I'm glad we're finding some common ground (Like all the people who just posted). Is there any more common ground? I'm still in the belief that someone can be born with any sinful tendency, such as the drive to commit homosexual sin (sex). There's a million more...ish, but that's the one we're talking about. That no one has committed this sin by nature, but by nature we are held accountable according to the law of God's character and we sin against His character even in a state of being. This refers to how people with deformities couldn't enter the temple in OT. Sin cannot enter the presence of God, but God can enter the presence of sin, as seen in Jesus Christ when he descended into Mary and was born into the world, and seen in each of our lives individually after we give our lives to Him. I believe all sin we commit as a state of being falls under the category of the sin of ignorance, which Christ died for on the Cross, without condition. So nature vs. nurture? I'm still going to say nature, but I find nurture as a possible exception to the rule. But it all falls back to our nature and our tendency to sin anyway.
Homosexuality
- Thread starter th1b.taylor
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
But of course.... I'm the dummy here. I'm struggling just to understand the words. That's well documented. :unsure:
And you were wrong when you tried and failed to make the point. (insert shruggy face here..)
You closed your eyes to my comments on why using present tense and personal pronouns don't mean it was him, AND you ignored the big glaring IF WORDS. Of course if you wish to drop a word here or there you can make the Bible say anything you want and we have no reason to discuss anything because I think every word is important. I only spent 3 years on that one chapter trying to get my arms around it. I admit my ignorance and lack of education and bow to your superior reasoning, but you should at least answer the refutations before you declare me wrong. That's just blind arrogance to ignore them and proclaim victory.
Here we go with the "in context" excuse. Go answer all my reasons to it. Start a thread on that. I'll put a consistent message from Genesis to Revelations that agrees with my view. YOUR VIEW makes PAUL a damnable liar. In 7:5 he said he wasn't in that flesh he says in your end of Roman's verses that make us sin. YOU have no answer so you ignore it and just NA NA NA NA DON'T HEAR YOU PAUL SINNED> NANAna and personally I find that more offensive than calling me names.
Show me any proclamation of them being born again in James 5. And if you can't stop ADDING words into scripture as well as taking them out like above.
Ok, I'm not reading any more I'm getting annoyed and nearly angry. You didn't answer or read anything. You are making a fool out of yourself by doing it Post 931 preempts most of the claims youare making here.
Answer it or stop talking about me. Until you answer my rebuttals it's abusive and personal for you to insist the argument is resolved when it's wide open. I don't care how comfortable you are and sure you are with your views. I started believing the same thing you did, and had to change to have my faith match what scripture said. For you to ignore words, remove words and add words while ignoring my reasoning and just dismissing me publicly as you are is offensive. Grow up or don't comment on my posts.
Hi mls,
I believe it takes more than a genetic disposition for a person to act out homosexual behaviour, because the tendancy of the whole of creation is towards normal. The effectiveness of the reproductive system in producing children, even from those who claim to be 'homosexual', cannot be denied (not that you were). However, I can accept that if a genetic predisposition exists because of the actions of a previous generation which yielded to the spirits which produced homosexual behaviour in people who were already, or, who became spiritually predisposed to practise it.
There are plenty of verses in scripture which support the truth that many people knew which sin they were committing, too, and Christ still died for them because He understood there was no other way to release them from the power of sin.
People carry on sinning because they cannot stop unless they accept the crucifixion of Christ to their sinful nature, Romans 6:3, 6, 7, and by the Holy Spirit which now they can receive, be raised to newness of life Romans 6:4. 10. 11, Ephesians 1:19, 20, so that Romans 8:13 and Ephesians 4:24 can begin to be a reality in their experience.
I believe it takes more than a genetic disposition for a person to act out homosexual behaviour, because the tendancy of the whole of creation is towards normal. The effectiveness of the reproductive system in producing children, even from those who claim to be 'homosexual', cannot be denied (not that you were). However, I can accept that if a genetic predisposition exists because of the actions of a previous generation which yielded to the spirits which produced homosexual behaviour in people who were already, or, who became spiritually predisposed to practise it.
There are plenty of verses in scripture which support the truth that many people knew which sin they were committing, too, and Christ still died for them because He understood there was no other way to release them from the power of sin.
People carry on sinning because they cannot stop unless they accept the crucifixion of Christ to their sinful nature, Romans 6:3, 6, 7, and by the Holy Spirit which now they can receive, be raised to newness of life Romans 6:4. 10. 11, Ephesians 1:19, 20, so that Romans 8:13 and Ephesians 4:24 can begin to be a reality in their experience.
I don't know if I mentioned anywhere that I'm a homosexual. I'm not. I'm not saying anything against them either, just clarifying.
So you believe it is a spiritually inherited trait after disobedience (sin)?
"However, I can accept that if a genetic predisposition exists because of the actions of a previous generation which yielded to the spirits which produced homosexual behaviour in people who were already, or, who became spiritually predisposed to practise it."
This is almost exactly what I believe is happening, and I can't refute your point either. However I believe the standard is your point above and the exception is the inherited sinful traits after sin is committed, or the fact that temptation can be dwelt on until it becomes sin.
I believe people are held accountable even for the nature they were born with, and its predisposition to sin. Meaning, if Christ didn't die on the cross, a baby would be held accountable to the nature it inherited. Justly, Christ died for every sin committed by our nature or in ignorance.
