Homosexuality: Wrong or Right?

[TinMan]

No I obey my parents and God I never do sexual imoral things

why you put picture of my people suffering to say sexual imoral thing okay

why are you saying it's OK to do these things to gay people?

 

[Taken]

did you read your own post?

Acting of your own accord, and proclaiming your ACT to Be in Gods Name…
IS one thing.

Acting IN Gods Name, Because He tells a person to ACT…
IS entirely a Different thing.

IN Brief…

In the OT, God gave His Direct Telling TO men, VIA visions…TO go about minding their OWN business. Repeatedly they were going about minding their OWN business, AND at times sneakedly, ambushed, attacked…REPEATEDLY BY the SAME GROUPS OF PEOPLE….in the SAME sneaky, manner.

God Intervened and TOLD them (His People) to DEFEND His People Completely…Kill the Attackers, Kill them ALL. Take nothing of theirs. Burn ALL their possessions.
THAT IS Acting IN Gods NAME.

My post DID NOT EXPLAIN that to you.
However my post was NOT contrary to Gods Word.

Gods Word, TO Kill and TO burn, was spoken to A particular group of People.
I was not, am not, OF that particular group of People.
What was TOLD to THEM, was not TOLD TO me, DID not, DOES not APPLY to me.

You simply read a Passage in Scripture, WITHOUT considering WHO or WHY it was TOLD TO THEM.

Then you QUESTIONED if THAT was applicable to ANY man today…For ANY man to KILL another IN Gods NAME…
No it wasn’t. No it isn’t.

God Has NO NEED to speak to men IN VISIONS. God SENT His Word in the Likeness As a man TO SPEAK His WORD, face to face with Earthly men, and as they SPOKE…scribes were taking notes, and the scribes gave their notes to the Temple Recorders to Assemble in the Scribes notes into an order, and from there the Recorders Wrote on Scrolls, which were Kept in the guard of the Temple.

As time passed, the Knowledge from the Scrolls were copied and sent to Each of the Twelve Tribes Synagogue's.

As time passed, the Knowledge from the Scrolls were copied, given Titles (called books), Passages given punctuation marks and Numbered, and Bound into ONE Book, Which was called by Gentiles; THE BIBLE.

As time passed, MORE Knowledge was Revealed, written, copied, bound in ONE Book, containing An Additional NEW Testament…and Distributed to Churches…and as Copying became available through Presses, (rather than Hand copying), more and more Books, now with Old, New Testament CALLED the HOLY BIBLE…became available….Individuals could BUY a Holy Bible from manufacturers…

As time passed….Organizations, began BUYING Holy Bibles and GIVING their purchased Bibles Away to ANYONE desiring to own and have their own Bible to read, ANYTIME 24-7.

It IS absolutely paramount to KNOW…
WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY…a Single Verse IN Scripture “APPLIES TO” particular persons or “DOES NOT APPLY TO” particular persons….TO comprehend the TRUTH of the KNOWLEDGE.

The UNDERSTANDING of THE Knowledge (which IS Gods DIRECT Word or INSPIRED and APPROVED Directly By God)….IS ONLY Understood BY ….. the Lord God Himself supernaturally …GIVING that individual…
HIS UNDERSTANDING.

ALL Scripture IS TRUE, but YET NOT ALL Scripture APPLIES to EVERY individual.

 

[Taken]

wow...just when i thought you couldn't stoop any lower, here you are defending lynching.

Do you pay attention to what IS SAID and NOT SAID?
Wrangler SAID NO SUCH THING. He DID NOT MENTION “lynching”!

 

[TinMan]

I'm not sure I agree with your generalization. I wouldn't put racism and homophobia in the same category. But I can see why others might. I hope we can agree, however, that reason is preferable over emotionalism. Essentially, we evaluate the veracity of a truth claim based on the argument itself, not on the character of the person making the argument.

Yet your posts are entirely an appeals to emotion.

My earlier point was this. An individual makes an argument by giving us his or her reasons why an action or an idea is right or wrong. Either the argument is sound and valid or it isn't. We evaluate the argument according to reason and sound principles. The argument is either true or fallacious.

we aren't talking about actions we are talking about people. From the get go you are reducing people to just a behavior. That is not reason at all

There are a dozen ways in which an argument may be fallacious. One of these is "ad hominem" (speaking "to the man") attack on the argument, which seeks to discredit the man, rather than dispute his facts or his reasons. You do this often, suggesting that our reasons against homosexuality are based on homophobia or racism. You attack the man (or woman) rather than his ideas.

if you were making the same posts about black people would be rightly called racism.

