Homosexuality: Wrong or Right?

[Arthur81]

I never posted that i " studied the origin of homosexuals"

I stated i studied the "Homosexual Agenda". @Arthur81

I'll post the #1 for you, as i have 2 of these Threads.
-
The Homosexual : Manifesto

THE HOMOSEXUAL MANIFESTO---as to Congress in 1987 and implemented by the Entropic U. S. Supreme Court in 2015


“We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.
“Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too, and only one man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand the depth and feeling, the mind and body of another man.


(THAT YOU HAVE NEVER READ THIS GAY CULT CONSTITUTION BEFORE IS PURE EVIL FROM NEWSROOMS AND JOURNALISTS EVERYWHERE.) """"

First, there is a difference between the political agenda of the LGBTQ activists, and the Christian man sitting in the pew who privately and discreetly is gay, and in a relationship, not marriage. The conservative Christian man in the pew is highly unlikely to support the so-called "Gay Agenda" or the activism of the LGBTQ crowd.

Second, you describe this article in writing "as to Congress in 1987 and implemented by the Entropic U. S. Supreme Court in 2015" ... that is very misleading, if not a half-truth that is worse than a lie. If you watch Congress in action, on C-Span. you see that a Congressman can place many things, including a magazine article, into the Congressional Record. You hear them request it frequently if you watch C-Span. THIS IS NOT A LAW BY CONGRESS THAT THE SUPREME COURT THAN CAN LATER RULE ON! Further, what was placed into the Congressional Record omitted a very important first line:

"A satirical 1987 essay by Michael Swift entitled "Gay Revolutionary [ru]" appeared in "Gay Community News", describing a scenario in which homosexual men dominate American society and suppress all things heterosexual. The opening line, which read "This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor", was omitted when the essay was reprinted in Congressional Record and cited by later religious right publications.[34] The essay has often been cited by conservative Christian authors as proof of a secretive conspiracy to corrupt American youth and subvert the nuclear family, particularly the following paragraph:" Gay agenda - Wikipedia

Third, the Supreme Court Ruling of 2015 about gays was "Obergefell v. Hodges", recognizing the fundamental right to marry for same-sex couples across the United States. You actually told a blatant lie to write that the Supreme Court "implemented" the Homosexual Manifesto. In addition, the desire for a gay to marry is not a unanimous desire among all gays.

Take the writings of a "Born Again Believer. Bible Believer", with a "show me" attitude, and then avail yourself of the excellent search engines of the Internet. It does not take long to expose the half-truths and lies of ignorant Pharisee types. The thing is, too often such persons are deceivers, not actually ignorant. There are several AI search engines available online, including Microsoft Bing "co-pilot" and Brave browser. Some other AI search engines are -

https://www.perplexity.ai/

Your Personalized AI Assistant.

Conversational and continuously learning, You.com enhances web search, writing, coding, digital art creation, and solving complex problems.

you.com

https://www.phind.com/search?home=true

Ask questions such as:
What is the homosexual agenda?
What is the Congressional Record?
What was the Supreme Court ruling of 2015 concerning gays?

You can ask about the phrase , "What is the "Entropic U. S. Supreme Court"? The perplexity.ai answer came as follows, with the sources cited for reference -

"The phrase "Entropic U.S. Supreme Court" appears to be referring to the Supreme Court's 2015 decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide in the case Obergefell v. Hodges. The author seems to be criticizing this ruling as implementing a so-called "Homosexual Manifesto" that promotes a homosexual agenda and undermines traditional family values and heterosexual norms.

However, it's important to note that the sources provided appear to be expressing an extremely biased, homophobic, and unsubstantiated viewpoint. The "Homosexual Manifesto" quoted is not an official document, but rather an inflammatory opinion piece published in a fringe LGBTQ publication in 1987, making outrageous claims about homosexuals seeking to indoctrinate youth, abolish religion and the family unit, and establish a homosexual-dominated society. Reputable sources do not corroborate the existence of such an agenda.

The Supreme Court's Obergefell decision simply recognized the constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry based on principles of equal protection and due process. It did not implement any supposed "manifesto" but rather upheld civil rights for LGBTQ Americans. Characterizing this ruling as "entropic" seems to reflect the author's personal objection to expanding rights for the LGBTQ community."