So we still disagree a little bit it seems, but we're splitting hairs, so to speak. I agree with you on one point, but I think my point is dominant within a majority of people if I were to say how many who practice homosexuality (sex) were predisposed to this behavior by their nature, vs those who inherited this behavior over the course of their life, from outside sources, being a passive trait, or a minority.
So you believe it is a spiritually inherited trait after disobedience (sin)?
"However, I can accept that if a genetic predisposition exists because of the actions of a previous generation which yielded to the spirits which produced homosexual behaviour in people who were already, or, who became spiritually predisposed to practise it."
This is almost exactly what I believe is happening, and I can't refute your point either. However I believe the standard is your point above and the exception is the inherited sinful traits after sin is committed, or the fact that temptation can be dwelt on until it becomes sin.
I believe people are held accountable even for the nature they were born with, and its predisposition to sin. Meaning, if Christ didn't die on the cross, a baby would be held accountable to the nature it inherited. Justly, Christ died for every sin committed by our nature or in ignorance.
So we still disagree a little bit it seems, but we're splitting hairs, so to speak. I agree with you on one point, but I think my point is dominant within a majority of people if I were to say how many who practice homosexuality (sex) were predisposed to this behavior by their nature, vs those who inherited this behavior over the course of their life, from outside sources, being a passive trait, or a minority.
[email protected]
Choir Loft
"'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination."
- Leviticus 18:22
As with most arguments which seek to justify an appetite instead of seeking the truth - the statement that the Bible agrees with it or that the Bible is neutral is a lie and a perversion of truth.
The statements that justify aberrant sexual behavior do not address the righteousness of God. They subvert the culture that agrees with it.
When a man justifies his actions, whatever they may be, instead of seeking and acting upon God's truth and Holy Word it is sin.
Sin leads to death and death leads to hell - the ultimate separation between God and the human spirit. Jesus said that it would be better to cut off an offending bodily member than to enter hell whole. That is good advice. Cut it off.
but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...
Well, rjp, two things come to mind.
Why did you go into a mild rant on people justifying homosexual sex when no one has done that in here.
Why aren't the Xian right who make so much noise with this one sin, not equally annoyed with all the other sins/abominations in the bible? To isolate the one shows an acute personal interest in it. Why are they so interested in it?
Bonus thoughts...
There is no other Xian sin, that isn't already a cultural sin, that the church legislates about, why do they want to legislate their faith on others, DIRECTLY AGAINST PAUL'S TEACHING?
And Jesus commanded we love like God does. As perfectly as He does is the command. Jesus explained that God provides and thus loves even His enemies.
I find it sickening, literally, that God will love and provide for them because they are His neighbor (so to speak) BUT THAT HIS CHURCH WILL NOT. That makes "his church" anathema and antichrist.
Ty for your post which gave me a great example to a lurking friend.
Why did you go into a mild rant on people justifying homosexual sex when no one has done that in here.
Why aren't the Xian right who make so much noise with this one sin, not equally annoyed with all the other sins/abominations in the bible? To isolate the one shows an acute personal interest in it. Why are they so interested in it?
Bonus thoughts...
There is no other Xian sin, that isn't already a cultural sin, that the church legislates about, why do they want to legislate their faith on others, DIRECTLY AGAINST PAUL'S TEACHING?
And Jesus commanded we love like God does. As perfectly as He does is the command. Jesus explained that God provides and thus loves even His enemies.
I find it sickening, literally, that God will love and provide for them because they are His neighbor (so to speak) BUT THAT HIS CHURCH WILL NOT. That makes "his church" anathema and antichrist.
Ty for your post which gave me a great example to a lurking friend.
[email protected]
Choir Loft
Why do Christians focus on homosexuality? Why focus on this cultural sin?
First of all, I know of NO modern legislation sponsored by Christians that forbids the gay lifestyle. Your assertion that we have is inaccurate, unfounded and untrue. References to past legislation are references to past cultures, cultures not of our own time. Today, the issue has mostly been decided in the courts - not by legislators who have conveniently decided to toss the hot potato elsewhere.
Why focus on this particular cultural sin? You've said that there are many others, that the Bible says there are many others. You are correct.
The illegitimate cultural acceptance of the gay life style has been politically linked by its adherents to the legitimate issue of ethnic civil rights. That's the legal wedge that has been utilized so successfully by the gay community to force its agenda upon the rest of the culture.
The reason gay rights has been focused upon is because it perverts the family. The family is the core social unit of society. Subvert the family, pervert the definition of the family and the definition of town and city community is likewise perverted. As the community goes, so goes the nation.
What we see happening here is a perversion of the sense of morality. Morality has become a dirty word to some. The Christian notion of morality is tied to a higher power - to God. When God is denied, divinely defined morality is also tossed out. Man is a social creature and is dependent upon something greater than himself to define the rules by which he lives. When God's law is tossed out, man's law takes precedence. Nature abhors a vacuum and the state becomes god. When the state becomes god, totalitarianism and corruption follow.
All sorts of abuses become approved policy. This is historic fact. It happens every time. It is happening now; torture as national policy, war crimes as accepted norms of behavior, constant unjust wars (24 concurrent American wars as of this writing), the dismantling of representative government by constitutional law, etc. 100% certainty. The only variant in the equation is the amount of elapsed time between rejection of God and the fall of the nation/empire. Since American culture is operating at white hot intensity, the time between rejection of God and the collapse of the American Empire will no doubt be short. The signs are already quite obvious. Hold onto your tightey whiteys - it won't be much longer. Watch and learn.
