Homosexuality: Wrong or Right?

[TinMan]

As I said, more logical fallacies. one on top of another.

You don't know what a logical fallacy is do you?

 

[TinMan]

So what would you expect from a post-modernist culture and society that doesn't believe in objective truth? Do you honestly believe that truth is a matter of consensus? I affirm the correspondence theory of truth -- that claims are true if they match or correspond to reality.

and your claims don't. The reality is that transgendered persons exist even if you don't want them to. You can meet them and identify them. observe them, interact with them.

Scientists formerly affirmed the correspondence theory of truth. And I'm sure many of them do, but they are funded by those who don't. Understand? Follow the money. With regard to those who fund research, "truth" is whatever is useful to the donor.

if this were true you should be able to provide evidence showing this to be the reality....

Orientation is just another word for predilection,

Only if you lie

which is a matter of the will, not a matter of ontology.

Even if a woman is attracted to another woman, her behavior should still be guided by morality and abstinence.

should statements are always matters of opinion.

You have a bad habit of making up inferences that do not follow from anything that I said.

most of what you say isn't grounded in reality but rather your desire for what you think reality should be

Unlike you, I don't accept innate orientation.

You don't have to accept that the earth is round. It won't change reality.

We are discussing the morality of a particular behavior, which is practiced by all races, nationalities, peoples, tongues, and ethnic groups. If I deny that orientation is an innate characteristic of human beings, then how can you accuse me of hatred of a fictional person?

Try to keep up.

the idea that people don't exist because you deny that they do doesn't correspond with reality...its actually an example of a delusion.

 

[TinMan]

And you know this how?

your misuse and lack of understanding of the concept was a big clue

 

[CadyandZoe]

You don't know what a logical fallacy is do you?

Yes, I do.

 

[TinMan]

I went back and read his post. He was responding to your inane comment concerning what an individual LGBTQ person experiences over time, not a single act of injustice. At least try to get it straight. He didn't answer your question because it was an obvious case of deflection and emotionalism.

As anyone can read - he responded to the statement "the cumulative effects of experiencing hate and discrimination particularly when social and familial support is absent leads directly to mental health problems" a statement that corresponds to actual reality that LGBT people who experience hate etc deserve what they get because they are or doing something "EVIL"

He isn't honest enough to answer my question because the logical result of his statement is that torture, mutilation and murder are morally justifiable acts.

And you seem to agree with him.

Apparently, you were trying to explain the concept of "minority stress," which is allegedly one reason why an LGBTQ person might suffer from substance abuse and suicide. The more obvious reason why such people suffer from substance abuse is because their partners give them drugs to reduce the victim's judgment and lower the victim's resistance. The victim commits suicide because the abuser leaves them without hope, humiliated, and degraded.

the only obvious thing here is that your view of LGBT people is based entirely on fantasy and bigotry.

 

[TinMan]

I was using the generic you or the impersonal you. I wasn't speaking of you in particular. I think we can all relate to the discomfort we feel when someone challenges our beliefs or our behaviors. You would say that the LGBT crowd experiences a unique form of stress that results from social stigma and discrimination.

You just called this "inane"

The LGBT crowd is feeling guilt-related stress.

can you back that up with anything that isn't a product of either bigotry of fantasy?

Not only are they self-conscious about their immorality, but their behavior involves negative evaluations of the self, feelings of distress, and feelings of failure. Guilt can lead to negative coping methods such as isolation, self-punishment, or substance abuse. Guilt can make a person feel anxious, depressed, and ashamed.

I guess you can't back it up

The LGBT crowd has various ways to cope with guilt-stress, such as seeking social support and engaging in activism. Unfortunately, they are unable to find positive role models or develop a strong sense of identity and self-esteem.

Now THIS is inane

 

[TinMan]

Yea, the difference is my posts are actually true

Like the one where you claimed I was the one who actually said 8 year old Gabriel was engaging in EVIL?

 

[TinMan]

You are denying the boy is evil.

How is he evil?

 

[TinMan]

You suppose happiness is found in the long run by going against the will of God. That's the difference between us.

I believe happiness is found in a loving family...that is the difference between us

 

[TinMan]

Very profound. It reveals the mockery of "Pride" parades.

Normal people don't have parades for how they feel.

Like the St Patrick's Day parade "an annual parade organized by the Irish Community of New York City to honor Saint Patrick, the Patron Saint of Ireland while celebrating their Irish culture and heritage."
Or are Irish people evil too.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The reality is that transgendered persons exist even if you don't want them to.

Transgenderism isn't a real thing. If I met someone who claimed to be transgendered, I would wonder who convinced them of this lie or why they would believe such a delusional and absurd idea.

if this were true you should be able to provide evidence showing this to be the reality....

