Homosexuality

[teamventure]

so multiply thousands of loves of bread and fish? good luck with that one health.

 

[mjrhealth]

Isa 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;
Isa 11:3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:

Not by the flesh

Yes who knows Jesus did it, He said we would do greater things, but than some have no faith, in Christ if they did they would expect better things, Me i cant wait to show the world Jesus.

In all His Love

 

[teamventure]

i can't wait to show the world Jesus either, by showing them the word of God.
you discover Jesus through the word of God and reading the Bible. it's not just reading the Bible.
you sound like you're in denial.


oh and health, i'm beginning to wonder what Jesus you're talking about. is it one of the false Christs Jesus warned us would come in the last days in Matt 24?

 

[Foreigner]

MrHealth, you have already confessed in this thread that you have no idea how to witness to homosexuals, botching the last attempt terribly because you didn't share the positive about Jesus along with what he expects of those that follow Him.

The Bible DOES serve a purpose it witnessing to Homosexuals or anyone else who is lost.

When you share scriptures showing His love for them, what He sacrificed for them, the fact that they can be forgiven and not have to carry any shame, and that there is an eternity of happiness waiting for them if they follow Him, it absolutely changes their lives.

You seem to think that all people who witness to homosexuals do is tell them that they are condemned.

That is NOT how it is done.

 

[marksman]

-- Not supporting a homosexual's right to marry or working to get gay marraige passed as the law of the land is in no way withholding love. Showing love does not mean you work to legalize something that your Lord and Savior finds reprehensible.

Having been in touch with the issues surrounding this topic for about 20 years, a definite pattern evolves to score points against the church and Christians.

What the homosexual lobby generally does it to come up with a subject matter and spin it to make the other side look bad and then it repeats it ad infinitum and as they say "mud sticks."

Whatever the subject is, in most cases integrity and truth are irrelevant as they do not believe in ruining a good story by telling the truth.

One of their favourite ploys is to reinvent the scriptures in their own image so they can use it to justify their sin and attack Christians who they consider less than Christians because they do not see eye to eye with them on scripture.

It is standard fare for them to claim, "how can you call yourself a Christian if you hate us? Jesus said to love one another and he never judged anyone."

If one is to ignore context and the general revelation of scripture then what they claim is true but as we know a text without a context is a pretext.

May I point out that we are told to speak the truth in love. We are not told to speak what will make someone happy. Therefore to not call a spade a spade, or to not call homosexuality a sin is not truth and is not love.

if we cannot call homosexuality sin, then we cannot call anything sin as the principle applies to all sin. What the homosexual lobby are demanding is in fact that we separate homosexuality from every other sin and make it a special case, with special treatment and ignore it for what it is.

Generally speaking, homosexuals are very insecure so they see any criticism of any kind, even when it is not directed to them, as an attack on their persons and emotional well being.

You haven't got a hope in hell if you never want to offend a homosexual. They will read into your words and make what you said offensive. It is their nature and make up.

At the end of the day, we don't answer to homosexuals or any other sinner. We answer to God and him alone, so what he wants and what he wants done is far more important than trying to please man.

 

[Foreigner]

There it is ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Good post, marksman

 

[aspen]

sure. great response if we lived in a Christian theocracy

 

[brightmorningstar]

sure. great response if we lived in a Christian theocracy

We live in a democracy where the freeodm of religious views by a proportion of its population is presumably protected. Such a comment casts doubt on that.

Marksman is correct. There is no debate. The anatomical reality is that there are two sexes in the species with corresponding sexual reproductive genitalia which through intercourse can reproduce. The whole lgbt/gay/homosexual thing is actually anatomically disordered thinking and behaviour, as it used to be considered.

We see some who support same sex relations quoting other passages and phrases from the Bible as though we who believe it all should abandon it all and pick and choose the same bits as they. Sorry but there is no Biblical debate. God created man and woman to be in union, Gen 2, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5 etc, there is no contenanmce for same-sex sexual relations which are actually only ever condemned Gen 19, Lev 18, 20, 1 Cor 6-7, Romans 1.