Is all of this the fault of the gay life style? Certainly not. It is, however, indicative and a part of the shift toward rejection of God's law and God Himself that has become one facet of the assault upon the old culture of law and morality
The cultural war goes to the definition of what rules society shall live by. The vote has been tallied and God has lost the election. America has chosen to toss God and His law out the window and to live as we choose. The biggest evidence of this is a loss of liberty. Congress chooses to bless the needs of the financial cartel, the military, the defense contractors and large corporations rather than those of the people - rather than constitutional law.
The constitution can only stand as long as its cultural supports remain.
The truth today is that America is proud of the new fascist police state we've built. A recent NBC poll, reported Brian Williams, stated that the TSA is more popular than congress. People prefer unjust rules and regulations to the responsibility of a democratic government. It makes no sense in the old cultural perspective, but it makes perfect sense in the new view.
Culture war defines cultural morality, accepted social behavior. When God's morality is tossed out everything goes too. It sounds crazy, but that's what is going on and that's why ONE aspect of the cultural argument is the legitimacy and rightness of homosexuality.
When God participates in the culture, the culture prospers. When God is rejected from the culture, the culture withers and dies a gruesome death. God is a person and will participate for good - or allow the culture to fall to pieces when He is told to butt out. Watch and learn. When disasters strike and when circumstances go wrong, people will inevitably cry, "where is God." The answer is obvious to those who admit it. God will be exactly where we sent Him - OUT.
but that's must me, hollering from the choir loft...
-- Pug, if you look back, you will see I was talking dragonfly....not you.
The very fact that you missed that point shows your words are more accurate than sarcastic.
-- Oh, I have no doubt whatsoever that that is true.
Hopefully one day that effort will eventually pay off for you...
-- We'll just leave it at that then....
-- Take your pick:
Read the scripture alone or in context with the scripture around it or as part of the entire chapter as a whole and it shows I am correct.
Paul speaking - present tense - about himself. Paul admits that - even after being born again - that he still deals with sin. His sin.
NOTHING you said contradicts that.
-- Pug, please get a grip.
James says in the very first sentence: "Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance"
Why would he send a letter about considering it joy to face trials because it increases your faith.....to unsaved people?
There are several OBVIOUS references within the first chapter alone that shows this book was written for those Christians.
A little common sense, please....
-- If you're "not reading any more" and "getting annoyed and nearly angry" then you should do something about it. Try repenting.
Getting this bent ouf of shape over what is said on a public chat board shows a shortcoming that obviously needs addressing.
Splinter first, then plank.
-- Making demands you have no right to make and telling someone ELSE to grow up. Oh, for cute....
I don't care "how comfortable you are and sure you are in your views" either.
But your being upset doesn't impact me.
How weak of you to allow my words to have such influence over your feelings. I feel sad for you.
Pug, you said: "Errrrr. :| If you still sin, you aren't yet born again"
If Christians did not sin after they were saved and before they were perfected, then there would be no need for God's grace or mercy.
Yet we need it every day.
You also skipped over two of my comments completely.
I pointed out that Catholics are required by their faith to go to Confession to......wait for it......confess their sins.
People confess to their priests. Priests to bishops. Bishops to Cardinals. Cardinals to the Pope.
If you are right than there is not one single Catholic that is "born again."
Are Catholics born again, or aren't they?
Also, in the Lord's Prayers Jesus Himself teaches us to ask Him to forgive our sins as we forgive those who sin against.
He didn't say prayers should be modeled this way "until you are saved" or "until the Holy Spirit" is given to you.
This is a model for prayer today.
Christ's own words show you to be wrong, no?
Answer or don't. It matters not. My point is made and made successfully...
Thank you so much, more than I can express in text, for actually answering the topic, the arguments and reasoning.
Please remember I use the "YOU" pronoun in a generic sense for all people often, and in text it is taken personally often, when it's intended generally. I"m not personally attacking you here, although I do make some obvious hyperbolic sarcastic examples along the way.
Gay lifestyle isn't the only issue they face. We had to pass laws to keep the "holy rollers" off their back so they could even exist. That's your modern day Xian love for you. If Xians loved as Christ commanded those laws that they can't be discriminated against would not have been necessary. That's an epic empirical fail. YOU have the CHURCH hyper aggressively denying them legal rights on the basis of inside the Church they wouldn't be recognized by God as married. So what does that have to do with legal rights, non Xians get legal protection all the time, why do you (the whole church, not you personally) isolate this one group to deny them legal rights. We denied women, and blacks, and american indians, and mexicans, etc... at different times rights, and every instance was proven to be wrong and you'd be angry at someone pushing to deny rights to them today. But this ONE issue is ok. :) It's garbage, unreasoned, emotional, bigoted behavior.
Yet, most pedophiles are heterosexual and most of them are abused by a person in their youth as the catalyst for them being homosexual. You need to prove it disrupts the unity not just claim it. In the real world, I know gay couples that would make infinitely better families than some Xian family units. Adultery is a bigger problem, that's ok with you though. Abuse and violence is hundreds of times more of a family unit disrupter but you don't care to challenge their rights to marry. This argument isn't a reason, it's justification.