 

[Behold]

Perhaps you don't get the contextual link related to immorality and the perversion of our Constitution,

Romans 1,

= denies "gay rights" "gay marriage" "gay adoption" "gay pride" "Gay pride month"... "gay agenda" "Gay pastors" "Gay bibles"..

The Cross of Christ is always available to a homosexual.

 

[Behold]

First, there is a difference between the political agenda of the LGBTQ activists,

Thats your imagination at work., again @Arthur81
-
-
The Gay Agenda #2
-
-
1.) "“The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference""""

2. ) “The Overhauling of Straight America” Is the “Bible”...= of the homosexual agenda.'"


3. ) “almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it . . . The way to benumb raw sensitivities about homosexuality is to have a lot of people talk a great deal about the subject in a neutral or supportive way . . . Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject, and that a sizable segment accepts or even practices homosexuality.
“And when we say talk about homosexuality, we mean just that. In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed .""

4.) '""When we are exposed to anything repeatedly, it becomes routine and normal. What initially might shock someone eventually can become acceptable. And acceptability is the ultimate goal. What at one time was highly offensive to the vast majority of Americans is now no big deal. They’ve been lulled into complacency."""

5.) """Where we talk is important, The average American household watches over seven hours of TV daily. Those hours open up a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed . . .
“So far, gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon in the battle to desensitize the mainstream. Bit by bit over the past ten years, gay characters and gay themes have been introduced into TV programs and films . . . On the whole the impact has been encouraging.”

6.)'"When conservative churches condemn gays, there are only two things we can do to confound the homophobia of true believers. First, we can use talk to muddy the moral waters. This means publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches,"""

7.) “In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection,”

8.) "If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our ‘gay pride’ publicly when it conflicts with the = """Gay Victim image,”
“It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA [the North American Man-Boy Love Association,} which as its name suggests promotes adult-child homosexual sex] must play no part at all in such a campaign: suspected child-molesters will never look like victims . . .

9.) “At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights . . . it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified . . . Our goal here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream’s homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the anti-gays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types”

10.) ""You say we all lead lives you don’t respect. But you’re just frightened. You think that we’ll corrupt your kids if our agenda goes unchecked. Funny, just this once, you’re correct.”
“We’ll convert your children – happens bit by bit, quietly and subtly and you will barely notice it…”
“Just like you’re worried, they’ll change their group of friends, you won’t approve of where they go at night. And you’ll be disgusted when they start finding things online that you kept far from their sight…”

 

[BlessedPeace]

Romans 1,

= denies "gay rights" "gay marriage" "gay adoption" "gay pride" "Gay pride month"... "gay agenda" "Gay pastors" "Gay bibles"..

The Cross of Christ is always available to a homosexual.

Non responsive.
That has nothing to do with my observation.

 

[BlessedPeace]

Thats your imagination at work., again @Arthur81
-
-
The Gay Agenda #2
-
-
1.) "“The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference""""

2. ) “The Overhauling of Straight America” Is the “Bible”...= of the homosexual agenda.'"


3. ) “almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it . . . The way to benumb raw sensitivities about homosexuality is to have a lot of people talk a great deal about the subject in a neutral or supportive way . . . Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject, and that a sizable segment accepts or even practices homosexuality.
“And when we say talk about homosexuality, we mean just that. In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed .""

4.) '""When we are exposed to anything repeatedly, it becomes routine and normal. What initially might shock someone eventually can become acceptable. And acceptability is the ultimate goal. What at one time was highly offensive to the vast majority of Americans is now no big deal. They’ve been lulled into complacency."""

5.) """Where we talk is important, The average American household watches over seven hours of TV daily. Those hours open up a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed . . .
“So far, gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon in the battle to desensitize the mainstream. Bit by bit over the past ten years, gay characters and gay themes have been introduced into TV programs and films . . . On the whole the impact has been encouraging.”