We are up against one big lie.
Let me give you an example of the deception. The French have just moved for 'Gay marriage' under the banner marriage for all. As marriage has already been for all men and women anyway how can it now be marriage for all. What they mean is marriage should change to incorporate all forms of couplings. But of course it doesnt mean that, it means only including same sex coupling, so its not marriage for all.
And they are changing the 'man and woman' to 'two persons' Well its not really inclusive of two persons is it as a father and son are two persons, can they get married?

The fact is that we have seen the same sort of spirit that existed at Sodom, get out of our way or we will treat you worse.
The UK Government and the UK media used YouGov polls which asked should there be gay marriage and 56% said yes and 38% no. An equivalent ComRes poll asked should marriage continue to be just one man and one woman and 53% said yes, 36% no. So it does depend on the question asked.
So it isnt surprising then that most people have been deceived, and people have been loosing their jobs for speaking out against same sex relationships. For example a government advisor on drug policies was dismissed when the lgbt actvists complained about his views on homosexuality, a propsective candidate for the UK Conservative party was dropped a when lgbt activists complained about his perosnal views against homosexuality. Remarkable enough when most of his party agree with him and at least a third of the populartion. What sort of freedom of speech, democracy or representation is that?
And on top of it all, with all the outrage against Jimmy Saville and the RC priests paedophilia, amazingly the UK's leading lgbt activist who wrote to the Guardian newspaper in 2009 about what he saw as positive aspects of some adult-child sex (with children as young as 9), has not diappeared from the debate but driving it so activily that he claimed the PM is using some of his stuff in his speeches.

Now another ComRes poll amongst the gay community showed they arent that bothered about gay marriage anyway. So this is a secular liberal and lgbt activist evil on the back of homsoexuality.

But the battle is far from over. Like the UK Poll tax the western secular liberal 'democracies' will soon find they cant force everyone to agree.

 

[Foreigner]

sure. great response if we lived in a Christian theocracy

-- Brightmorningstar handled your little unsupported whine-by statement very well, didn't he?

In the years I have been watching you post on this topic I have had confirmed one thing that you believe:

Every group is allowed to use their money, influence, time, political clout, etc. to attempt to achieve whatever they want........except Christians.

 

[aspen]

well stated Morningstar. thank you for posting

 

[marksman]

We are up against one big lie

That is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and we have to decide whether we want government by lies or government by truth.

Here are the 10 myths that go up to make the one big lie.

1. People are born homosexual

2. Sexual orientation can never change

3. Efforts to change someone’s sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual are harmful and unethical.

4. 10% of the population are homosexual

5. Homosexuals do not experience a higher level of psychological disorders than heterosexuals.

6. Homosexual conduct is not harmful to one’s physical health

7. Children raised by homosexuals are no different from children raised by heterosexuals, nor do they suffer harm.

8. Homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals.

9. Homosexuals are seriously disadvantaged by discrimination.

10. Homosexual relationships are just the same as heterosexual ones, except for the gender of the partners

 

[brightmorningstar]

Correct Marksman.

 

[Foreigner]

This should give everyone a moment of pause...



http://www.wpaag.org/Homosexuals%20and%20Same%20Sex%20Marriage.htm

Promiscuity is the factor that leads
to health problems and monetary costs cited below.

• Prior to the AIDS epidemic, a 1978
  study found that 75 percent of white, gay males claimed to have had more than
  100 lifetime male sex partners: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17
  percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500- 999; and 28 percent claimed
  more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. Levels of promiscuity subsequently
  declined, but some observers are concerned that promiscuity is again approaching
  the levels of the 1970s.
• In more recent years, the U.S.
  Centers for Disease Control has reported an upswing in promiscuity, at least
  among young homosexual men in San Francisco. From 1994 to 1997, the percentage
  of homosexual men reporting multiple partners and unprotected anal sex rose from
  23.6 percent to 33.3 percent, with the largest increase among men under
  25.7 AIDS no longer seems to deter individuals from engaging in
  promiscuous gay sex.
• Monogamy, meaning long-term sexual
  fidelity, is rare in GLB relationships, particularly among gay men. One study
  reported that 66 percent of gay couples reported sex outside the relationship
  within the first year, and nearly 90 percent if the relationship lasted five
  years.