You compare us to the KKK, White supremacists, and other disfavored groups in an effort to attack our character and to discredit us in an effort to assign guilt by association (not that any of us are associated with such groups but only because of your false accusations are we being associated with such groups.)

What I do is point out that your "rational" arguments are the same as those used against other minorities.

I also find it wonderfully ironic that you are saying such comparisons are unjustifiable when LGBT people are compared to pedophiles, murders, drug users and the mentally ill in post after post.

You don't understand that our society practices age discrimination and for good reason? Hmm. I wonder.

and you don't understand that requiring qualifications for something is not discrimination.
It's a terribly simple concept. A hospital won't let you walk in and perform surgery on someone. You have to medical doctor trained in surgery, you have to be licensed and employed by the hospital. When they stop you from taking a scalpel to someone they aren't discriminating against you.

Do you know why gay couples fought for the right to be married?

For the same reason interracial couples fought for the right to be married. because they wanted to get married and discrimination prevented that from happening.

In truth, gay couples were already allowed to be married. What did they want? What did they really want? Gay couples wanted the same social-governmental benefits that straight couples are granted to married people.

Interracial couples also could get married...to people of the right skin color.

In short, the law discriminates against single people in favor of married people. For one, a spouse is allowed to visit the other spouse in the hospital. Until the government officially recognized gay marriage, a gay husband was not allowed to visit his gay wife in the hospital.

gay husbands don't have gay wives.

Not only this but being married affords many other social benefits not afforded to single people: Tax breaks; Social Security benefits, Obtaining credit, Insurance savings, Access to benefits, Individual retirement account contributions, and Sharing costs. I'm certain that I am forgetting other things also.


The government practices all sorts of discrimination.

According to gays. What have gays always wanted if not, approval from parents, approval from teachers, approval from society? I'm generalizing of course. But this has always been the case. LGBT people have always wanted to feel comfortable with self-disclosure of their sexual orientation.

doesn't everyone want approval from their parents? teachers? society?

I'm sure you want the same things.

Have you heard of "Gay pride"? It's inspired by the phrase "I'm Black and I'm Proud" from the Black Power movement. Essentially, Black pride is a way for Black people to counter the shame and embarrassment that they often feel from non-Black people. It's a way for Black people to encourage and support each other in feeling proud of their heritage.

pride is the promotion of the self-affirmation, dignity, equality. it is a rejection of hate and fear and the assertion that LGBT people should have to hide.

Nowadays, there's a growing trend toward "white shame". This is when people who can't shake off their feelings of shame and embarrassment about their race start to resent those who don't feel the same way.

its actually something created by people of a racist bent to paint themselves as being victims of the veyr things they do.

Gay pride parades are nothing more but nothing less than a public service announcement designed to encourage gay people to shed their embarrassment for being gay. The message is clear, gay people feel embarrassed for being gay, which is why they need to be encouraged to openly and publicly express "gay-ness."

No the message is that those who pare prejudiced say that the should be ashamed and hide. Just take a look at your claims.

Anyone who is awake can see the clear implications of the messages projected by the movement.

Yes, stand up to bullies. Refuse to live in fear. Refuse to hide

Who said anything about saying hateful things or taking hateful action? The only person I know who is talking about that is You.

have you read your own posts?

That is sophistry. We all know what we mean by "normal."

we know you are using it as a means of attacking and dehumanizing anyone you don't judge to be normal.

 

[TinMan]

Acting of your own accord, and proclaiming your ACT to Be in Gods Name…
IS one thing.

Acting IN Gods Name, Because He tells a person to ACT…
IS entirely a Different thing.

It's the same it just in the latter one is trying to wash hands of any personal responsibility of one's words and actions.

Gods Word, TO Kill and TO burn, was spoken to A particular group of People.
I was not, am not, OF that particular group of People.
What was TOLD to THEM, was not TOLD TO me, DID not, DOES not APPLY to me.