If the Xian community is the one to model, we should blow it up now and start over. You don't watch the fruits of that culture much I guess. :|
Empirically that is false. It was said to happen when women got voting rights, when blacks got rights, when american indians got rights, etc... it's yet to happen.
Why did the Soldier and tax man both among the most sinful of jobs of the time of Christ get told to do their job for the government but do it fairly? Because the govt has a role to play that isn't FOR the Church. The Church represents and governs the Church, Paul in 1 cor 5 I think addresses that. He's not supposed to judge those outside, that's GOd's job. The Church today has usurped the claim to GOD doing HIS job and tries to do it for Him.
You abuse people then, and deny them rights because of what you fear may occur, when historically it's not been the case yet. I get it. :|
I am not sure how you can make sex a moral issue when I think morals I see it as I shouldn't take from you what is yours, or disobey the law, etc.... There were moral standards in cultures well before the Bible's message was written down.
mor·al/ˈmôrəl/
Adjective: Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
To impose Christian morals on the world goes against what Paul said. It goes against what Christ taught as well. But the Church today claims they are supposed to do it for GOD? He appointed the government to do the government's job, let them do it....
So you don't find GOD a good enough delegater of what the Government does. He appointed them, but HE failed to get the right people in office. AWESOME, so much for omnipotence.
So, you want me to accept the Constitution was not written for a non Christian man, is that it?
It matches the fascist God the Church teaches as well. I"m not knocking GOd, I just want the actual Gospel to be preached, not this fascism the Church claims as love.
YOU>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. A recent NBC poll, reported Brian Williams, stated that the TSA is more popular than congress. People prefer unjust rules and regulations to the responsibility of a democratic government. It makes no sense in the old cultural perspective, but it makes perfect sense in the new view<<<<<<<<<<
I bet if the Church/ far right/ voted for the best politician instead of who made promises to them we'd get better quick.
>>>>>>>>>YOU>>>>>>
Culture war defines cultural morality, accepted social behavior. When God's morality is tossed out everything goes too. It sounds crazy, but that's what is going on and that's why ONE aspect of the cultural argument is the legitimacy and rightness of homosexuality.<<<<<<<<<<
And yet, that vague, impossible to substantiate comment is empirically proven wrong. I can go to several cultures that hadn't even heard of the rules you'd call Christian morals, and they survived BETTER without the Church.
YOU>>>>>>>>>>
When God participates in the culture, the culture prospers. When God is rejected from the culture, the culture withers and dies a gruesome death. God is a person and will participate for good - or allow the culture to fall to pieces when He is told to butt out. Watch and learn. When disasters strike and when circumstances go wrong, people will inevitably cry, "where is God." The answer is obvious to those who admit it. God will be exactly where we sent Him - OUT.
but that's must me, hollering from the choir loft...
<<<<<<<<
I'm proud of you for thinking and defending your thoughts even though I think they are repeated arguments from others and are against scripture. We knew we disagreed coming into it. But you discussed. ty.
Please remember I use the "YOU" pronoun in a generic sense for all people often, and in text it is taken personally often, when it's intended generally. I"m not personally attacking you here, although I do make some obvious hyperbolic sarcastic examples along the way.
Gay lifestyle isn't the only issue they face. We had to pass laws to keep the "holy rollers" off their back so they could even exist. That's your modern day Xian love for you. If Xians loved as Christ commanded those laws that they can't be discriminated against would not have been necessary. That's an epic empirical fail. YOU have the CHURCH hyper aggressively denying them legal rights on the basis of inside the Church they wouldn't be recognized by God as married. So what does that have to do with legal rights, non Xians get legal protection all the time, why do you (the whole church, not you personally) isolate this one group to deny them legal rights. We denied women, and blacks, and american indians, and mexicans, etc... at different times rights, and every instance was proven to be wrong and you'd be angry at someone pushing to deny rights to them today. But this ONE issue is ok. :) It's garbage, unreasoned, emotional, bigoted behavior.
Yet, most pedophiles are heterosexual and most of them are abused by a person in their youth as the catalyst for them being homosexual. You need to prove it disrupts the unity not just claim it. In the real world, I know gay couples that would make infinitely better families than some Xian family units. Adultery is a bigger problem, that's ok with you though. Abuse and violence is hundreds of times more of a family unit disrupter but you don't care to challenge their rights to marry. This argument isn't a reason, it's justification.
If the Xian community is the one to model, we should blow it up now and start over. You don't watch the fruits of that culture much I guess. :|
Empirically that is false. It was said to happen when women got voting rights, when blacks got rights, when american indians got rights, etc... it's yet to happen.
Why did the Soldier and tax man both among the most sinful of jobs of the time of Christ get told to do their job for the government but do it fairly? Because the govt has a role to play that isn't FOR the Church. The Church represents and governs the Church, Paul in 1 cor 5 I think addresses that. He's not supposed to judge those outside, that's GOd's job. The Church today has usurped the claim to GOD doing HIS job and tries to do it for Him.
You abuse people then, and deny them rights because of what you fear may occur, when historically it's not been the case yet. I get it. :|
I am not sure how you can make sex a moral issue when I think morals I see it as I shouldn't take from you what is yours, or disobey the law, etc.... There were moral standards in cultures well before the Bible's message was written down.
mor·al/ˈmôrəl/
Adjective: Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
To impose Christian morals on the world goes against what Paul said. It goes against what Christ taught as well. But the Church today claims they are supposed to do it for GOD? He appointed the government to do the government's job, let them do it....
