Are pro-gay Christians really Christian?

[MoonWater]

It's intersting what some seem to exploit as natural ,evidence says differently regarding disease, certain conditions with gay men, such as, not to mention aids but also those who I have read about who have to wear diapers because they can't control the muscles around the , FOR lack of better terms. Sphincter .

So what your saying is you were born to naturally have sex with men and therefore be gay,then you must also be saying the disease and aids and diaper thing is also natural ,you can't have it both ways.

The ting is AIDs is also quite common among heterosexuals nor is there any scientific basis to support the claim that it started with homosexual sex. Aside from that AIDs is TECHNICALLY natural as it is caused by the HIV virus and viruses are a natural creation of nature. As for those diapers that would be the result of either or a combination of doing too much and not giving the muscles ample time to recover or allowing a penis that's too big to be inserted. However female genitalia can also be damaged if such things occurred. Following your logic we should condemn anything that could cause disease or injury but that would mean no more eating or drinking or walking outside, as all those things could result in disease or injury. Even breathing could cause you to get sick. Shall we all stop breathing now because of this?

 

[Smoke]

So what your saying is that there were absolutely no influences in all of society and your circle of influence that may have contributed to your " choice " to be gay.

What I'm saying is that nobody really knows what causes homosexuality. Nobody really knows what causes heterosexuality, either. But you seem to know less than practically anybody. I have consistently been sexually attracted to males for as long as I can remember, and I did not, as a child, know a single person who was openly gay, did not see any television programs or read any books or hear any conversations or otherwise have any exposure at all to anybody or anything that presented homosexuality in a favorable light. Every single comment I ever hear about homosexuality or homosexuals was condemnatory or derisive -- and by the time I was old enough to understand those remarks, I already understood myself well enough to know that the people who were being condemned and derided were people like me.

I'm also saying that you don't know me, and if I don't know of a single influence in my childhood that might have caused me to be gay, you surely don't.

There is no proof of gay genes, you might as well rule that out,a man has a male organ ,his purpose is self explanatory, likewise a woman.

My male organ works just fine, thanks. Its "purpose" is entirely in your imagination. Evolution is a process without a purpose.

It's intersting what some seem to exploit as natural ,evidence says differently regarding disease, certain conditions with gay men, such as, not to mention aids but also those who I have read about who have to wear diapers because they can't control the muscles around the , FOR lack of better terms. Sphincter .

So what your saying is you were born to naturally have sex with men and therefore be gay,then you must also be saying the disease and aids and diaper thing is also natural ,you can't have it both ways.

I really don't know how to respond to that. Should I point out the terrible health consequences that often arise from heterosexuality? Should I point out that although I was extremely promiscuous with men when I was younger, I've never had a venereal disease, I'm in control of my sphincter, and I haven't worn a diaper since before my second birthday? Should I point out that far more heterosexuals than homosexuals have AIDS? It doesn't really matter, I guess.

I don't really care for the "natural" argument -- even though homosexuality really is
perfectly natural -- for two reasons:

1. There are plenty of things that are "natural" that I'd rather not indulge in -- walking around naked, for instance. And there are plenty of things that aren't "natural" that I do like to indulge in -- for instance, using the internet. No sane person imagines that "natural" is necessarily better.
   
2. The whole "natural" argument is just a response to religious bigots who claim that homosexuality is unnatural, and I see no reason to allow morons to set the terms of the discussion.

The arguments I prefer are these:

1. It's really none of your concern with whom I choose to have sex or whom I choose to marry.
2. It's none of the government's concern to enforce the teachings of your religion.
3. Half-baked and idiotic theories and teachings about homosexuality do not gain a single bit of credence from being endorsed by religious groups, religious texts, or religious authorities.
4. Half-baked and idiotic theories and teachings about homosexuality do not gain a single bit of credence from being supported by idiotic, false, or irrelevant non-religious claims, either.
   

 

[Smoke]

I'm not sure why this myth is still being propogated.

As for the NT, Romans 1 clearly lumps lesbianism together with male homosexuality, exactly as other Greco-Romans did.

Romans 1:24-27 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

It's still being propagated because it's not a myth, it's a fact. Paul is clearly disparaging of lesbianism, but neither he nor any other scriptural author forbids lesbianism or calls it an abomination. Paul also clearly disparages Cretans, but the scriptures nowhere forbid living in Crete.

