Anti-gay bigots are the ones with the problem

[oldbadger]

There is nothing wrong with having sex before marriage in a consensual adult relationship. One should know as much about one's partner as possible before one marry, which include whether they have the same sexual preferences.

Too right.......

I can remember a Bahai couple who obeyed the 'no sex before marriage' rule. The shocked bride soon left her husband and went home to her parents with stories about what her husband wanted to do to her. And by then she was pregnant. Another total marital wreck.

Couples should know each other better before they marry.

 

[oldbadger]

So in other words they were rebelling against their parents and did dumb sh*t and then they paid for it with their lives, teenagers do this quite a bit gay or straight and of any religion.

Hang on....... kids rebel against their parents and do daft things of all kinds.
You don't want to be reminded of the daft things they do with guns, do you?

What is interesting is that as male and female homosexuality becomes more acceptable and mainstream and we have same sex parents will children of accepting parents rebel by becoming conservatives whether religious or not?

You find such possibilities interesting?
Take up model making, or whatever.......

 

[oldbadger]

Data from a respected government agency is a weapon? If I showed you F.B.I. statistics that showed that most murders were committed by little orange men would you consider it to be bashing little orange men or just facts?

You need to realise that countries' governments can spin some real rubbish when it suits them, especially if they're covering up previous total incompetence, like the flood of infected blood that got got used and sent to other countries.

But I will guess that you don't always cherish government bodies' stats yourself. True?

 

[Spartan]

Those who think there is a problem with being gay are the ones who need to be cured of their bigotry. People should be happy with the skin they are in, no one chooses to be homosexual, anymore than a person chooses to be heterosexual.

If one of my children was gay I would definitely not have a problem with it, I would want them to be happy. My main concern would be that they would be on the receiving end of homophobic comments from sick bigots. Those who use the Bible justify their nastiness, bring their faith into disrepute, there are many gay Christians in this world.

As I have said on a number of occasions, Jesus had a specific disciple whom he loved, as one presumes the disciple was male, maybe he was in a gay relationship with him. If so I hope they were happy and had a great sex life. Jesus never condemned homosexuality.

<facepalm>

Anyone who defends illicit gay sex and gay marriage is at odds with the Biblical God. Time after time, the Holy Scriptures condemn gay sex. There's no gay marriages in the Old Testament; No gay marriages in the New Testament; no gay sex approved anywhere in the Bible. Just the opposite - gay sex is condemned in both testaments. God is consistent on that.

And for you to make an off-the-wall claim that the disciple John could be gay is typical of the tripe people like you dredge up in order to try to legitimize the illegitimate.

And THEN, you demean and place negative labels on people who believe in the Biblical moral laws of God rather than the unprincipled behavior of active homosexuals. That kind of hate-filled rhetoric is sick, perverse, and deserves a place on a psychologist's couch.

Being gay isn't a sin. Engaging in gay sex is a sin. Making America into a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah is depraved and outrageous. Have you people forgotten that one of the most heinous sins of Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexual sin? Dr. Bruce Metzger of Princeton Theological Seminary mentions references to Sodom's sexual immorality in 3 Maccabees 2:5: "the people of Sodom who acted arrogantly, who were notorious for their vices." And again in Jubilees 16:6: "the uncleanness of the Sodomites." And Jude 7 in the Bible states, “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” And now you're putting America at risk, and compounding that with the infanticide of the innocent unborn. The Bible is clear: unrepentant sin is a reproach to men and nations and brings God's disfavor and eventual judgment on both. Unless people repent of their sins, they will perish (Jesus, Luke 13:3).

 

[Spartan]

All women should have the absolute right to have an abortion until the foetus is viable.

They also have the right to drop down into Hell at the Judgment for murdering their unborn babies, unless they repent. Do not think for a second that God isn't disgusted with the practice.

 

[Unguru]

Those who think there is a problem with being gay are the ones who need to be cured of their bigotry.

I don't side with anyone but you need to open your views more to be able to understand perspectives better. You are very dogmatic and hateful to those you don't agree with.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

They also have the right to drop down into Hell at the Judgment for murdering their unborn babies, unless they repent. Do not think for a second that God isn't disgusted with the practice.

Ooh, scary. Save it for the Halloween kiddies. Such nonsense should be beneath an adult.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't side with anyone but you need to open your views more to be able to understand perspectives better. You are very dogmatic and hateful to those you don't agree with.