So if it was given to just one particular group why is it being hauled out to justify prejudice to those who are not part of that group?

 

[CadyandZoe]

we aren't talking about actions we are talking about people.

Wrong. What is the title of this thread? Homosexuality: Right or Wrong? The talk is about the oughtness of an action. Read the syllabus. Maybe you are in the wrong class room. Who is your instructor?

From the get go you are reducing people to just a behavior.

Just because I argue that the behavior is wrong, it does not follow therefore I have reduced the practitioner to a behavior.

if you were making the same posts about black people would be rightly called racism.

I respectfully disagree. If I charge a single individual with a crime, I am not automatically and necessarily charging his entire race with the same crime.

What I do is point out that your "rational" arguments are the same as those used against other minorities.

No, that is not what you are doing. I'll tell you what you are ACTUALLY doing. You unjustly assume that I agree with your presupposition that homosexuality is a state of being, a concept that I have denied more than once. Thus, you unjustly and unfairly accuse me of racism. I don't affirm your premise that homosexuality is a state of being. When I say that homosexuality is wrong, I am critical of a behavior not a social category.

I also find it wonderfully ironic that you are saying such comparisons are unjustifiable when LGBT people are compared to pedophiles, murders, drug users and the mentally ill in post after post.

You have me confused with someone else.

and you don't understand that requiring qualifications for something is not discrimination.

In fact, it is discrimination. You simply have forgotten that the term has a neutral meaning.

 

[Wrangler]

wow...just when i thought you couldn't stoop any lower, here you are defending lynching.

LOL. No, I am not defending lynching. I am opposing your false equating racial hatred with moral condemnation of homosexuality.

 

[TinMan]

Wrong. What is the title of this thread? Homosexuality: Right or Wrong? The talk is about the oughtness of an action. Read the syllabus. Maybe you are in the wrong class room. Who is your instructor?

People can't be separated from an intrinsic part of themselves. When right wingers get on about this its' usually trying to use the horrible catch phrase hate the sin love the sinner....even though what is called love looks exactly like hate

Just because I argue that the behavior is wrong, it does not follow therefore I have reduced the practitioner to a behavior.

you just did that in your first paragraph here.

I respectfully disagree. If I charge a single individual with a crime, I am not automatically and necessarily charging his entire race with the same crime.

and again you contradict your first paragraph.

No, that is not what you are doing. I'll tell you what you are ACTUALLY doing. You unjustly assume that I agree with your presupposition that homosexuality is a state of being, a concept that I have denied more than once.

you can deny the earth is not round all you like but that won't change anything about the shape of this planet.

Thus, you unjustly and unfairly accuse me of racism.

I never called you or anyone else here racist.

I don't affirm your premise that homosexuality is a state of being. When I say that homosexuality is wrong, I am critical of a behavior not a social category.

You have me confused with someone else.

In fact, it is discrimination. You simply have forgotten that the term has a neutral meaning.

still wrong. discrimination treating people unfairly based on the membership or perceived membership in a minority.

Insisting surgeons be educated is not unfair treatment.

 

[TinMan]

I dont understand I dont say to do anything to gay people I think you hate an lie about people who love Jesus and bible

you said "as christian who also racial minority I dont feel very love when somebody compare my people to sexual immoral one" and then go ahead and do the same thing to others

 

[TinMan]

LOL. No, I am not defending lynching. I am opposing your false equating racial hatred with moral condemnation of homosexuality.

may i remind you that the topic came when a poster decided to play word games about the contextual definition of discrimination. That wor game says that the above picture does not contain any racial hatred at all. Those good Christians are just doing what is perfectly moral and pointing out differences.

 

[Wrangler]

Those good Christians are just doing what is perfectly moral and pointing out differences.

Prove it! What evidence do you have that it was Christian’s who did the lunching ON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES.

 

[Taken]

It's the same it just in the latter one is trying to wash hands of any personal responsibility of one's words and actions.

Not the same.

So if it was given to just one particular group why is it being hauled out to justify prejudice to those who are not part of that group?

Ask your question and make your accusation toward the one who “hauled” it out.

 

[Wrangler]

Mein Kampf attributes moral decay to foreigners and nonaryans and homosexuals and their rejection of the traditional family structure.

Are you implying that these factors are not valid contributors to moral decay because they are in Mein Kemp?