 

[Sonic247]

The ting is AIDs is also quite common among heterosexuals nor is there any scientific basis to support the claim that it started with homosexual sex. Aside from that AIDs is TECHNICALLY natural as it is caused by the HIV virus and viruses are a natural creation of nature.

Well there maybe some cases of hetrosexual married couples having aids, but the questions they ask you before you give blood show who's more at risk.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's still being propagated because it's not a myth, it's a fact. Paul is clearly disparaging of lesbianism, but neither he nor any other scriptural author forbids lesbianism or calls it an abomination. Paul also clearly disparages Cretans, but the scriptures nowhere forbid living in Crete.

The Romans 1 passage explains that both male and female homosexuality is a shameful passion and is the result of a communal rejection of God. How much more can it possibly be demonized?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't really care for the "natural" argument -- even though homosexuality really is
perfectly natural -- for two reasons:

1. There are plenty of things that are "natural" that I'd rather not indulge in -- walking around naked, for instance. And there are plenty of things that aren't "natural" that I do like to indulge in -- for instance, using the internet. No sane person imagines that "natural" is necessarily better.
2. The whole "natural" argument is just a response to religious bigots who claim that homosexuality is unnatural, and I see no reason to allow morons to set the terms of the discussion.

The arguments I prefer are these:

1. It's really none of your concern with whom I choose to have sex or whom I choose to marry.
2. It's none of the government's concern to enforce the teachings of your religion.
3. Half-baked and idiotic theories and teachings about homosexuality do not gain a single bit of credence from being endorsed by religious groups, religious texts, or religious authorities.
4. Half-baked and idiotic theories and teachings about homosexuality do not gain a single bit of credence from being supported by idiotic, false, or irrelevant non-religious claims, either.

Great post but I can't frubal you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well there maybe some cases of hetrosexual married couples having aids, but the questions they ask you before you give blood show who's more at risk.

Yes... and here's the list, courtesty of Canadian Blood Services:

HIV VIRUS RISKS​

There are certain things that people do that put them at
risk for getting and spreading the HIV virus. You are at
risk if:​

• You are a male who has had sex with another male,

since 1977​

• You have used a needle to inject illegal drugs into

yourself​

• You have taken money or drugs for sex, since 1977
• You regularly receive blood products
• You were born in or have lived in any of the countries

listed here since 1977: Cameroon, Central African
Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon,
Niger, Nigeria​

• When travelling to any of the above countries since

1977, you have received blood or treatment with a
product made from blood​

• You have had sex with someone who has done any of

the things listed above​

• You have been in jail for longer than 48 hours in the

past 12 months
​

​

​

Yep, gay men, Congolese people, leukemia sufferers and spouses of people who managed to get injured on vacation in Africa are all immoral, disgusting people. ​

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'll defer to the best book that I've read on the subject. It's a compilation of essays written by biblical interpreters called Homosexuality, Science, and the 'Plain Sense' of Scripture. In it, Balch concludes that Christians accept homosexuality and homosexual acts as legitimate expressions of human love not on the basis of interpreting biblical texts regarding homosexuality and homosexual acts but on compassion for fellow human beings.

The Bible's treatment of homosexuality is just as much a product of its economy, misguided biology, and family structures as any other writing, and it's insane to believe that the Bible gives a timeless theological basis for everything else in its ancient culture. That is, if Christians are against homosexuality (etc) today, then we are inconsistent if we do not wear the same clothes, have the same economy (eg, slaves and children working), and exactly the same family structures, technology, and laws as the first century. Seeing as we've made some progress since then, we should also abandon everything else that has made the lives of people absolutely miserable.

This post hasn't received any attention.

Although I am completely convinced that the Christian scriptures are against homosexuality, I don't think that is how we should relate to homosexuality today...

 

[Inky]

The Romans 1 passage explains that both male and female homosexuality is a shameful passion and is the result of a communal rejection of God. How much more can it possibly be demonized?

Actually, it says that the rejection of God by that one community resulted in their homosexuality and lesbianism. So at most we have a statement that same-sex attraction was used as a punishment in one time and place. Nowhere in the passage does it imply that this same punishment is doled out on an individual basis or even to other communities. The passages where Egyptians were cursed with boils and lice aren't implying that individuals around the world with boils and lice are being punished in a similar manner.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We don't cite the passages where Egyptians were cursed with boils and lice as evidence that individuals around the world with boils and lice are being punished in a similar manner.