So you don't find GOD a good enough delegater of what the Government does. He appointed them, but HE failed to get the right people in office. AWESOME, so much for omnipotence.
So, you want me to accept the Constitution was not written for a non Christian man, is that it?
It matches the fascist God the Church teaches as well. I"m not knocking GOd, I just want the actual Gospel to be preached, not this fascism the Church claims as love.
YOU>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. A recent NBC poll, reported Brian Williams, stated that the TSA is more popular than congress. People prefer unjust rules and regulations to the responsibility of a democratic government. It makes no sense in the old cultural perspective, but it makes perfect sense in the new view<<<<<<<<<<
I bet if the Church/ far right/ voted for the best politician instead of who made promises to them we'd get better quick.
>>>>>>>>>YOU>>>>>>
Culture war defines cultural morality, accepted social behavior. When God's morality is tossed out everything goes too. It sounds crazy, but that's what is going on and that's why ONE aspect of the cultural argument is the legitimacy and rightness of homosexuality.<<<<<<<<<<
And yet, that vague, impossible to substantiate comment is empirically proven wrong. I can go to several cultures that hadn't even heard of the rules you'd call Christian morals, and they survived BETTER without the Church.
YOU>>>>>>>>>>
When God participates in the culture, the culture prospers. When God is rejected from the culture, the culture withers and dies a gruesome death. God is a person and will participate for good - or allow the culture to fall to pieces when He is told to butt out. Watch and learn. When disasters strike and when circumstances go wrong, people will inevitably cry, "where is God." The answer is obvious to those who admit it. God will be exactly where we sent Him - OUT.
but that's must me, hollering from the choir loft...
<<<<<<<<
I'm proud of you for thinking and defending your thoughts even though I think they are repeated arguments from others and are against scripture. We knew we disagreed coming into it. But you discussed. ty.
"...
Our society is at a turning point. Are we going to undo the mistakes of the past thirty years that have given us an epidemic of divorce, fatherlessness, drugs, and violent and promiscuous children? Or are we going to continue the legitimization of same-sex unions by giving them the same status as heterosexual marriages?
The choice is an easy one. Marriage should be exclusive, unconditional, permanent, and life-giving. Marriages like that lead to health, happiness, prosperity, long life, and social peace. And the evidence is there to prove it. Homosexuals will not be able to create marriages like that, even if their "marriages" become legal. Statistics reveal that the lives of homosexuals are anything but gay. A more accurate description would paraphrase Thomas Hobbes's vision of life apart from civilization: nasty, lonely, and short.
The loneliness and short lives are not due to the fact that same-sex marriage is illegal. They are inherent in the nature of the homosexual lifestyle itself. Homosexuality doesn't satisfy; sexually satisfied people don't seek random sex with hundreds of strangers. Gay activists who seek absolution from society will not find it, even if same-sex marriage becomes legal. Courts and legislatures cannot create clean consciences.
But legalization of homosexual marriage would empty marriage of its meaning. And that will tend to weaken marriage even further, which will further increase the divorce rate and maximize divorce-related misery.
The institution of marriage is precious. It enhances the health, longevity, and well-being of married couples. It increases the health, vocational success, and emotional well-being of children. In providing all these benefits, heterosexual marriage contributes to the happiness and prosperity of society. Marriage must, therefore, remain limited to one man and one woman who strive to keep their marriage exclusive, unconditional, permanent, and life-giving. Nothing less will ever meet the needs of the human person, because nothing less satisfies.
Because it is intrinsically disordered, we must not recognize homosexual activity as legitimate, and we must not give public approval to homosexual marriage because of the harm that will do to the institution of marriage and because of the social harm that will result from emptying marriage of its meaning. Perhaps the most serious social harm would be to children: the children of divorce and the children of same-sex couples, who will suffer all the ills we have discussed.
Society has a lot to lose from legalizing homosexual marriage. And homosexuals have nothing to gain."
Gay Marraige - Catholic Answers
Our society is at a turning point. Are we going to undo the mistakes of the past thirty years that have given us an epidemic of divorce, fatherlessness, drugs, and violent and promiscuous children? Or are we going to continue the legitimization of same-sex unions by giving them the same status as heterosexual marriages?
The choice is an easy one. Marriage should be exclusive, unconditional, permanent, and life-giving. Marriages like that lead to health, happiness, prosperity, long life, and social peace. And the evidence is there to prove it. Homosexuals will not be able to create marriages like that, even if their "marriages" become legal. Statistics reveal that the lives of homosexuals are anything but gay. A more accurate description would paraphrase Thomas Hobbes's vision of life apart from civilization: nasty, lonely, and short.
The loneliness and short lives are not due to the fact that same-sex marriage is illegal. They are inherent in the nature of the homosexual lifestyle itself. Homosexuality doesn't satisfy; sexually satisfied people don't seek random sex with hundreds of strangers. Gay activists who seek absolution from society will not find it, even if same-sex marriage becomes legal. Courts and legislatures cannot create clean consciences.
But legalization of homosexual marriage would empty marriage of its meaning. And that will tend to weaken marriage even further, which will further increase the divorce rate and maximize divorce-related misery.