6.)'"When conservative churches condemn gays, there are only two things we can do to confound the homophobia of true believers. First, we can use talk to muddy the moral waters. This means publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches,"""

7.) “In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection,”

8.) "If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our ‘gay pride’ publicly when it conflicts with the = """Gay Victim image,”
“It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA [the North American Man-Boy Love Association,} which as its name suggests promotes adult-child homosexual sex] must play no part at all in such a campaign: suspected child-molesters will never look like victims . . .

9.) “At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights . . . it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified . . . Our goal here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream’s homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the anti-gays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types”

10.) ""You say we all lead lives you don’t respect. But you’re just frightened. You think that we’ll corrupt your kids if our agenda goes unchecked. Funny, just this once, you’re correct.”
“We’ll convert your children – happens bit by bit, quietly and subtly and you will barely notice it…”
“Just like you’re worried, they’ll change their group of friends, you won’t approve of where they go at night. And you’ll be disgusted when they start finding things online that you kept far from their sight…”

Arthur appears here to attempt to make pardons for his community. And interpolate scripture so to make it appear God concurs with Trans and Homosexual sin and lifestyle.

 

[Arthur81]

Arthur appears here to attempt to make pardons for his community. And interpolate scripture so to make it appear God concurs with Trans and Homosexual sin and lifestyle.

Just where did you come up with "his community"? Are you saying I must be gay or in the LGBTQ+ crowd, to stay strictly with what the scriptures explicitly state, and what the body of Christ believed in the past? That is the type of argument that is made when one cannot deal with the actual statements made by an individual. It is obvious, because no one on here has yet to do exegesis and exposition of the pertinent verses to disprove what I am saying based on the serious study of the texts. There is a lot of gay-hating blather that goes on here, but a sad lack of actual knowledge of the Bible! I have no remembrance of addressing the issue of transsexual at all in my postings. I have merely shown that the verses pointed to in order to condemn a gay man, are historically understood to be about abuse, sodomites, not gay men in a relationship. A challenge, show that the following verse condemns two gay men in a relationship -

Rom 1:27 KJV "And likewise also 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."

Rom 1:27 NRSVue "and in the same way also the males, giving up natural intercourse with females, were consumed with their passionate desires for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

Rom 1:27 REB "and men too, giving up natural relations with women, burn with lust for one another; males behave indecently with males, and are paid in their own persons the fitting wage of such perversion."

 

[Behold]

There is a lot of gay-hating blather that goes on here,

You are outnumbered, @Arthur81 .

God is "Against" Homosexuality., and that has not changed since He burned it in Genesis 19, and Paul explained why in Romans 1.

So that is OT to NT, and you are not in agreement with ether Testament.

 

[BlessedPeace]

Just where did you come up with "his community"? Are you saying I must be gay or in the LGBTQ+ crowd, to stay strictly with what the scriptures explicitly state, and what the body of Christ believed in the past? That is the type of argument that is made when one cannot deal with the actual statements made by an individual. It is obvious, because no one on here has yet to do exegesis and exposition of the pertinent verses to disprove what I am saying based on the serious study of the texts. There is a lot of gay-hating blather that goes on here, but a sad lack of actual knowledge of the Bible! I have no remembrance of addressing the issue of transsexual at all in my postings. I have merely shown that the verses pointed to in order to condemn a gay man, are historically understood to be about abuse, sodomites, not gay men in a relationship. A challenge, show that the following verse condemns two gay men in a relationship -

Rom 1:27 KJV "And likewise also 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."

Rom 1:27 NRSVue "and in the same way also the males, giving up natural intercourse with females, were consumed with their passionate desires for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

Rom 1:27 REB "and men too, giving up natural relations with women, burn with lust for one another; males behave indecently with males, and are paid in their own persons the fitting wage of such perversion."

God calls Homosexuality,Sodomites,
abomination. Their sin worthy of death,in the OT. Transsexuals are no different.

Anyone who insists as you have that Homosexual sexual behavior in a relationship of two Homosexuals with one another is not a sin is a liar.

The ridiculous idea that Homosexual is a primary identity that can then be classified by sexual activity or abstinence so to then define their identity in Christ is perverse. Because it presumes to mold the individuals beingness by their sexual appetite.

This is an exclusive categorization some attach to Homosexuals.