 

[teamventure]

In vain do they worship Christ! This also was a worry of Paul the apostle. That preaching and believing was in vain, as in useless, a waste of time, not resulting in salvation and approval from God, but only condemnation and hell.

1. Galatians 2:2
   And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.
   In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
2. Galatians 2:21
   I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”
   In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
3. Galatians 3:4
   Have you suffered so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?
   In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
4. Galatians 4:11
   I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.
   In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
5. Philippians 2:16
   holding fast the word of life, so that I may rejoice in the day of Christ that I have not run in vain or labored in vain.
6. 1 Thessalonians 3:5
   For this reason, when I could no longer endure it, I sent to know your faith, lest by some means the tempter had tempted you, and our labor might be in vain.
   In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Great work. I'm so glad you pointed out those truths because they clearly point out how those who claim to believe in Christ yet are pro homosexual are in the category of those who have believed in vain.

 

[teamventure]

any evidence to back that up?

Couldn't I ask you the same question for implying that raising children by a homosexual couple is healthy?

 

[teamventure]

why are you saying it's OK to do these things to gay people?

You need to turn to God and repent for your homosexuality.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

NEW Testament scriptures

Matthew 19:1-8 — Did Jesus say anything about homosexuality? Of course, when asked about marriage, Jesus issued a sweeping condemnation of all sexual relationships outside of the male/female model established in Gen 1:27, which he specifically cited.

Romans 1:18-32 —Though most of the passages deal with the male perspective, for the first time there is a specific mention of female homosexuality. And as the verdict comes in, we discover it too is a depraved condition brought on by a sinful nature.

1Cor 6:9-11—The only passage of scripture that clearly acknowledges former (ex) homosexuals in the church. They are listed along with other ex-sinners who have been changed by the power of Christ. It is certain that Pastor Paul knew there were former homosexuals in his local church and he celebrated their freedom in Christ Jesus. With a completely different tone in comparison to the volume of harsh, negative reaction to the unrepentant homosexuality, scripture here ends with the tremendous hope and goodness of God.

Galatians 5:19 — Many areas that the apostle traveled to take the gospel indeed were very accepting of homosexual practices, yet he did not back away from communicating the sinfulness of such practice. Corinth, Ephesus and Rome as well as other major cities of the ancient world, were all too often cesspools of all forms of sexual immorality. Undeterred, Paul drew from sources familiar to him and forged them with New testament teachings of God’s grace to forgive and cleanse. In the letter to the Galatians, he teaches that the “works [not plurality] of the flesh are manifest. The flesh or sinful human nature is always considered and enemy to God.

Ephesians 5:3-7— Paul repeats his warnings against “uncleaness” to the church at Ephesus.

Colossians 3:5-7 — Paul issues his third warning against “uncleaness” to the church at Colosse. This time he adds instructions on overcoming/controlling the sin. Believers are to mortify or deaden themselves and exercise self control (a fruit of the Spirit) over such actions. Homosexuals claim that denying the free expression of homosexuality is "suppressing one's true self", but scripture clearly instructs that we are hold our bodies in check and refuse it participation in sexual immorality. This passage further emphasizes that no one should expect to escape the “wrath of God” except they repent.

1 Tim 1:10 — the law was not made for the righteous, but for the “lawless and disobedient.” The law (of Moses) encompassed the ceremonial, judicial and moral components of human interaction. Christ neutralized the ceremonial aspects but upheld the judicial and moral aspects, tendered with grace and mercy. Hence, homosexuality remains a sin "worthy of death" but yet qualified for forgiveness through repentance. The phrase Paul uses “defiling themselves with mankind” is another link of homosexual behavior to disobedience and uncompatible to sound or acceptable Christian doctrine.

Titus 1:16 — This is an aggressive attack and exposure of the psychosis of those who are “defiled” and commit “abominations". Again, let us identify the source of the Apostle Paul’s strong condemnation. When one accepts what God has pronounced abominable (by God’s own definition) and rejects the created model which God has pronounced good, a process of hardening and mental perversion begins to take root in the mind. Such is the danger of justifying sin. Sin corrupts the mind and conscience (the seat of individual integrity and morality) rendering it incapable of making spiritually sound decisions.