The institution of marriage is precious. It enhances the health, longevity, and well-being of married couples. It increases the health, vocational success, and emotional well-being of children. In providing all these benefits, heterosexual marriage contributes to the happiness and prosperity of society. Marriage must, therefore, remain limited to one man and one woman who strive to keep their marriage exclusive, unconditional, permanent, and life-giving. Nothing less will ever meet the needs of the human person, because nothing less satisfies.
Because it is intrinsically disordered, we must not recognize homosexual activity as legitimate, and we must not give public approval to homosexual marriage because of the harm that will do to the institution of marriage and because of the social harm that will result from emptying marriage of its meaning. Perhaps the most serious social harm would be to children: the children of divorce and the children of same-sex couples, who will suffer all the ills we have discussed.
Society has a lot to lose from legalizing homosexual marriage. And homosexuals have nothing to gain."
Gay Marraige - Catholic Answers
Kepha that is utterly unprocessed bull fertilizer.
Its a lie to even type it.
You had the problems with marriages long before gay people had rights to protect them, much less gay marriage.
What a steaming pile of crap you just vomited trying to blame them for issues that existed b4 their issues were on the table. That's plain ole bigoted lies and justification.
You have zero respect and crossed every moral line with that comment. With people like you do you have any wonder they want equal protection under the law?
Had the church shut up 15 years ago when the equal rights issue started, they wouldn't be causing the ruckus over the term marriage now.
Did the glbt moral failure kill your car battery, give you the flu, give you a flat, cause you to overdraw a check too?
I know you deal with catholic bashing a lot. I usually defend them for fairness as the fundagelicals make it up as they go sometimes. But you just committed the same sin to glbts as you have committed against your church, except you exponentially upped the offense.
Its a lie to even type it.
You had the problems with marriages long before gay people had rights to protect them, much less gay marriage.
What a steaming pile of crap you just vomited trying to blame them for issues that existed b4 their issues were on the table. That's plain ole bigoted lies and justification.
You have zero respect and crossed every moral line with that comment. With people like you do you have any wonder they want equal protection under the law?
Had the church shut up 15 years ago when the equal rights issue started, they wouldn't be causing the ruckus over the term marriage now.
Did the glbt moral failure kill your car battery, give you the flu, give you a flat, cause you to overdraw a check too?
I know you deal with catholic bashing a lot. I usually defend them for fairness as the fundagelicals make it up as they go sometimes. But you just committed the same sin to glbts as you have committed against your church, except you exponentially upped the offense.
Nomad
Post Tenebras Lux
Mat 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
So how does this apply? Glad you asked. Jesus teaches here that the intent of the heart is just as sinful as the overt action it can produce. There's no difference.
Ohhh impressive nomad. Since a gay male is no more likely than a homosexual male to lust for someone, and the comment was made to straight males anyway....... sorta proves the point. What does it mean? How does it apply?? Same way it does to a straight man.
That verse isn't an indictment of gay men, that's ripping it out of context and trying to cram it where it doesn't belong....
You have dehumanized gay folx to the point you don't see a person, you see a sin. May God forgive all the bigots in His Church. He says love the person, you see a sin, or a perversion, or more likely a target.
Why don't you guys get any more upset over other sins and lay off the backs of gay folks?
That verse isn't an indictment of gay men, that's ripping it out of context and trying to cram it where it doesn't belong....
You have dehumanized gay folx to the point you don't see a person, you see a sin. May God forgive all the bigots in His Church. He says love the person, you see a sin, or a perversion, or more likely a target.
Why don't you guys get any more upset over other sins and lay off the backs of gay folks?
Nomad
Post Tenebras Lux
Its got no place in this chat about homosexuality. Gay people no more lust after every person they see than a str8 person does. For you to bring that into the chat in that fashion just proves your ignorance of the people.
If you argue that they lust because they are gay and thus are all guilty, then every str8 person must lust every person of the opposite sex they see. I dunno about what demons of lust you are fighting here, but it takes more than a person being female for me to find them attractive. And finding them attractive is a far cry from me lusting after them. Gay people are no different. They have types and standards etc.....
It is true the gay community has promiscuous people in it, but if you go through your churches and poll with lie detectors, so to do str8 people. A sex addict is a sex addict independently of their homo/hetero tendencies. You have sex addicts that are asexual for that matter.
See, here's the hateful crux of the matter. You hear homosexual and automatically try to find reasons to stand against them. You ignore inconvenient scripture, you try to ignore the person and just look at them as a sexual habit.
This isn't God's work you are doing, its hateful. It isn't agapao.
Agapao says if they want your coat give them your shirt too.
They ask the govt, appointed by God to protect them for protection, and the church, rather than give them the coat, tries to attack them and make them go away. Rather than give you attack. I gotta tell you, John says if you don't get the love right you are going to hell. And this doesn't meet any biblical example of agapao. Good luck selling your arguments to the author of the rules....
Nomad
Post Tenebras Lux
First, I never said that gay or straight people lust after every person they see. Such a statement is dishonest and it's a red herring. Let me put it to you this way: To be a homosexual is to desire what God calls an abomination.
Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Jesus makes it abundantly clear. To desire what is sinful is sin. Therefore, homosexuality is a sin. Plain and simple. Your liberal stance is antithetical to the clear teaching of Scripture.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
not everyone is a Christian, Kepha - why should nonChristians have to follow God's laws when He doesn't even force them to do so?