You have been supplying the evidence yourself. You just don't recognize it. You still don't seem to understand the nature of scientific inquiry. Science is a two-step process: 1) gather data, 2) draw conclusions. Anyone can immediately recognize bad science from the conclusions the scientist has drawn, which are based on his or her worldview and his presuppositions.

I have been arguing from my worldview, which is based on the teachings of my Lord Jesus Christ and the Biblical worldview. I have argued that homosexual behavior violates the created order and is one of the most obvious examples of a depraved mind. Scientists who claim that everyone is born with one of several different sexual orientations are delusional and don't have a mind worthy of being called a mind. Everyone, including scientists, wears on their bodies clear and unambiguous evidence that human beings are born with a male-female orientation because that is the only possible orientation that satisfies God's design for reproduction.

I don't need a scientist to tell me what my members are for.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Like the St Patrick's Day parade "an annual parade organized by the Irish Community of New York City to honor Saint Patrick, the Patron Saint of Ireland while celebrating their Irish culture and heritage."
Or are Irish people evil too.

Your equivocation was cute at first but a bit tiring.

 

[TinMan]

Yes, I do.

Then why did you misuse the phrase "logical fallacy"?

 

[TinMan]

Transgenderism isn't a real thing. If I met someone who claimed to be transgendered, I would wonder who convinced them of this lie or why they would believe such a delusional and absurd idea.

Denying reality and inserting your own fantasy narrative doesn't change reality.

You have been supplying the evidence yourself. You just don't recognize it. You still don't seem to understand the nature of scientific inquiry. Science is a two-step process: 1) gather data, 2) draw conclusions. Anyone can immediately recognize bad science from the conclusions the scientist has drawn, which are based on his or her worldview and his presuppositions.

Obviously you don't understand the nature of scientific inquiry. Conclusions are based on date form experimentation and observation. Scientific papers present in great depth the source and the validity of the date, the manner of data collection and the analysis of that data. real research goes through rigorous peer review where every aspect of that process is examined and careful consideration of any apparent bias on the part of the researchers. Anyone can look at legitimately published research and follow the data and analysis themselves.

I have been arguing from my worldview, which is based on the teachings of my Lord Jesus Christ and the Biblical worldview. I have argued that homosexual behavior violates the created order and is one of the most obvious examples of a depraved mind. Scientists who claim that everyone is born with one of several different sexual orientations are delusional and don't have a mind worthy of being called a mind. Everyone, including scientists, wears on their bodies clear and unambiguous evidence that human beings are born with a male-female orientation because that is the only possible orientation that satisfies God's design for reproduction.

I don't need a scientist to tell me what my members are for.

There is actually a significant number of people born every year where it is not clear if they are male or female. but the intersexed or a biological identification of genitalia have nothing to do with orientation.

 

[TinMan]

Your equivocation was cute at first but a bit tiring.

Equivocation is the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself.

 

[Wrangler]

How is he evil?

You keep asking questions already answered multiple times. Do you admit homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible?

 

[CadyandZoe]

He isn't honest enough to answer my question because the logical result of his statement is that torture, mutilation and murder are morally justifiable acts.

He is smart enough to recognize a red herring when he sees it. And he is smart enough to know that actions have consequences.

Whether a parent loves their kids or abuses their kids says more about their parents than the kids. However, the topic of discussion is homosexual behavior, which means that the treatment of homosexuals is a red herring and not relevant to the issue of whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong. And the treatment of an 8-year-old boy, as tragic as that is, has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Studies have shown that homosexuals suffer substance abuse in far greater numbers than the general public. Your argument about minority stress is patently false because other minorities are living among the general population and they don't suffer substance abuse in the same percentage. Get it? One would assume that all kinds of minorities suffer minority stress. But only one so-called minority stands above them all in the matter of substance abuse.

Thus, the practice of homosexuality is clearly and unambiguously associated with several negative consequences.

This answers the question of right and wrong in terms of consequences. But we also answer the question in terms of objective truth, reality, and design.

the only obvious thing here is that your view of LGBT people is based entirely on fantasy and bigotry.

You are changing the subject. This thread is asking a question about the manner of behaving or conducting oneself, which is a matter of what is proper based on a set of principles and values that correspond to God's principles and values. Issues of bias, partiality, openness, acceptance, diversity, and tolerance are matters of social interaction and civil rights, which are influenced by emotion, culture, religion, law, etc.

