd like to see you define the words based on reason and science. In the naturalistic earth, one can see that bigotry and hate makes one a successful breeder. And that is the only way better mutations can become better individuals, that in turn become better herds. Selfish genes do not reproduce in same gender couplings. Not even in those redefined as in a marriage.

Evolutionary advantages of homosexuality.

Evolutionary advantages of cooperation.

Yawn. Emotionalism hardly takes authority over the descent of man. Selfish genes are not successful in the misplaced actions of same gender pseudo mating. That is, if you want to keep this on the scientific and naturalistic path.

I'd like to see materialists renounce the word "love" for the delusion that it is.

No. The word is culturally important and socially advantageous, so it is useful and I will continue using it.

OK. It lends credence to Evangelical Christian positions incredibly accurately. It has no place in nature though. It won't bother me if you say and demand to redefine the word STOP on the six-sided sign means to punch the gas peddle to the floor. The consequences for your actions are only towards you. Naturally.

Unless they can produce a penal system in nature somewhere?

What does that have to do with anything in this discussion?

There is no such thing as love and caring in a naturalistic universe. That's the point. I don't think many things prove the existence of God, a LOVING God, than an atheist that says they are representing "love and caring" for whatever their position is at the time of their assertion of the words.

Still: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/041612.html

I'll cruise the Serengeti plains and see "love and caring" in process. IN nature. Scientifically proven.

Fundamentalist religious (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, any religion) culture is antithetical to a Kind life.

Jesus was an absolute fundamentalist. I'd like to see anyone try to disprove that assertion.

Jesus (at least as he was presented in the gospels) was not kind. He was racist, irrational, and vengeful. He contradicted himself numerous times, and threatened people with torture in some afterlife.

Your opinion is duly noted. And you are free to imbibe it. When I visit someone in a Christian hospital, or when I am sending money to one of the many Christian missionary programs feeding the poor and needy throughout the secular world, I'll ponder your opinion about Jesus.

Marriage until the Gay Agenda was thought of as man and woman/husband and wife. No one has ever tried to "outlaw" same sex marriage, because it has never been legal. Until the implementation of the Gay Agenda.

I'm still waiting on evidence for this Gay Agendaâ„¢.

You provide it.