�
A1998
study in Seattle found that 10 percent of HIV-positive men admitted they engaged
in unprotected anal sex, and the percentage doubled in 2000. According to a
study of men who attend gay "circuit" parties, the danger at such events is even
greater. Ten percent of the men surveyed expected to become HIV-positive in
their lifetime. Researchers discovered that 17 percent of the circuit party
attendees surveyed were already HIV positive. Two thirds of those attending
circuit parties had oral or anal sex, and 28 percent did not use
condoms.
�
Studies
show that 75-90 percent of women who have sex with women have also had sex with
men. And the average gay or lesbian relationship is short lived. In one study,
only 15 percent of gay men and 17.3 percent of lesbians had relationships that
lasted more than three years. Most of the above facts taken from The Health
Risks of Gay Sex by John R. Digs, Jr. M.D. which has 129 footnotes and hundreds
of sources, many from Center of Disease Control.. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

In Their Own Words � Promiscuity Quotes by Homosexuals

• Gay author
  Gabriel Rotello, "Let me simply say that I have no moral objection to
  promiscuity�I enjoyed the '70's, I didn't think there was anything morally wrong
  with the lifestyle of the baths. I believe that for many people, promiscuity can
  be meaningful, liberating and fun." http://www.narth.com/docs/whyreveal.html.
  He also says, "Gay liberation was founded . . . on a 'sexual brotherhood of
  promiscuity,' and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a
  'communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html
• Signorile,
  another well known homosexual advocating safe sex, speaks of the "raunchy,
  impersonal atmosphere" of sex in public parks and bathrooms, "There's nothing
  morally wrong with this--and I say that as someone who has certainly had my
  share of hot public sex, beginning when I was a teenager and well into my
  adulthood.�http://www.nogaymarriage.com/talkingpoints.html."
  

Homosexual Health
Problems

Gay
websites, medical journals, psychological journals, and Centers for Disease
Control all conclude that homosexual behavior results in greater risk for the
following: (Gay websites included.)

�
AIDS, Hepatitis
A, B & C; many kinds of sexually transmitted diseases; anal cancer &
other cancers; higher rates of alcohol dependence; tobacco use at 50% higher
rates; eating disorders; high rates of psychiatric illnesses, including
depression, drug abuse, and suicide attempts; debilitating health; and reduced
life span (up to 20 years). The Archives of Internal Medicine found that
homosexuals acquired syphilis at a rate ten times that of
heterosexuals.

�
One study
concludes that 56% of AIDS is found in 2% of the population,

�
As of June 2001,
64% of men with AIDS were men who have had sex with men. Bisexual men become a
�bridge� for transmission of all these diseases to women and the rest of the
population according to Center For Disease Control. In one CDC study 17% of
homosexual men had sex with men and women. Seven percent were HIV positive.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1;
www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm..

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

http://www.gayhealth.com/iowa-robot/common/feature.html?record=573

http://www.gayhealth.com/templates/109286545436255009937/news?record=947


AIDS Health Costs to
Taxpayers

This doesn't include the costs of other homosexual related diseases.

Promiscuity and health problems
listed above lead to exorbitant costs for the taxpayer. This could be the
straw that breaks the back of the insurance industry and social security.
Every HIV-positive patient needs only to find a partner to receive the same
coverage as offered to an employee. �It is estimated by some analysts that an
initial threefold increase in premiums can be anticipated.� James
Dobson