Judging by your "likes", it's kind of obvious which side you're on. You might as well ask someone to be more understanding of a racist or sexist.

 

[Unguru]

Judging by your "likes", it's kind of obvious which side you're on.

And which is that?

You might as well ask someone to be more understanding of a racist or sexist.

Yes, antagonizing people who equally share an opposite view to your own. Those people who do not share your views on these topics are not any less a valid human as you are, you need not portray them otherwise. This does not build bridges, neither does calling them pejoratives. If you had the gun, you would kill them, if they had the gun, they would do the same for you. How are you being practical or productive?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And which is that?



Yes, antagonizing people who equally share an opposite view to your own. Those people who do not share your views on these topics are not any less a valid human as you are, you need not portray them otherwise. This does not build bridges, neither does calling them pejoratives. If you had the gun, you would kill them, if they had the gun, they would do the same for you. How are you being practical or productive?

The anti-gay side.

I don't see the point of being nice to people who hate me. Should the people at the Detriot Pride parade been nice to the gun-toting neo-Nazis who showed up to protest? I guess I should've tried to hug the Christian fundies at Pride on Saturday who were screaming at us on megaphones that we're going to burn in hell? The Jews in the Warsaw ghetto should've been nice to the Nazis who came to kill them, too.

 

[Unguru]

The anti-gay side.

Taking assumptions like this just is not a healthy way to be treating people. I'm not anti or pro anything, why did you not notice this?

I don't see the point of being nice to people who hate me.

Well, deep down all people are humans with human concerns and not always are things what they seem to be. Sometimes things are not as blatantly one thing. Everybody is concerned about they way they live and the way they are forced to live and the rights they are allowed/disallowed. Everyone will antagonize and use the rhetoric they want to convey their position if it suits them. We need to move out of that treatment of others.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Taking assumptions like this just is not a healthy way to be treating people. I'm not anti or pro anything, why did you not notice this?



Well, deep down all people are humans with human concerns and not always are things what they seem to be. Sometimes things are not as blatantly one thing. Everybody is concerned about they way they live and the way they are forced to live and the rights they are allowed/disallowed. Everyone will antagonize and use the rhetoric they want to convey their position if it suits them. We need to move out of that treatment of others.

I'm not sure why you're telling me this. Go tell that to the people trying to take my rights away and dehumanize me. I don't have a problem with anyone who dosen't have a problem with me. Why is it incumbent on the person who is on the receiving end of bigotry and oppression to be "the bigger person"? That's victim-blaming and gaslighting. It's not us who have the issue of not recognizing the humanity of others. So save that spiel.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

No I don't. I assure you my view on which OT commandments are valid today is not motivated by bigotry. It was not particularly easy for me to abstain from sex while unmarried, yet I did so, because that is what I believe. If I wanted to cherry pick OT commandments so as to burden people that I don't like, and make life easy on me, I would come up with a different list of applicable commandments, than those which I follow today.

In a nustshell, I believe some commandments are everlasting and started with Adam and Eve. They pre-date the Law of Moses. When Moses came along, God gave him and his people very strict laws, which were temporary, which law would be fulfilled (come to an end) when Christ came to earth. Christ brought "the higher" law or "Gospel Law" to replace "the lesser" Law of Moses. I believe that all of the Ten Commandments, for example, transcend the Law of Moses, meaning they are everlasting commandments, since the beginning. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" was not replaced by Christ. It's still expected. The Sabbath is an interesting example. God sanctified the Sabbath at the end of creation, long before Moses, and is part of the "higher law". But the Law of Moses brought very specific rules on what we can and can't do on the Sabbath, which were not from the beginning. Those specific rules ended with the passing of the Law of Moses. But I still see the Sabbath as a day or worship and rest and I believe the day changed to Sunday to signify the passing of the Law of Moses and to be centered on the day of the resurrection.

The Book of Mormon teaches that Jesus told the people that animal sacrifice had come to an end and the people were now expected to sacrifice "a broken heart and a contrite spirit" to God. Christ, the Lamb of God, was the final sacrifice of blood.