Essentially, these are two different questions. Your charges of bigotry are unfounded since I have never expressed strong or unreasonable beliefs or dislikes of other people. I have never expressed intolerance or prejudice, discrimination, hatred or violence. Your charge of bigotry is due to your erroneous conflation of homosexuality and orientation. The former is a behavior, and the latter (presumably) is a human attribute. Criticism of the former is not criticism of the latter.

The following predilections are common to all peoples. Criticism of the predilection is NOT criticism of his or her race, ethnicity or nationality.

A predilection for smoking, drinking, or using drugs. These habits can harm one’s physical and mental health, as well as increase the risk of addiction, disease, and death.
A predilection for gambling, shopping, or eating. These behaviors can indicate a lack of self-control, a coping mechanism for stress, or a sign of an underlying disorder. They can also lead to financial, social, or emotional problems.
A predilection for violence, aggression, or cruelty. These tendencies can reflect a lack of empathy, a desire for power, or a history of trauma. They can also cause harm to oneself or others, as well as legal or ethical consequences.
A predilection for lying, cheating, or stealing. These actions can show a lack of honesty, integrity, or respect. They can also damage one’s reputation, relationships, or career.
A predilection for passive-aggression, sarcasm, or manipulation. These communication styles can reveal a fear of confrontation, a hidden resentment, or a need for control. They can also create misunderstanding, conflict, or distrust.

A critique of the predilection itself or the significance of the predilection is not a matter of intolerance, prejudice, or bigotry.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Denying reality and inserting your own fantasy narrative doesn't change reality.

Obviously you don't understand the nature of scientific inquiry. Conclusions are based on date form experimentation and observation. Scientific papers present in great depth the source and the validity of the date, the manner of data collection and the analysis of that data. real research goes through rigorous peer review where every aspect of that process is examined and careful consideration of any apparent bias on the part of the researchers. Anyone can look at legitimately published research and follow the data and analysis themselves.

Contrary to your view, data does not compel a unique conclusion. Even so, scientists have decided that repeatability is a reliable means to guard against bias. But what if all the scientists share the same bias? What then?

There is actually a significant number of people born every year where it is not clear if they are male or female.

No kidding. Ever heard of puberty?

but the intersexed or a biological identification of genitalia have nothing to do with orientation.

Are you kidding? What do you think I mean when I use the phrase male-to-male orientation? Two people with a penis right?

Give us a break.

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
But I stop to consider whether a Bible interpretation is wrong when it violates what I know about the character of God.

This is a point at which I think we are definitely kindred spirits, SS.

It's pretty much all I care about. I understand that that's got to be hard to take coming from a dyed-in-the-wool denominationalist like me but it's a hill I'm willing to die on.

Wow. Good to hear.
Your whole post is OUTSTANDING. Thanks.
I'll comment on a few things here.

I think one thing that's definitely at play here is that many Christians have an almost subconscious idea that a seismic epiphany constitutes conversion and that at that very point, we begin to see God as He really is—whatever that means to us. But I think dramatic, instantaneous conversion is a rare thing, if not altogether impossible.

It might depend a lot on the circumstances of WHEN God decided to draw us to himself.
That can make a HUGE difference. Saved from what? And repentance should be a key indicator.

Closely related is the never-ending tension between justification and sanctification that gets people so worked up that they knock months off the end of their lives arguing about how it works. And it's primarily based on selfishness manifesting itself in anxiety as to whether we're safe from hellfire from one moment to the next. I myself had no real assurance of salvation until I was able to let go of that foolishness.

Agree. Tribalism is a deadly disease. That's why I speak against it.

Jesus touches people and they are changed. But that change looks different from within and to different people. We're never going to be able to make an end run around that.

AMEN

We're never going to have a perfect brick-and-mortar church.

Right.
If you ever find the perfect church, don't join it, or you'll ruin it. - LOL

The one thing I see in all of the arguments in favor of loosening up the definition of sexual immorality is that it must be subject to experience and emotion.

I wonder how much we project onto morality from our own western culture. The traditional aspect, I mean.
We make some assumptions about sexuality in ancient cultures that may be totally wrong.
Polygamy laws claim to be biblically based. Not sure if that is true.
A biblical case could be made for wives being personal property.
Should we go there because it's "biblical"? (nope)

I watched the entire discussion between Pastor Colby Martin and Professor Owen Strachan and what I very sadly came away with (because I so badly wanted to hear a good, articulate point from Martin) is that Strachan knows what he believes (however imperfect that is) and Martin almost looks like he's making it up as he goes along.

My mouth nearly fell open when I heard him say:

"In some way I can totally sign off on God designing sexuality if I'm allowed to sort of have my ways of thinking about it."

That surprises me too. I appreciate that Colby is making a stand, but... leaves something to be desired.

The church has to be re-created, or converted.