... or that frogs are evil.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Actually, it says that the rejection of God by that one community resulted in their homosexuality and lesbianism. So at most we have a statement that same-sex attraction was used as a punishment in one time and place. Nowhere in the passage does it imply that this same punishment is doled out on an individual basis or even to other communities. The passages where Egyptians were cursed with boils and lice aren't implying that individuals around the world with boils and lice are being punished in a similar manner.

Yeah, the entire Gentile population.

The point of the first few chapters of Romans is that everyone needs grace. The sins listed in Romans 1 are to convict the entire Gentile population who had the law of God written on their hearts and rejected it. Paul attacks Jews later.

 

[Inky]

Yeah, the entire Gentile population.

Oh, you're right--I just went and reread Romans 1 instead of just the parts that were quoted in this thread. For some reason whenever this passage came up in my church it was referenced as a specific city or region, which is weird because my church was anti-gay and could have used this chapter to their greater advantage. This makes more sense now as an across the board demonization. Just curious, is there a Biblical stance on where homosexuality came from before this event?

 

[Autodidact]

So what your saying is that there were absolutely no influences in all of society and your circle of influence that may have contributed to your " choice " to be gay.

No, what I'm saying is that every influence in society tries to make us conform to the norm of heterosexuality.

There is no proof of gay genes, you might as well rule that out

The scanty evidence there is seems to favor a hereditary component to sexual preference

,a man has a male organ ,his purpose is self explanatory, likewise a woman.

The purpose of your nose is obviously to smell. That doesn't mean you can't use it to hold your glasses up if you wish.

Anything else ,as I have seen ,but not personally encountered in my past lifetsyle practices where perversions of what was meant to be natural where so apparent, please just read some stats on gay men and there quality of living.

You mean that the average gay man earns more than the average heterosexual man? Do you any gay men? Most of the ones I know seem to enjoy a rather pleasant quality of living.

It's intersting what some seem to exploit as natural ,evidence says differently regarding disease, certain conditions with gay men, such as, not to mention aids but also those who I have read about who have to wear diapers because they can't control the muscles around the , FOR lack of better terms. Sphincter .

Are you trying to say that natural behaviors cannot lead to disease? You know that there are many STDs that are transmitted heterosexually, right? Do you see the illogic in what you are arguing? btw, did you know that the sexual preference with the lowest incidence of STDs is lesbianism? Does that mean that it is more natural or in any way better than female heterosexuality? (Actually there are many ways that it is much better, but I acknowledge that heterosexual women are entitled to retain their unhealthy and often dangerous lifestyle, whether by choice or inborn nature.)

So what your saying is you were born to naturally have sex with men and therefore be gay,then you must also be saying the disease and aids and diaper thing is also natural ,you can't have it both ways.

Well, diseases are natural. Playing tennis can lead to elbow problems..so what? Obviously, the logical thing to do is to practice safe sexual practices, regardless of sexual preference. Or, for women, they may want to consider lesbianism. It's healthier, and perfectly permissible according to the Bible.

Talk to a doctor and you will see that everything about homosexuality is contrary to nature and bodily functions,but of course they have it wrong and your reason and logic have it right .

You mean like a member of GLMA ? I did. They commended me on my good health and lifelong safe sex choices.

Listen , in the past I had a very indulgent lifestyle, where I lived quite vicariously and was involved with numerous activities that where vehemently opposed to the mainstream ,oh natuarl .!!! which by the way include women only, but not to say I never had homosexual thoughts, but that was rooted from the perversion that I was around and personally involved with ,just because I had the thoughts It did'nt mean that I was suppose to indulge in everything that I notioned in my thoughts.

Thank you for sharing, but what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Listen, I've been a healthy, happy, lesbian for over 30 years and I highly recommend it. Best of all, I live with integrity, honesty, and a consistent and logical morality.

When I opened myself to such lifestlye practices many things followed that influenced my thought process ,but everything I did ,whether ,under the influence or sober ,was my choice,why ? because it either was my means of venting my deep anger and rage or me venting my pain through sexual and perverted practices ,all of these where choices and all of these where forms of escapisms, in hind sight looking back ,which is always 20/20
I made sexual choices ,as we all do, anthingelse would be denial, we are resposible for our choices ,someday ,somwhere ,somehow we will expereince the consequences

that's sad. I'm glad I never had any of these problems.