I believe that God's law on sexuality was ordained from the foundation of the world. Before the world was created, long before the Law of Moses, God established the concept of the family unit and principles of pro-creation and sexuality that govern our God given passions. I don't think total compliance with God's law of chastity is easy for anyone who believes it and is committed to follow it. Many of us stumble to some extent and repent along the way. Chastity includes clean thoughts, clean language, clean media, modesty in dress, and sexual abstinence outside of the marriage of a man and a woman. I believe this is how it has always been and always will be. Why would I impose such rules on myself if I didn't believe this?

EDIT: Jesus showed great compassion to the woman taken in adultery, who was accussed by hypocrites. He told her to "go thy way and sin no more." He demonsrated much love. But he didn't tell the woman her adultery was ok. He said "sin no more." Jesus knew how to teach and encourage us to follow him with love.

Oh, Scott, you are posting as if you came to your conclusions all by yourself, but I don't believe you did that at all, did you? If I'm not mistaken, you are a JW, is that correct?

If so, then your "beliefs" are actually the pronouncements and beliefs of the leaders of the JWs, and those "beliefs" are subject to change at any time...and you will immediately shift 180 degrees as to what you "believe" if the GB reverses course.

It might behoove you to consider critically thinking about what you've been told to believe rather than merely accepting whatever those men tell you. Be like the Beroeans...examine your faith. I know that JWs tell everyone else to examine their beliefs, but I also know that JWs are told that they should not even THINK anything that has not been told to them by the GB and that they should simply obey even if what they are told appears to be wrong. Ask yourself why they require this and do what you tell others to do...examine your faith.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Oh, Scott, you are posting as if you came to your conclusions all by yourself, but I don't believe you did that at all, did you? If I'm not mistaken, you are a JW, is that correct?

If so, then your "beliefs" are actually the pronouncements and beliefs of the leaders of the JWs, and those "beliefs" are subject to change at any time...and you will immediately shift 180 degrees as to what you "believe" if the GB reverses course.

It might behoove you to consider critically thinking about what you've been told to believe rather than merely accepting whatever those men tell you. Be like the Beroeans...examine your faith. I know that JWs tell everyone else to examine their beliefs, but I also know that JWs are told that they should not even THINK anything that has not been told to them by the GB and that they should simply obey even if what they are told appears to be wrong. Ask yourself why they require this and do what you tell others to do...examine your faith.

He's Mormon.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

<facepalm>

Anyone who defends illicit gay sex and gay marriage is at odds with the Biblical God. Time after time, the Holy Scriptures condemn gay sex. There's no gay marriages in the Old Testament; No gay marriages in the New Testament; no gay sex approved anywhere in the Bible. Just the opposite - gay sex is condemned in both testaments. God is consistent on that.

And for you to make an off-the-wall claim that the disciple John could be gay is typical of the tripe people like you dredge up in order to try to legitimize the illegitimate.

And THEN, you demean and place negative labels on people who believe in the Biblical moral laws of God rather than the unprincipled behavior of active homosexuals. That kind of hate-filled rhetoric is sick, perverse, and deserves a place on a psychologist's couch.

Being gay isn't a sin. Engaging in gay sex is a sin. Making America into a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah is depraved and outrageous. Have you people forgotten that one of the most heinous sins of Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexual sin? Dr. Bruce Metzger of Princeton Theological Seminary mentions references to Sodom's sexual immorality in 3 Maccabees 2:5: "the people of Sodom who acted arrogantly, who were notorious for their vices." And again in Jubilees 16:6: "the uncleanness of the Sodomites." And Jude 7 in the Bible states, “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” And now you're putting America at risk, and compounding that with the infanticide of the innocent unborn. The Bible is clear: unrepentant sin is a reproach to men and nations and brings God's disfavor and eventual judgment on both. Unless people repent of their sins, they will perish (Jesus, Luke 13:3).

I'm not sure if you realized this or not, but all of the quotes you presented about Sodom mentioned nothing about homosexuality. "The people of Sodom who acted arrogantly, who were notorious for their vices" doesn't indicate that any vices involved homosexuality, and "acting arrogantly" certainly doesn't connote homosexual activity.

Even the quote about "sexual immorality and perversion" says nothing about what that "immorality" and "perversion" involved. Since Lot presumably offered his daughters to the mob who were "arrogantly" demanding that the angels be turned over to them, it would seem logical that the mob was interested in raping and humiliating the newcomers rather than that they were slavering homosexuals looking for a "good time" with some handsome males. Why offer females to a "homosexual mob"?