• Taxpayers through Medicaid foot the
  bill for at least 50 percent of all people diagnosed with AIDS, 90% of
  children with Aids, and 70% of women with AIDS. New York Medicaid accounted for
  70% of state AIDS related funding. This does not include other health problems
  homosexuals have to a much greater degree than the rest of the population.
• The lifetime cost for treating a
  person with HIV from infection until death is estimated at $154,402. The
  average total lifetime charges for care of children with HIV infection is
  estimated at $491,936. The annual expense for treating a case of advanced AIDS
  is $34,000.
• Total HIV/AIDS expenditures in New
  York state increased more than 304 percent from 1987 to 1994. In 1993, 40,351
  persons in New
  York with HIV/AIDS
  received medical treatment through Medicaid, at an average per patient cost of
  $26,800.
• According to Centers for Disease
  Control there was statistic of a 14% increase of HIV-AIDS among homosexual men
  in the United States between 1999 and 2001.
• Many states now are exploring
  initiatives to expand Medicaid coverage to people with HIV before they develop
  AIDS.
• Corporate Resource Council
  Executives say that many companies can expect the cost of health care for
  domestic partners to be significantly HIGHER than or heterosexual. In one
  study in 2001 involving 700,000 employess the health-care costs as a percent of
  premiums paid was 17.1 percent HIGHER for same sex couples than for
  heterosexual couples .
• The National Gay and Lesbian Task
  Force (NGLTF) cut in half its coverage of health insurance premiums for domestic
  partners of its employees, calling the premiums "prohibitively expensive" while
  demanding other corporations offer this coverage.

Homosexuality and
Children

If a federal judge overrules the state or federal laws guaranteeing traditional
marriage, then homosexual marriage will be equivalent to traditional marriage.
If a spouse leaves a marriage for a homosexual partner, then the judge will be
forced to place the children in the homosexual home in part-time or full-time
custody. With no-fault divorce laws applicable in almost every state, grounds
like adultery are no longer relevant; therefore, leaving a marriage for a
homosexual partner would be no factor in determining custody.
�
The Boston
Globe reported June 29, 2003, that nearly 40 percent" of the 5,700
homosexual couples who have entered into �civil unions" in Vermont "have had a
previous heterosexual marriage. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03H01.
�
All literature in classrooms concerning marriage
will have to include homosexual marriage discussions and pictures of homosexual
couples. GLSEN, [Gay,
Lesbian and Straight Education Network] is stepping up its efforts to establish
homosexual clubs on all school campuses. Their goals "extend to incorporating
homosexual concepts into all curriculum, holding diversity seminars for teachers
and students and ensuring that only positive discussions about homosexuality are
allowed into elementary school classrooms, including kindergarten."
http://www.newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive16.
�
A study of
convicted child molesters, published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior,
found that "86 percent of offenders against males described themselves as
homosexual or bisexual" (W. D. Erickson, M.D., et al., in Archives of Sexual
Behavior 17:1, 1988). http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03H01
�
The rate of
homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering," said Reisman,
who was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant
studying child pornography and violence. "Abel's data of 150.2 boys abused per
male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8
girls."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431
�
Lesbians will
have children through artificial insemination, and homosexual males will adopt
or procure surrogate mothers. More than
10,000 studies have concluded that kids so best when they are raised by loving
and committed mothers and fathers. They are less likely to be on illegal drugs,
less likely to be retained in a grade, less likely to drop out of school, less
likely to commit suicide, less likely to be in poverty, less likely to become
juvenile delinquents and, for the girls, less likely to become teen mothers.
They are healthier both emotionally and physically, even 30 years later, than
those not so blessed by traditional parents," says Dr. James Dobson, eminent
children's psychologist and author of "Marriage Under Fire."
�
Even pro-homosexual sociologists
Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz report in an American Sociological Review
article: Children of lesbians are less likely to
conform to traditional gender norms; Children of lesbians are more likely to
engage in homosexual behavior; Daughters of lesbians are "more sexually
adventurous and less chaste." Lesbian "co-parent
relationships" are more likely to end than heterosexual ones. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03H01

 

[marksman]

Thanks for all that information Foreigner. Much appreciated. I will add it to what I have already.

 

[IHSscj]

So I know, whosoever has showed you what they have, and has said what they have to you are lying to you, plain and simple.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Why are we focusing on human interactions, such one person telling another about scripture? Can you, or can you not, point to a scripture that says what you say you have found it to say? Have you done an analysis of the orginal Greek or Hebrew (as the case may be) texts?

If you reason with the context of the scripture, you will see that it does not refer to FEM or anything else whatsoever. ............
Again, if you have trouble understanding --- look at the context of what you are reading.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ "Context" suggests a very broad study. Can you give me any specific scripture references? Or, perhaps you know of a book that points out the context of which you speak.