Then you dropped a total non sequitur into a conversation.
The conversation was about
Which since the discussion is about homosexuals and the questions was what sins they were committing, I'm assuming we are still discussing homosexual sins, not sexual sins in general. So when you post the verse, I asked you to apply it, then answered what you might have been saying. ANd I made that clear.
So you want to come back and try to create a story to look proper and claim I AM THE ONE being fallacious? My post avoided fallacious by asking you how to apply that. That was the first words I put down. TO EXPEDITE I answered the most obvious use of the verse, the way it's always used in this conversation, which seems likely since you parrot the party lines on all of these chats so far. BUT I was still waiting for..... how do you apply this.... and in case I guessed right and it's the usual way.... here is my answer to save time....
I think you are scrambling to save face. But that could be wrong since, YOU HAVE STILL NOT SAID HOW THAT VERSE WAS TO BE APPLIED, WHICH MEANS MY ANSWER FOR JUST IN CASE STILL SEEMS TO BE THE MOST LIKELY ASSUMPTION.
You try to sum it up with an answer that supports my assumption by saying...."To desire what is sinful is sin. Therefore, homosexuality is a sin. Plain and simple. Your liberal stance is antithetical to the clear teaching of Scripture."
Do you desire sex all day long? Are you desiring sex now? Is that the problem? Do you think that addiction is inherent to people in general, or just to homosexuals. I hate to tell you, I know dozens if not scores of homosexuals not in a relationship and not desiring sex all day long. Most of them miss the relationship, not the sex. It's about the person they find as their mate, not as someone to F around with. Again, there are promiscuous gay people, just as hetero people. But that doesn't condemn all of the homosexuals to your assumption, except to a bigot.
They are homosexual if they have no sex. If they are homosexual they are not necessarily lusting for anything of their gender to have sex with all day long as you seem to imply but won't come out and do it because you are duplicitous or something. Saving face maybe.....
If they are homosexual, relate to the same sex as a partner, but aren't having homosexual sex, and not lusting every person of their gender they see as you imply, nor lusting anyone of their gender for that matter, they are not in sin.
That isn't liberal. That's the flipping BIBLE. EVERY PLACE IT IS MENTIONED AS A SIN requires them to be engaged in the act of sex to be that sin.
For any of you that refuse to acknowledge this, you might as well take a black marker to the bible and remove the rest of the parts you don't like.
Don't call me liberal. I'm taking the BIBLE exactly as written and not letting my emotions get in the way of the words it uses. YOU ARE THE ONE omitting words and thoughts to hold your position. That makes me so much more conservative than you that you don't even fit the word conservative.
This is my answer to "what about this non sequitur verse..."
My point was first it's a non sequitur.
Second IF YOU ARGUE is not a start of any proclamation to stating you said something. It's a request for information, and an assumed answer to cover for expediency.
Your rant here was painting a picture that was false. You will be unapologetic for it.
There is a clear pattern here of people seeing something they don't like.
Then attacking the person when they lack the arguments to deal with it.
You are the group that screams you are Xian loudest.
What does that tell you.
Precisely. The man who cheats on his wife is just as sinful as the man who gets poop on his d*ck.
The love between a man and a woman is the foundation of civilization. Undermine that, and what have you got? It's not a matter of non-Christians following God's laws. It's a matter of protecting the institution of marriage which is the foundation of civilization.
What do homosexual activists hope to gain from legalizing same-sex marriage?
Motives probably vary, depending on the activist. Many are seeking public approval of homosexuality. They want societal acceptance. Others may be seeking absolution for a guilty conscience. Some probably want society to say that what they are doing is morally right. But you don't have to be a theologian, nor even religious, to understand that any form of behavior that cuts a person's longevity in half and comes with a lengthy list of venereal diseases is simply not right. You don't have to be the pope to see that. A thoughtful atheist can discover easily a completely secular natural morality that says: This behavior kills people. People should live. But homosexual behavior kills homosexuals. That's not right. Homosexuals need to live just like everyone else.
The statistics make it very clear that homosexuals are not at peace with themselves. No one who is at peace seeks sex with hundreds of strangers. That is bizarre behavior. Something is dreadfully wrong with the psychology of people who seek random sex-a fact we see confirmed by their suicide, drug, and antisocial behavior statistics.
Legalization of same-sex marriage will not bring absolution nor deliver inner peace. Homosexuals will continue to suffer from the problems their "lifestyle" creates, even if every state legislature and both houses of Congress were to pass bills extolling homosexual behavior and privileging their relationships over those of heterosexuals. Active homosexuals will continue seeking something that they will never find through the things they do with strangers. They will still be tragically unhappy people. Such behavior will never offer the basis for marriage nor satisfy their relationship needs as persons. Homosexuals need compassion, but since they will not benefit by homosexual "marriage," there is no reason for society to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. In fact, recognition of this intrinsically disordered behavior can have only bad effects on society.
Is heterosexuality a sin?
Heterosexual non married sex is. Adultery is.
Is homosexuality a sin?
Homosexual sex is. <<<<<< That is biblical.
Homosexuality as a sin is not biblical.
People need to learn to separate the two words, homosexuality doesn't mean you are constantly lusting for sex anymore than heterosexuality means the same for the opposite sex.
That's the sum of my arguments. I find it embarrassing that people can't agree on this.