It's nonsense to classify abnormal behavior as excusable if one is not engaging in the behavior when identifying said person as a Christian.

When they are in Christ they are Christian.

The old is done away with. Behold the rebirth is new.
They are not a celibate Homosexual anymore than I or any other straight woman here is able to be "identified" as a married heterosexual Christian.

If you don't think your devoted defense of Homosexual and Trans-afflicted sinners makes it to seem like a very personal issue for you, don't try to rewrite God's word and defend the sin of Homosexual Sodomy.

Hateful Homosexual hating blather?
I'm so sick of posers.

They check the box at registration so to access forums exclusive to people in Christ. Then they enter in and defend sin and condemn God.

 

[RLT63]

Just where did you come up with "his community"? Are you saying I must be gay or in the LGBTQ+ crowd, to stay strictly with what the scriptures explicitly state, and what the body of Christ believed in the past? That is the type of argument that is made when one cannot deal with the actual statements made by an individual. It is obvious, because no one on here has yet to do exegesis and exposition of the pertinent verses to disprove what I am saying based on the serious study of the texts. There is a lot of gay-hating blather that goes on here, but a sad lack of actual knowledge of the Bible! I have no remembrance of addressing the issue of transsexual at all in my postings. I have merely shown that the verses pointed to in order to condemn a gay man, are historically understood to be about abuse, sodomites, not gay men in a relationship. A challenge, show that the following verse condemns two gay men in a relationship -

Rom 1:27 KJV "And likewise also 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."

Rom 1:27 NRSVue "and in the same way also the males, giving up natural intercourse with females, were consumed with their passionate desires for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

Rom 1:27 REB "and men too, giving up natural relations with women, burn with lust for one another; males behave indecently with males, and are paid in their own persons the fitting wage of such perversion."

All you have to do is read them.
I don’t know how it could be clearer.

 

[Arthur81]

For the edification of those willing, and striving for objectivity, here is a close look at Rom. 1:26, 27 with an English translation of today, along with the English dictionary definitions of today. It is glaringly obvious that no gay-bashers here can explain the passage.

(Rom 1:26-27 NRSVue, 2021) "For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Their females exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the males, giving up natural intercourse with females, were consumed with their passionate desires for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

Literal Translation from Tyndale's NA28 Greek-English Interlinear, Copyright 2020
(Rom 1:26-27) "Because of this God handed over them to passions of dishonor for even the females of them changed the natural function into the(that) contrary to nature, 27 and likewise also the males having left the natural function of the female burned in the craving of them toward one another, males with males performing the indecent[act] and receiving back in themselves the retribution which was fitting of the error of them."

"sexual intercourse" American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Copyright 2016
"1. Sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina. [coitus]
2. Sexual activity that includes insertion of the penis into the anus or mouth."

Unmistakable Observations:
1. There is NOTHING said about women having sex with women in v26
2. Coitus, penile-vaginal intercourse is the "natural intercourse", the design of creation from God
3. Females exchanged coitus, for intercourse likely involving penile-anal intercourse
4. Sexual intercourse involves the penis, therefore sex in v26 must be males with females
5. The males "left the natural function of the females", so they had originally been in M-F relationships, heterosexual
6. In the same way, or likewise, the males were "performing the indecent[act]" with other males
The "indecent [act]" was probably anal intercourse, M-F in v26, and M-M in v27.
5. Males "were consumed with their passionate desires for one another"
Merriam-Webster "consumed, 1: to do away with completely: destroy" This is lust that destroys
6. There is no hint of affection or love in this passage, NONE from v18 through v32
7. There is a progression in the depths of sin here:
a. v24 reveals heterosexual sins in general as fornication, adultery, promiscuous sexuality
b. v26 shows females engage in oral or more likely, anal intercourse with males
c. v27 indicates the oral or more likely, anal sexual intercourse was then practiced male with male
8. The underlying sin of this passage is exchanging the One True God for idols, vs23, 25, 28
9. The "error" of v27 is this failure to acknowledge God, and turning to idols
10. Since lesbianism is not in v26, there is not one verse in the Bible condemning lesbianism
11. There is nothing in this passage that condemns two males in a loving gay relationship!
*There is NOTHING here about LGBTQ+ activism, or any so-called "gay agenda"! Also, only the ignorant and hateful use "sodomite" as a synonym for "gay" or "homosexual".