Things are spiritually discerned.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Yes, but scripture has a physical, incarnate aspect. Scripture is the record, despite all the twists and turns the documents have been through to get to us today, in modern languages, of how people experienced physical manifestations of God's leading Hand. Perhaps you can tell me how you have discerned the meaning which you have found.

It doesn't take an educated man... to understand what scripture is saying.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ If it is so simple, can you point out where it says what you say it says, or how you found said meaning?

When I learn that what I have been doing was sin, I in fact must give it up --- no matter the struggle.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Agreed!

God made man, MAN, for a reason. If he wanted you to be a woman, He would have made you that way. If He wanted you to be someone who multiplied with the same sex, He would have made you that way. God did not make anyone gay, nor does He ever. He's not an idiot --- He knows what He is doing. If He wanted the man to be attracted to man --- He would have made them that way.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Where Does Scripture Say That? (WDSST?) Is procreation ("multiplication") important? Why? (Matthew 1: 18; Luke 1: 34- 35)

[M]en have left the natural use of women ...
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ How many ways are there to use a person (in this case, a woman)? And what makes the use of a person natural? In what sense is it natural? dictionary.com has five meanings for the word "natural." Which one of these was Paul conveying?

[T]he people in turn left the natural use of the opposite sex, and burned in lust towards the same sex.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ How do you know what natural use Paul was referring to? Does the original Greek text convey a reference to a sexual aspect of anything? The English translation seems to suggest a difference in gender. But there is more to gender difference than sexuality. In the agricultural economy of that time, gender difference also dictated cultural and social roles.

This has nothing to do with the economy.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ How Do You Know ? (HDYK?)

The attention paid here, is to gender.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ We could say that the attenton is to gender -- it certainly is mentioned often in this passage. But we could also say that the attention is paid to Sin. or to perversion. or to the extension of the depravity, since one thing caused another (vs. 19), which caused another (vs. 24), which caused another (vs. 26)...

Men then turned the gender which they left natural use of, towards the same gender.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Please clarify.

They then began to burn in lust towards those of their same gender.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ And what kind of lust was this? Does it specify?

Some did not like to hear the Gospel, and some actually refuse to hear the truth towards homosexuality.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ This seems confused -- are you speaking of the ancient polytheists whom Paul was specifically discussing? ("did not like") or someone in modern times? ("actually refuse")

This is a sexual tone ...
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ HDYK?

Scripture itself leads into that meaning ...
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ How are we to think of scripture, an inanimate phenomenon, doing anything? Surely it is a precious gift from God, but the One taking any action in connection with it (at least, the One that we can trust) is the Holy Spirit.

This is how I know --- I accept scripture for what it says, and not what I want it to say.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Great! Then you will be able to show me (and everyone else who reads this thread) how you have been able to derive these things you say from God's good gift of scripture.

It of course, is more open, and more looked down upon than others.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Please clarify.

Those who will learn the truth, will be open to it, and will hear it.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ This is certainly true, since it is a phrase that Jesus often used. (see, for example, Luke 8: 8, 14: 35)

If anyone is a homosexual, they can check out some ex-gay testimonies.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ All of this is in regard to concerns after I (if I ever) receive the "truth" you see yourself as offerring. Let's concentrate on the revelation of gayness being a sin, if the idea does indeed come from God Who loves us.

Sometimes I feel like giving up, but I won't. I don't know why it's so hard to control my own mind, I cannot even understand such a thing. But it's a struggle, nonetheless.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Agreed.
Quote: But I still need to know how you know that Homosexuality is sinful.

To know that you have to study the whole revelation of sexuality in scriptures.

_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Wow! That sounds like a big job. But if I "have to" go on from this point and make a decades-long study of the matter (I've spent 3 decades on it so far), I will seek Christ's direction in the matter. Or, perhaps you know of a book that would be helpful in the matter. As I like to say, "Whatever God wants is Good."

No other configuration was considered for the simple reason God created man's psychological and emotional DNA to function effectively as a husband or a wife.

_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ "No other configuration was considered..." by whom? by God? by the scriptural author? by ancient readers at some point in history? Is this limitation revealed somewhere in scripture?