1) Homosexuals are such a small minority of the population you would quintuple it and still be over crowded on the planet. That "undermining the foundation of civilization" is a fantasy bad dream.
2) The institution of marriage? You don't think we can make babies if we aren't married? That's the foundation of humanity....
3) You don't think people can be civilized if there aren't heterosexual marriages?
4) This was a bunch of parroted cliches. Sorry.
Yeah, the women of the world wanting equal rights under the law were just abominations.
Black/white marriages is another abomination. They wanted societal acceptance, or approval....
That's ignorant bigotry.
HELL YES they want public approval but of being HUMAN BEINGS, not the dehumanized crap the Church preaches today. THEY SHOULD want societal acceptance AS HUMAN BEINGS not second rate problems as you treat them today. Give that to them, and their activism goes away. They ask for a coat, give them a shirt, stop bloodying their noses over it.
Know what I think? I think most of you don't have a reason why the Church behaves as it does on this topic. I think you tend to cut n paste other people's thoughts because you can't really justify it inside. Lacking your own arguments you steal whatever sounds like it might score and post it. Well steal is the wrong word, a little hyperbole...
They want the hyper holy far right to stop treating them differently as human beings. They want the religious right to stop trying to take rights from them, or deny them protection under the law. To stop attacking their wills when they die, stuff like that which you will deny but I have seen happen. A holy roller family that has disowned their siblings, upon his death went to court to take away the stuff left to his partner who supported him all their adult lives. And they won. You wish to NOT enable that protection. How friggin loving that is.
Most that I know don't care what you think. They don't put their sex in your face, and they want you to keep your nose out of their sex. They perform in the work place. They are socially appropriate. They pay their bills, their taxes, they contribute, they save lives, they want you to look at them and see a human being, not their sex. WHY THE HELL does the Church obsess over where they put their privates when it's not a concern for you? If they were moving to be a deacon in the Church, perhaps it's an issue.
WE HAD TO PASS LAWS TO FORCE the holy roller right to be fair to them in employment practices, don't act like it's not a problem.
Granted. Being homosexual OR heterosexual will kill you if you are involved in risky sex. So, why not allow them the same anchors to stay committed to each other as every other family has.
The american Indians would note that being under the influence of Xians kills.
Blacks shouldn't marry whites.
I can give you most of the same arguments above, towards that church sanctioned hate speech a few generations ago. IT is as bigotted now as it was then.
If that's what you support and what you think GOD is, I'm glad I don't associate with you as one of my faith.
Heterosexual non married sex is. Adultery is.
Is homosexuality a sin?
Homosexual sex is. <<<<<< That is biblical.
Homosexuality as a sin is not biblical.
People need to learn to separate the two words, homosexuality doesn't mean you are constantly lusting for sex anymore than heterosexuality means the same for the opposite sex.
That's the sum of my arguments. I find it embarrassing that people can't agree on this.
1) Homosexuals are such a small minority of the population you would quintuple it and still be over crowded on the planet. That "undermining the foundation of civilization" is a fantasy bad dream.
2) The institution of marriage? You don't think we can make babies if we aren't married? That's the foundation of humanity....
3) You don't think people can be civilized if there aren't heterosexual marriages?
4) This was a bunch of parroted cliches. Sorry.
Yeah, the women of the world wanting equal rights under the law were just abominations.
Black/white marriages is another abomination. They wanted societal acceptance, or approval....
That's ignorant bigotry.
HELL YES they want public approval but of being HUMAN BEINGS, not the dehumanized crap the Church preaches today. THEY SHOULD want societal acceptance AS HUMAN BEINGS not second rate problems as you treat them today. Give that to them, and their activism goes away. They ask for a coat, give them a shirt, stop bloodying their noses over it.
Know what I think? I think most of you don't have a reason why the Church behaves as it does on this topic. I think you tend to cut n paste other people's thoughts because you can't really justify it inside. Lacking your own arguments you steal whatever sounds like it might score and post it. Well steal is the wrong word, a little hyperbole...
They want the hyper holy far right to stop treating them differently as human beings. They want the religious right to stop trying to take rights from them, or deny them protection under the law. To stop attacking their wills when they die, stuff like that which you will deny but I have seen happen. A holy roller family that has disowned their siblings, upon his death went to court to take away the stuff left to his partner who supported him all their adult lives. And they won. You wish to NOT enable that protection. How friggin loving that is.
Most that I know don't care what you think. They don't put their sex in your face, and they want you to keep your nose out of their sex. They perform in the work place. They are socially appropriate. They pay their bills, their taxes, they contribute, they save lives, they want you to look at them and see a human being, not their sex. WHY THE HELL does the Church obsess over where they put their privates when it's not a concern for you? If they were moving to be a deacon in the Church, perhaps it's an issue.
WE HAD TO PASS LAWS TO FORCE the holy roller right to be fair to them in employment practices, don't act like it's not a problem.
Granted. Being homosexual OR heterosexual will kill you if you are involved in risky sex. So, why not allow them the same anchors to stay committed to each other as every other family has.
The american Indians would note that being under the influence of Xians kills.
Blacks shouldn't marry whites.
I can give you most of the same arguments above, towards that church sanctioned hate speech a few generations ago. IT is as bigotted now as it was then.
If that's what you support and what you think GOD is, I'm glad I don't associate with you as one of my faith.
- Status
Similar threads