If logic should accept such reasoning then we are in trouble and have opened the door to an influx of sexual practices among other choices ,why should it stop at homosexuality, i was born to be a pedophile , I was born to have sex when and where and how I want. I was born to rob banks , use people etc.

I wouldn't worry about logic if I were you. You don't seem to be able to distinguish between actions that harm others and those that do not.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Oh, you're right--I just went and reread Romans 1 instead of just the parts that were quoted in this thread. For some reason whenever this passage came up in my church it was referenced as a specific city or region, which is weird because my church was anti-gay and could have used this chapter to their greater advantage. This makes more sense now as an across the board demonization. Just curious, is there a Biblical stance on where homosexuality came from before this event?

Not sure what you mean by that.

 

[Autodidact]

That interpretation is only clear if you start with the assumption that "natural" is heterosexual and "unnatural" is homosexual.

I think it's just as reasonable to assume that "natural" means just that: a person's natural orientation (which would therefore be where a person would look for romantic companionship), and "unnatural" would mean activities that were entered into for the sake of lust and physical gratification alone.

Yes, that does seem like a more logical interpretation. Thus, if it natural to love other women, having sex with men would be unnatural, and result in negative consequences.

 

[Autodidact]

Quite so.

I don't think that there's much debate about what one is supposed to do with a penis. Homosexuals have been getting just as much pleasure out of it - or more - as heteros for quite some time now.

"Purpose"? "Supposed to do?" According to whom? I don't think you're "supposed to" do anything in particular with it or any other body part, other than not hurting anyone else. Where are you getting this "supposed to?" The only thing I can think of is that God requires his followers to cut of the foreskin. Other than that, I can't think of any biblical injunction concerning penises. (Although I may be forgetting something, there's a lot of weird stuff in the OT.)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

"Purpose"? "Supposed to do?" According to whom? I don't think you're "supposed to" do anything in particular with it or any other body part, other than not hurting anyone else. Where are you getting this "supposed to?" The only thing I can think of is that God requires his followers to cut of the foreskin. Other than that, I can't think of any biblical injunction concerning penises. (Although I may be forgetting something, there's a lot of weird stuff in the OT.)

That was the point. Pay attention.

 

[Autodidact]

Quite right, and any other assumption is completely baseless.

How about just trying for the most accurate translations, without starting assumptions?

You may not know that Greek writers from Aristotle to Plutarch (a contemporary of Paul) referred to homosexual acts in precisely the same terms.

I know that Plutarch discusses lesbianism, although not using the term nature or natural, but I'm not familiar with any Aristotelian references to lesbianism. In fact, although I can't find the specific reference offhand, I believe that Aristotle at least once refers to some homosexual desires as being determined by nature.

What is very clear is that the Greek and Hebrew terms used in the Bible to refer to homosexuality only apply to men.

 

[Autodidact]

But those who are pro gay and who do not see the technical and actual term "homosexuality or lesbianism " in these and other contexts ,and therefore conclude that is was never mentioned in scripture,
I must conclude it really is nothing more than wilful ignorance and a bias defense at best

No, it's just reading the text as what it is and not substitution your own prejudice for God's holy word. 1. This passage is not a prohibition. You may want God to prohibit lesbianism, but it is for you to do God's bidding, not the other way around. 2. It is not clear exactly what this passage is referring to. It is the only passage in thousands of pages of text that may possibly allude to lesbianism, or may not, we just can't be sure. What we do know for certain is that it is not prohibited, unlike many practices that Christians engage in regularly, such as divorce (NT), women preachers (NT) eating pork (OT) or working on Saturday (OT) or Sunday (NT.)

 

[Autodidact]

I chose religion on purpose, mainly to demonstrate that the mere fact that something is genetic or not does not automatically determine its importance or whether it is "natural" or "unnatural" (especially when a moral judgement is based on this determination).

i.e. if not having a genetic cause would make homosexuality "unnatural" or immoral, then we must also recognize that religion does not have a genetic cause either and apply our principles consistently.

Personally, I think that the entire argument that homosexuality shouldn't be protected because it is a "choice" is based on faulty reasoning, even disregarding for the moment the fact that homosexuality is not a choice. Society protects lots of things that are choices, from religion to political affiliation.

I agree completely. Actually I think for many women it is a choice, and a positive one. That doesn't make it wrong. As you point out, Christianity is a choice, too.