Jesus referred to his Father's plan in Matthew 19:5 when He said ...

_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ And this divine plan -- was it universal? If so, where has God revealed such a universality?

[N]either two men nor two women - nor, for that matter, three or more people - can possibly form a marriage.

_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ How Do You Know?

The basic structure of marriage ... is given to us in human nature, and thus by nature's God.

_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Is this a reflection of Thomism? Thomas Aquinas had some very interesting things to say, but do you truly believe that the approach that you describe can be supported in public, secular policy because God's plan is supposedly seen in nature?

Indeed, children's need - and right - to be reared by [their] mother and father ...

_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ You want to make heterosexual parentage a government-protected right? Isn't that's a bit off the deep end?

Of course, marriage also includes a committed, intimate relationship of a sort which some same-sex couples (or multiple lovers in groups of three or more) could imitate.

_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ "mitate?" This suggests an elevation of heterosexual parenting to a kind of Platonic-ideal throne. But how is this warranted? Let us bear in mind that the fundemental nature of marriage has undergone a big change in the past three or four centuries. Today, if a couple go to a pastor or counselor and say that they want to get married, the main issue that the respected figure will almost invariably bring up is, "Are you compatible?" But, as recently as the seventeenth century, the issue(s) to be discussed would have emphasized parental approval, social customs (e.g. the bridal price), and any cultural backgrounds which might be in conflict. Compatibility? The plan in those days was to produce cheap labor -- children, preferably sons -- to run the farm. That was the only compatibility that mattered then, or for millenia before that. So, how can we look upon marriage as an ancient (i.e. going back millenia) tradition to be kept?

So they cannot extend a union of hearts by a true bodily union.

_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ This assumes that procreation holds a special place in marital affairs. Yet, the Christmas story, cherished every December, would seem to suggest that procreation was the one thing that God set aside in order to bring the Sinless Messiah to us in the flesh. (Luke 1: 34- 35)

So they cannot extend a union of hearts by a true bodily union. They cannot turn a friendship into the one-flesh union of marriage. They are not marital.

_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ pronoun reference. "they" -- meaning couples? the sexual acts?

So they cannot extend a union of hearts by a true bodily union. They cannot turn a friendship into the one-flesh union of marriage. They are not marital.

_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Is belief in this limitation, whatever it is, derived from some quality that someone perceives to be inherent in procreation? Or was it because of the economic need, throughout history worldwide, to produce children as cheap (i.e. affordable) labor to man the farm and bolster the agricultural economies in a crucial way? If it was the latter, can we deny God's right to bless that use of procreation as a plebian form of blessing on the human race, in all its cultures in pre-industrial times?

If, in the industrialized west, procreation is now an economic burden rather than a support, can we deny God's right to move beyond the ancient use of procreation as economic engine, to bless the sharing of lives? of minds? of loves?

This "religious freedom" law does nothing at all to protect the consciences of people in business, or who work for the government.

_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Are these "consciences" truly, uniformly, shared across every pocket of modern society? Or are they more like a projection (in the freudian sense) of right-wing christian moralism on the political landscape?
_____________________________________
It is because I do not get a response to questions such as those above that I consider myself a gay christian. Above all, I trust Yeshua (Jesus), my savior, for all good things, including the Truth.

In addition, I have two witnesses in the matter. (See Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6; Revelation 11:3.)

1. I have the bulwark of the LGBTQA christian community, which tells me that my search for an "antigay" doctrine (seeing gayness as sinful in some way) that is firmly grounded in Yeshua's Agape'/Love will never bear fruit.

2. I have a long history (it will be 30 years this summer) of asking "conservative" christians for an antigay doctrine that is firmly grounded in Yeshua's Agape'/Love. In response I received a parade of promises that the antigay idea (well, some antigay idea) is grounded in God's Agape'/Love. Yet these promises have never borne any more fruit than what we see above.