The above is what I see from the grammatical interpretation, the following is the historical setting and interpretation given by a Greek philosopher living in Paul's day -

"In dealing with brothel-keepers and their trade we must certainly betray no weakness as though something were to be said on both sides, but must sternly forbid them...Such men bring individuals together in union without love and intercourse without affection, and all for the sake of filthy lucre...For evils are never wont to remain as they are; they are ever active and advancing to greater wantonness if they meet no compelling check...Indeed, beginning with practices and habits that seem trivial and allowable, it acquires a strength and force that are uncontrollable, and no longer stops at anything...Now at this point we must assuredly remember that this adultery committed with outcasts, so evident in our midst and becoming so brazen and unchecked, is to a very great extent paving the way to hidden and secret assaults upon the chastity of women and boys of good family...The man whose appetite is insatiate in such things, when he finds there is no scarcity, no resistance, in this field, will have contempt for the easy conquest and scorn for a woman's love, as a thing too readily given — in fact, too utterly feminine — and will turn his assault against the male quarters, eager to befoul the youth who will very soon be magistrates and judges and generals, believing that in them he will find a kind of pleasure difficult and hard to procure. His state is like that of men who are addicted to drinking and wine-bibbing, who after long and steady drinking of unmixed wine, often lose their taste for it and create an artificial thirst by the stimulus of sweatings, salted foods, and condiments."

Dio Chrysostom: Discourses 1-20 [Demonax | Hellenic Library Beta]

demonax.info

If the creation design of God in Genesis chapters 1 & 2 restricts the sex act to natural intercourse, coitus; it also prescribes sexual intercourse solely for the purpose of procreation. If any variation from this created design is sin, birth control measures are sinful as well.

 

[Arthur81]

It may surprise most on here, but the following I find to be revolting, disgusting and clearly sinful.

Pete Buttigieg on Fatherhood -

When it comes to handling a pair of toddlers, Pete Buttigieg, the unflappable Secretary of Transportation, may appear a little jet-lagged. Pete and his husband, Chasten Buttigieg, raise their two-year old twins, Penelope and Gus, in Traverse City, Michigan, where they recently moved full-time from Washington to be closer to family.

The kids call Pete "Papa," and Chasten "Daddy."

Pete Buttigieg on fatherhood

He's been a Rhodes scholar, Navy veteran, mayor, presidential candidate, and now Secretary of Transportation, but Pete Buttigieg has another title: Papa. He and husband Chasten share their journey to parenting twins.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Behold]

It may surprise most on here, but the following I find to be revolting, disgusting and clearly sinful.

Pete Buttigieg on Fatherhood -

When it comes to handling a pair of toddlers, Pete Buttigieg, the unflappable Secretary of Transportation, may appear a little jet-lagged. Pete and his husband, Chasten Buttigieg, raise their two-year old twins, Penelope and Gus, in Traverse City, Michigan, where they recently moved full-time from Washington to be closer to family.

The kids call Pete "Papa," and Chasten "Daddy."

Pete Buttigieg on fatherhood

He's been a Rhodes scholar, Navy veteran, mayor, presidential candidate, and now Secretary of Transportation, but Pete Buttigieg has another title: Papa. He and husband Chasten share their journey to parenting twins.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Arthur81]

Behold, praise the Lord we actually seem to agree on something. A usage alert for those who like me have often used the term "doggone". I looked it up in a couple of dictionaries to see if it was one word or two. I was SHOCKED to see what it means!
:)

 

[Kabone]

Do you have something to confess? Or maybe curious about something? Are you concerned for someone you care very much for? If the answers are ‘no’, then the answer to your question doesn’t affect the price of rice. If the answer is ‘yes’, then you’re not going to find what you’re looking for here.

 

[Jack]

Poor little kids!

Romans 1:26-27
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful,

 

[Arthur81]

Poor little kids!

Romans 1:26-27
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful,

It would seem that a man by nature would be sickened and repulsed to hear a male refer to another male as his wife or husband; I surely am disgusted by it.