AMEN
But who decides what that should look like?
There's the rub.

Needless to say, I don't believe that studying the Bible as the literal Word of God (irrespective of the narrow view that doing so causes some to adopt) hinders the expansion of intelligence in any way. I eerily understand what's going on around me and how I should relate to it so much better than I did before I started doing so.

Definitely the "safe" route. But can be hazardous to some.
The LGBTQ crowd have become the leper outcasts as a result.
WWJD with LGBTQ?
Would he embrace them. or go after them with an angry whip?

As far as gender identities being formed in the minds of pre-schoolers, I have no doubt that it happens. But I don't for a minute believe it happens in a vacuum.

Well, NOTHING happens in a vacuum.
Do you think gender identities would form differently in another social setting?
It seems to me that the stronger gender identity is in adults, the stronger it will be in children.
Daddy's girl and Mommy's boy is somewhat meaningless in a gender neutral environment.

In one of the videos I posted of a mother's testimony, the picture of the daughter
wearing a carpenter's tool belt like Dad was very memorable.

/

 

[TinMan]

He is smart enough to recognize a red herring when he sees it. And he is smart enough to know that actions have consequences.

Whether a parent loves their kids or abuses their kids says more about their parents than the kids. However, the topic of discussion is homosexual behavior, which means that the treatment of homosexuals is a red herring and not relevant to the issue of whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong. And the treatment of an 8-year-old boy, as tragic as that is, has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

The claim was made that any abuse homosexuals receive is their own fault because they are evil. It is the topic.

Studies have shown that homosexuals suffer substance abuse in far greater numbers than the general public.

And the studies also say why. But you seem to be ignoring that.

Your argument about minority stress is patently false because other minorities are living among the general population and they don't suffer substance abuse in the same percentage. Get it? One would assume that all kinds of minorities suffer minority stress. But only one so-called minority stands above them all in the matter of substance abuse.

According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration the minorities with the highest rate of substance abuse are Native American's followed by Indigenous Alaskans. LGBT people have about the same level of substance abuse as African Americans and Portio Ricans.

Obviously Black people suffer from substance abuse is because their partners give them drugs to reduce the victim's judgment and lower the victim's resistance.

And Native American's abuse subsance because of the guilt and shame they suffer from

Thus, the practice of homosexuality is clearly and unambiguously associated with several negative consequences.

The only clear negative consequence is that they have to deal with people like you.

This answers the question of right and wrong in terms of consequences. But we also answer the question in terms of objective truth, reality, and design.

You are changing the subject. This thread is asking a question about the manner of behaving or conducting oneself, which is a matter of what is proper based on a set of principles and values that correspond to God's principles and values.

Is hate one of those values? What about false witness?

Issues of bias, partiality, openness, acceptance, diversity, and tolerance are matters of social interaction and civil rights, which are influenced by emotion, culture, religion, law, etc.

Essentially, these are two different questions. Your charges of bigotry are unfounded since I have never expressed strong or unreasonable beliefs or dislikes of other people. I have never expressed intolerance or prejudice, discrimination, hatred or violence. Your charge of bigotry is due to your erroneous conflation of homosexuality and orientation. The former is a behavior, and the latter (presumably) is a human attribute. Criticism of the former is not criticism of the latter.

You claim these people don't exist.
you call them sick and diseased
they are unable to find positive role models
they cannot develop a strong sense of identity
They have no self-esteem.
You call them wicked and evil

The following predilections are common to all peoples. Criticism of the predilection is NOT criticism of his or her race, ethnicity or nationality.

A predilection for smoking, drinking, or using drugs. These habits can harm one’s physical and mental health, as well as increase the risk of addiction, disease, and death.
A predilection for gambling, shopping, or eating. These behaviors can indicate a lack of self-control, a coping mechanism for stress, or a sign of an underlying disorder. They can also lead to financial, social, or emotional problems.
A predilection for violence, aggression, or cruelty. These tendencies can reflect a lack of empathy, a desire for power, or a history of trauma. They can also cause harm to oneself or others, as well as legal or ethical consequences.
A predilection for lying, cheating, or stealing. These actions can show a lack of honesty, integrity, or respect. They can also damage one’s reputation, relationships, or career.
A predilection for passive-aggression, sarcasm, or manipulation. These communication styles can reveal a fear of confrontation, a hidden resentment, or a need for control. They can also create misunderstanding, conflict, or distrust.

A critique of the predilection itself or the significance of the predilection is not a matter of intolerance, prejudice, or bigotry.

it becomes a matter of intolerance, prejudice, or bigotry when such things are used to promote and justify intolerance, prejudice, or bigotry