These two "witnesses" are, of course, not a pair of individuals, as one would understand Deuteronomy to be referring to. But some would understand the reference in Revelation to likewise focus on someone/something other than a pair of individuals. And it stands out very clearly to me that we would expect these two groups to disagree -- in fact, stridently so. But they agree in the respect I have described. And who knows? Maybe you, the reader, have a solid answer for me! That could give me a serious witness to bring to the throne of Christ.

So -- while the rest of the LGBTQA community lives in Christ, or in search for Christ, as the case may be, I search for a snag in the LGBTQA christian garment. Sin? Yes, there is as much Sin in our LGBTQA community as there is the rest of the world. But to succinctly and completely reject the idea that gayness (not to mention transexuality, bisexuality, and the open-mindedness of the allies whom the LGBTQ community has found in the past couple of decades) can be a viable expression of love for others and for God, in the same way that heterosexuality can express the same, that I have not found.

May Yeshua's Love be with you and fill you all.

 

[KCKID]

While new to the forum I have been 'lurking' (sounds sinister) for some days before deciding to sign up and leap into an already 'hot' topic. Since I haven't read ALL the posts forgive me if I repeat what might have already been said.

Having been in touch with the issues surrounding this topic for about 20 years, a definite pattern evolves to score points against the church and Christians.

That may well be the case in a few cases, even more than a few, but the street runs in both directions. Generally speaking, homosexuals (a mere label often used derogatively) have been forced into a defensive position because of Christians.

What the homosexual lobby generally does it to come up with a subject matter and spin it to make the other side look bad and then it repeats it ad infinitum and as they say "mud sticks."

Other than their right to be who they are without being verbally molested or physically bashed what other subject matter would they come up with and spin it to make the other side look bad? Are homosexuals not about simply wanting to be accepted by society and receiving equal rights as human beings?

Whatever the subject is, in most cases integrity and truth are irrelevant as they do not believe in ruining a good story by telling the truth.

What does this mean? Are you saying that homosexuals - by virtue of their homosexuality - are also liars? What is 'the good story' that they are 'not telling the truth' about? Are vague comments such as the above supposed to give your anti-gay argument more credibility?

One of their favourite ploys is to reinvent the scriptures in their own image so they can use it to justify their sin and attack Christians who they consider less than Christians because they do not see eye to eye with them on scripture.

That we have thousands of different Christian denominations indicate quite clearly that Christians rarely see eye to eye with other Christians. Most everyone interprets scripture in their own image. So do you. God hates the very things that we hate.

It is standard fare for them to claim, "how can you call yourself a Christian if you hate us? Jesus said to love one another and he never judged anyone."

That's a pretty accurate description of Jesus, don't you think? The only one's Jesus had a field day with were the self-perceived righteous ones. Today's churches abound with those of the very same pharasaical attitudes. Do the math.

If one is to ignore context and the general revelation of scripture then what they claim is true but as we know a text without a context is a pretext.

Has it ever occurred to you that it might be YOU that is inept with regard to context and the general revelation of scripture?

May I point out that we are told to speak the truth in love. We are not told to speak what will make someone happy. Therefore to not call a spade a spade, or to not call homosexuality a sin is not truth and is not love.

It isn't a matter of 'making someone happy'. It's more a case of not using scripture with which to dehumanize another human being simply because we think that we have God's permission to do so.

if we cannot call homosexuality sin, then we cannot call anything sin as the principle applies to all sin. What the homosexual lobby are demanding is in fact that we separate homosexuality from every other sin and make it a special case, with special treatment and ignore it for what it is.

Would you point out from the Bible where it states that homosexuality is a sin? Forget the 'abominations' of Leviticus which meant something entirely different for those for whom it was written and CERTAINLY has no relevance to we today. Where does it state (in the Bible) that homosexuality is a sin? In fact, where in the King James Bible or the original manuscripts is the word 'homosexual' even found?

Generally speaking, homosexuals are very insecure so they see any criticism of any kind, even when it is not directed to them, as an attack on their persons and emotional well being.

Well, I don't know about you but I would feel somewhat insecure if all I'd heard throughout my life was the so-called 'love' message of most Christians telling me that I'm an abomination and that "God hates fags! See Leviticus 20:13." Do you know that the last words some homosexuals heard before they were beaten to death was "Fag! Fag! Fag! ..."? Insecure . . .?