But, I do not condemn two males in a discreet, private, loving and intimate relationship; it may be their only realistic option if they are exclusively gay. But, parading it about, perverting the institution of marriage, or going the leftist LGBTQ+ route is too far away from biblical morality. When I say "discreet" and "private", I say that because exclusive homosexual orientation seems to be like any other birth defect, or injury to mind or body prior to mental competency or personal choice. The Biblical model is one man, one woman, married for life. The man/male is in the leadership role in society and the church. The discreet gay relationship cannot meet these standards so they should be viewed not as second class Christians, but just not eligible for role models or leadership. Rather than damning and condemning, I believe understanding and compassion are the proper stance to take toward Christians who are afflicted with the malady of homosexual orientation. There is something to be said for walking a mile in his shoes!

 

[Jack]

It would seem that a man by nature would be sickened and repulsed to hear a male refer to another male as his wife or husband; I surely am disgusted by it.

But, I do not condemn two males in a discreet, private, loving and intimate relationship; it may be their only realistic option if they are exclusively gay. But, parading it about, perverting the institution of marriage, or going the leftist LGBTQ+ route is too far away from biblical morality. When I say "discreet" and "private", I say that because exclusive homosexual orientation seems to be like any other birth defect, or injury to mind or body prior to mental competency or personal choice. The Biblical model is one man, one woman, married for life. The man/male is in the leadership role in society and the church. The discreet gay relationship cannot meet these standards so they should be viewed not as second class Christians, but just not eligible for role models or leadership. Rather than damning and condemning, I believe understanding and compassion are the proper stance to take toward Christians who are afflicted with the malady of homosexual orientation. There is something to be said for walking a mile in his shoes!

Christians CANNOT ignore Jesus saying gays will burn in Hell forever!

 

[Arthur81]

Christians CANNOT ignore Jesus saying gays will burn in Hell forever!

I do not remember or see "Jesus saying gays will burn in Hell forever!" I see Jesus mentioning Sodom and not mentioning gays at all! I see the scriptures differently for those afflicted with the problem of exclusively homosexual orientation.

"I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion." (1Cor 7:7-9 NRSV)

Quite a predicament for the exclusively gay man who is not eligible for marriage. Jesus himself declared that in this fallen world, things are not like they were in the perfection of creation -

"He said to them, 'It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.'” (Matt 19:8-9 NRSV)

Jesus gave a concession to those afflicted in this fallen world. Divorce in the case of the unfaithful spouse as a permissable option. Jesus further indicated situations with males, who are not just literal eunuchs, but similar -

"The disciples said to him, ‘If that is how things stand for a man with a wife, it is better not to marry.’ To this he replied, ‘That is a course not everyone can accept, but only those for whom God has appointed it. For while some are incapable of marriage because they were born so, or were made so by men, there are others who have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Let those accept who can.’" (Matt 19:10-12 REB)

There does seem to be an answer for a discreet and private relationship given by Solomon -

"Here again I saw futility under the sun: someone without a friend, without son or brother, toiling endlessly yet never satisfied with his wealth—‘For whom’, he asks, ‘am I toiling and denying myself the good things of life?’ This too is futile, a worthless task. Two are better than one, for their partnership yields this advantage: if one falls, the other can help his companion up again; but woe betide the solitary person who when down has no partner to help him up. And if two lie side by side they keep each other warm; but how can one keep warm by himself? If anyone is alone, an assailant may overpower him, but two can resist; and a cord of three strands is not quickly snapped." (Eccl 4:7-12 REB)

When God said it was not good that man be alone, he did not exclude the gays from that declaration.

 

[Jack]

I do not remember or see "Jesus saying gays will burn in Hell forever!"

I Cor 6 Homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God!

 

[Arthur81]

I Cor 6 Homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God!

“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them." (Matt 23:2-4 NRSV)

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cross sea and land to make a single convert, and you make the new convert twice as much a child of hell as yourselves." (Matt 23:15 NRSV)

“Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Matt 11:28-30 NRSV)

Be cautious with how you damn people with Paul's stereotyped vice lists!

"They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them." (Rom 1:29-32 NRSV)

The words "those who practice such things" show how these lists are stereotyped, giving a word picture, a montage effect.