Historically, the rape of males by other males had absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality, but was a way of eliminating a possible threat by humiliating and demeaning the newcomers. It wasn't even sexual lust...just "arrogance" and a desire to overpower those who were perceived to be a threat.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

He's Mormon.

Thanks for the update. That makes sense, though. The two groups, from what I've seen, are pretty similar, hence my confusion.

 

[JJ50]

They also have the right to drop down into Hell at the Judgment for murdering their unborn babies, unless they repent. Do not think for a second that God isn't disgusted with the practice.

One of your crazier statements, without any evidence to back it up. The evil sky fairy was apparently responsible for having babies killed, you obviously haven't read the Bible!

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't really want to debate homosexuality. I'm not gay so I don't know what that orientation is like, but I wish everyone the best. I jumped into this thread only to say I object to the accusation that "belief that gay sex is a sin = bigotry and hatred towards gay people." I argued that point adequately. I could be completely wrong about God, the Bible, and sin, and yet still not be motivated by bigotry. Our society, both the left and the right, have become too insulting and judgmental of each other's motives. If we disgaree with someone, we call them communists, immoral, criminals, muderers (abortionists), bigots, racists, fascists, Nazi's, mysoginists, homophobes, Islamaphobes, un-American, traitors, and on and on. There are too many labels and not enough understanding.

You don't see the problem in telling a person that their sexual orientation (that they didn't choose any more than you did) is sinful and how people may be offended by such pronouncements?

 

[Spartan]

I'm not sure if you realized this or not, but all of the quotes you presented about Sodom mentioned nothing about homosexuality. "The people of Sodom who acted arrogantly, who were notorious for their vices" doesn't indicate that any vices involved homosexuality, and "acting arrogantly" certainly doesn't connote homosexual activity.

Even the quote about "sexual immorality and perversion" says nothing about what that "immorality" and "perversion" involved. Since Lot presumably offered his daughters to the mob who were "arrogantly" demanding that the angels be turned over to them, it would seem logical that the mob was interested in raping and humiliating the newcomers rather than that they were slavering homosexuals looking for a "good time" with some handsome males. Why offer females to a "homosexual mob"?

Historically, the rape of males by other males had absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality, but was a way of eliminating a possible threat by humiliating and demeaning the newcomers. It wasn't even sexual lust...just "arrogance" and a desire to overpower those who were perceived to be a threat.

"The second-century BC Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs labels the Sodomites 'sexually promiscuous' (Testimony of Benjamin 9:1) and refers to 'Sodom, which departed from the order of nature' (Testament of Nephtali 3:4). From the same time period, Jubilees specifies that the Sodomites were 'polluting themselves and fornicating in their flesh' (16:5, compare 20:5-6). Both Philo and Josephus plainly name same-sex relations as the characteristic view of Sodom."

"The pro-gay interpretation of Sodom's destruction has some merit: homosexual rape was attempted, and the Sodomites were certainly guilty of sins other than homosexuality. But in light of the number of men willing to join in the rape, and the many other references, both Biblical and extra-Biblical, to Sodom's sexual sins, it is likely homosexuality was widely practiced among the Sodomites. It is also likely that the sin for which they are named was one of many reasons judgment finally fell on them."

Responding to Pro-Gay Theology, Part III

 

[JJ50]

"The second-century BC Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs labels the Sodomites 'sexually promiscuous' (Testimony of Benjamin 9:1) and refers to 'Sodom, which departed from the order of nature' (Testament of Nephtali 3:4). From the same time period, Jubilees specifies that the Sodomites were 'polluting themselves and fornicating in their flesh' (16:5, compare 20:5-6). Both Philo and Josephus plainly name same-sex relations as the characteristic view of Sodom."

"The pro-gay interpretation of Sodom's destruction has some merit: homosexual rape was attempted, and the Sodomites were certainly guilty of sins other than homosexuality. But in light of the number of men willing to join in the rape, and the many other references, both Biblical and extra-Biblical, to Sodom's sexual sins, it is likely homosexuality was widely practiced among the Sodomites. It is also likely that the sin for which they are named was one of many reasons judgment finally fell on them."

Responding to Pro-Gay Theology, Part III

What an unpleasant bigot you are.