Sorry I can't respond to the rest of your post like I planned to. The forum quotation system here is totally different to any that I've ever used before and I somehow messed up.

-- Not supporting a homosexual's right to marry or working to get gay marraige passed as the law of the land is in no way withholding love.

Showing love does not mean you work to legalize something that your Lord and Savior finds reprehensible.

Would you kindly point out where Jesus said that homosexuality/gay marriage is reprehensible? Either that or will you otherwise retract that remark? The reason? Because it's a lie.

Thank you.

What the ...?

What would be the reason for my above brief response to Foreigner being added to the tailend of my previous lengthier post to marksman? This is crazy!

 

[Foreigner]

Would you kindly point out where Jesus said that homosexuality/gay marriage is reprehensible? Either that or will you otherwise retract that remark? The reason? Because it's a lie.

Thank you.

-- Certainly.

Just as soon as you show me where Jesus said that beating your wife or selling your children into slavery is reprehensible.

Obviously, if He didn't speak about it specifically, He wasn't opposed to it....right?

 

[KCKID]

-- Certainly.

Just as soon as you show me where Jesus said that beating your wife or selling your children into slavery is reprehensible.

Obviously, if He didn't speak about it specifically, He wasn't opposed to it....right?

I can only go on what Jesus reportedly said or did not say on any issue. It's not up to me to try to fill in the blanks with regard to what He SHOULD have said but did not say. You SPECIFICALLY stated that Jesus finds homosexuality/gay marriage reprehensible. That claims to be a direct quote from Jesus. It's therefore only fitting that you be asked to point out in scripture where Jesus said what YOU said that He said. Seems like a simple enough request to make. Jesus not having said anything about beating one's wife or selling their children into slavery is a red herring and has nothing to do with your presumed direct quote from Jesus. As far as I know, beating one's wife or selling children into slavery has not led to huge divisions between various contemporary Christian denominations. The issue of homosexuality HAS been responsible for having divided the Church and is therefore something that one might seriously have expected Jesus to address. But, He didn't ...did He Foreigner?

Incidentally, homosexuality is merely one's (involuntary) predisposition to being sexually attracted to others of the same gender. It should not be interpreted beyond that. Heterosexuality is merely one's (involuntary) predisposition to being sexually attracted to others of the opposite gender. It should not be interpreted beyond that. In other words, neither homosexuality or heterosexuality should be automatically interpreted as 'immoral acts of sex'. And yet, the terrm 'homosexual' immediately seems to conjure up 'immoral acts of sex' in the minds of many Christians. So, it all comes down to what one imagines two people to be doing in the privacy of their own homes. That said, the only places where immoral sex of either homosexual or heterosexual persuasion is condemned in the Bible is when such acts are performed publicly or/and in situations such as temple prostitution or/and acts of idolatry. It's all to do with either worshipping the one God or a substitute grave image of a god. Every reference to homosexuality in scripture is a WORSHIP issue! It has nothing to do with Adam and Steve or Betty and Belinda whose acts of intimacy are conducted within the privacy of their own homes.

 

[Foreigner]

Dude.
Not to rain on your silly little parade, but this thread has had more than 1200 individual responses.
That fluff you are shoveling has been refuted time and time again in this thread.
Instead of wasting our time, why not go back and peruse some of the 41 pages of discussion that occured before you got here?

That's a good boy.

 

[KCKID]

Dude.
Not to rain on your silly little parade, but this thread has had more than 1200 individual responses.
That fluff you are shoveling has been refuted time and time again in this thread.
Instead of wasting our time, why not go back and peruse some of the 41 pages of discussion that occured before you got here?

That's a good boy.

Don't talk down to me, Foreigner. I'm not a 7th-grader. Yes, I AM a newbie and you're an oldie but there will be no silly little parades and no fluff from me, I can assure you! I'm certainly not going to sift through 41 pages searching for something that isn't there to begin with. Another red herring. I asked a simple question of you and there is no reason at all for you to get nasty with me. Please ...just answer my question or retract what you said about Jesus. If anything, I'll respect you for doing so and I won't pursue it any more.