Jude 1:4,7,19 — Jude forcefully revealed that like the Sodomites, certain men in the church had gone after “strange flesh.” I believed Jude was describing contemporary "gay christians". His choice of phraseology is a combination of two words: heteros and sarx meaning “another flesh with the same quality.” His inclusion of the word flesh pointed to the homosexuality (not the inhospitality) of the Sodomites. Similar to the Apostle Paul, Jude selected strong language to convey the serious of the charge facing the church. Allowing unrepentant homosexuals into Christian fellowship without applying the same standards of admission applied to other sinners would be a spiritual death nell for the church. Repentance is the major action a sinner must take to be accepted into the family of God.

Rev 21:27—The final book of the Bible, finalizing a complete picture stunning denouncements of all forms of homosexual conduct. From Genesis to Revelation, the Word of God firmly establishes once and for all the sinfulness of homosexuality, but also provides a wide opportunity for repentance and redemption through Jesus Christ. Homosexuality, as seen through the eyes of scripture is a spiritual aberration, a result of the fallen nature of man, a disease of the soul. It produces nothing life giving, in essence opposite of the nature of God who is life. Therefore it “worketh” or produces abomination which is death.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Bible Verses on No Same Sex Marriage

The Bible says:

Genesis 19
This is a lengthy passage relating to the destruction of Sodom.

Leviticus 18:22, 24
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind, it is abomination. Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things

Same Sex Marriage - Bible Prohibition
Verses from the Bible strongly indicate that the gay same sex marriage life style should be suppressed. Thus the foundation of our American law comes from the Bible.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Deuteronomy 23:17-18
There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

1 Kings 14:22, 24
And Judah did evil in the sight of the LORD, and they provoked him to jealousy with their sins which they had committed, above all that their fathers had done.
And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.

1 Kings 15:11-12
And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father.
And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.

1 Kings 22:42-46
Jehoshaphat was thirty and five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and five years in Jerusalem. . . .
And he walked in all the ways of Asa his father; he turned not aside from it, doing that which was right in the eyes of the LORD: . . .
And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.

2 Kings 23:3, 7
And the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the LORD, to walk after the LORD, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart and all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant.
And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.

Romans 1:26-27
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their woman did change the natural use into that which is against nature.
And like wise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another: men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

Like wise our forefathers in early Alabama passed laws to suppress openly homosexual behavior. Our forefathers did not consider homosexuals to be normal people, as they took the word of God the Bible seriously.

These laws and traditions have been maintained to even today. Shall we remove the landmarks established by our forefathers? Is the human reasoning put forth by the liberal newspapers wiser than the wisdom of our forefathers?

No Same Sex Marriage Biblical References in the Old Testament
The Bible clearly teaches no same sex marriage.
Genesis 19; Judges 19:14
Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13
Deuteronomy 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7
Homosexual References in the New Testament

Romans 1: 26-29
1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:9-10, Jude 7


Summary of Biblical Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage


1. God lists "homosexual offenders" among "the wicked" (1 Corinthians 6:9).

2. God lists "homosexual offenders" among those who He determines will "not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9).

3. Historically, homosexuality has incurred God's destructive wrath upon an entire city (Gen. 19:4-5, 11-13).

4. God's word defines the men of Sodom as "sinning greatly" because of their men having sex with men (Genesis 13:13; 19:5).

5. God calls Sodom's sin "sexual perversion" (Jude 1:7). Societies that remain in perversion (Sodom, Rome...) are on the road to destruction.

6. God's word identifies husband-wife relations as "natural relations" and homosexual relations as "unnatural ones" (Romans 1:26-27) and "perversion" (vs. 27).

7. God's word also rebukes those who "approve of those who practice" homosexuality (Romans 1:32).

8. Jesus settled the marriage issue once for all, declaring that God had made them "male and female ... a man ... [and] his wife" (Matthew 19:4-5).

Matt 19:4-6
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate"

 

[TinMan]

Prove it! What evidence do you have that it was Christian’s who did the lunching ON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES.

you need to ask the people claiming that discrimination isn't a bad thing at all. Wait, isn't that what you think?

 

[TinMan]

Not the same.

Ask your question and make your accusation toward the one who “hauled” it out.

you are the one who said it was given only to certain people at a certain time. If you really believe that why aren't you asking?