Everyone Who Claims Homosexuality is a Sin is Bisexual

[Road Less Traveled]

Now apply that transference to all other sins. Start with murder.
What is written inside of you, as I had asked you to expound upon from your former post, is amorality.
What a shame.

Too funny.

 

[charlie sc]

I can't. Period.

Are you telling me you're forced to stay in your faith?

Only in the way that temptation and giving into it are linked together. If one insists that homosexuals are unable to refrain from having sex because there is something intrinsic about being a homosexual that makes it impossible for one of 'em NOT to have sex...

Well, that's doing a grave disservice to homosexuals, isn't it? Are you telling me that they have less ability to choose their actions than heterosexuals do?

Lol, I'm pretty sure Christians aren't required to be celibate. I never said it's impossible not to have sex, but generally, under any gender, people tend to want to get intimate with their partner. Wouldn't you say so?

What about Catholics who divorce? According to THEIR belief systems, they may not marry again until their former spouse dies. Where is the difference here between a divorced Catholic and a homosexual Catholic? I don't see one, in terms of the belief system.

By this logic alone, there is no difference, but we both know the homosexuals in Christianity and Catholicism face stigma, negative attitudes and exclusions.

there are conditions under which that would be true.

There are CERTAINLY conditions in other belief systems where that is true.

Can you think of any examples that applies to this topic?

 

[Road Less Traveled]

I never said it's impossible not to have sex, but generally, under any gender, people tend to want to get intimate with their partner.

This wasn’t directed towards me but would like to respond to this.

That is all accurate. It also is possible to go celibate, for both to go celibate. A lot of forms of sex have come to repulse me personally. And this coming from one who used to embrace that a lot, as well as porn, etc. That burning desire dissipated, and became unneeded. Are my partner and I intimate that way, yes on occasion. When we are, it’s like an intimacy never experienced before. We went years before being intimate that way. While we both could go the rest of our time without with no issue. For us, it has brought interesting realizations and a long-lasting relationship without a single fight.

Have been in relations in times past, where going without or with has led to trouble. One partner being needy for it, jumping in too quickly and having clouded judgement, or one partner worrying the other will get it elsewhere, or too much of it breeding contempt, a whole slew of issues.

 

[sojourner]

Uh huh...

I wonder.

did you read what you typed before you posted it? Do you see the irony in what you just wrote? That you are asking the religion to change because YOU think the change would be the right, compassionate, honorable and just thing....but heaven forefend that you are asking it to change to accommodate anybody's actions, or opinions,...except of course, yours.

Justice isn’t my idea. The Bible is replete with God working for justice. The Lord hears the cry of the poor. The Lord is your shield. Rachel weeps for her children. The preponderance of Levitican Law deals with showing hospitality to the stranger — the vulnerable. The sin of Sodom was a lack of care for the stranger in the city.

Compassion isn’t my thing. The Bible is all about compassion. The Samaritan was the good neighbor. The one who searches for the lost sheep is the good shepherd. Jesus fed 5000 hungry people out of a kid’s lunchbox. Jesus said that it’s the outcast who is blessed. Jesus asked God to forgive his killers.

Honor isn’t my idea either. The Bible teaches that laying down one’s own life for those who have less is the honorable thing. And it’s preservation of male honor that prompted the writers to say that treating an honorable and equal male as one would a woman is shameful.

When are you all going to sacrifice your own sense of piety to fully embrace and humanize those who are reviled, outcast and treated as less than human? When are you all going to do the Jesus thing, rather than the Joseph Smith thing?

 

[dianaiad]

Are you telling me you're forced to stay in your faith?

No. I choose to stay in my faith, because I believe it.

I can't marry, whether I stay in my faith or not. The government has seen to it that I can't. Not if I want to receive the medical treatment I need, or have a roof over my head.

Lol, I'm pretty sure Christians aren't required to be celibate.

Some are. Seriously...you've never heard of the Catholic priesthood, or nuns, or, say....the Shakers?

I never said it's impossible not to have sex, but generally, under any gender, people tend to want to get intimate with their partner. Wouldn't you say so?


By this logic alone, there is no difference, but we both know the homosexuals in Christianity and Catholicism face stigma, negative attitudes and exclusions.

Not in the belief systems that welcome them, they don't.

For crying out loud. *I,* as a Mormon, face stigma, negative attitudes and exclusions. I, as an old woman, do. I, as a woman who grew up in the sixties, did. I, as a woman who tried to work in the seventies, did. I, as a fat woman, do. I, as a cancer patient, do. I, as an American who refuses to appologize for BEING an American, definitely do. We ALL do, for some reason or other, and in some areas and with some people.

It's part of being alive and human. Gays, now...all they have to do is find a belief system that welcomes them, and they are fine. Others may not like them, but others don't like ME, either. I could fix it instantly by changing religions or political stances. Sheesh; I'm a Mormon conservative in southern California. The only way I could make myself MORE of a target is to be a Mormon conservative in Alabama. In California all I would have to do is don a "p*ssy hat" and walk in a feminist anti-Trump march and I'd be gold. In Alabama all I would have to do is become a Baptist, and I would be perfectly acceptable.

Gays...they don't have to change their lifestyles: just join a religion that likes them.

And they can still share my crock pot stew of an evening.

Can you think of any examples that applies to this topic?

Catholic priests, monks and nuns?
The Shakers?

 

[dianaiad]

Justice isn’t my idea. The Bible is replete with God working for justice. The Lord hears the cry of the poor. The Lord is your shield. Rachel weeps for her children. The preponderance of Levitican Law deals with showing hospitality to the stranger — the vulnerable. The sin of Sodom was a lack of care for the stranger in the city.

Compassion isn’t my thing. The Bible is all about compassion. The Samaritan was the good neighbor. The one who searches for the lost sheep is the good shepherd. Jesus fed 5000 hungry people out of a kid’s lunchbox. Jesus said that it’s the outcast who is blessed. Jesus asked God to forgive his killers.

Honor isn’t my idea either. The Bible teaches that laying down one’s own life for those who have less is the honorable thing. And it’s preservation of male honor that prompted the writers to say that treating an honorable and equal male as one would a woman is shameful.

When are you all going to sacrifice your own sense of piety to fully embrace and humanize those who are reviled, outcast and treated as less than human? When are you all going to do the Jesus thing, rather than the Joseph Smith thing?

And what should I, personally, do that I'm not already doing, sojourner?

I believe that my religion teaches truth, and that I AM doing the 'Jesus' thing. I am no more doing the "Joseph Smith thing" than you are doing the Matthew, Luke, Mark, John, Peter and Paul thing. You learn about Jesus from them (as do I) and I ALSO learn about Jesus through Joseph Smith and others I also believe to be prophets.

There is no difference there, unless you decide to do the "Jesus thing," rather than the "Paul" thing or the "Peter" thing.

Good luck with that, since Jesus Himself never wrote anything but some doodling in the dirt. ALL we know of Him comes from prophets...like Peter, Paul, ...and Joseph Smith.

If you don't think JS was a prophet, fine, but do NOT tell me that I put JS above Jesus. You claim to know LDS...then you know better than to say that about us.

OK. You don't like the CoJCoLDS. Fine. Don't join. Be yourself, honestly, and I will be myself, honestly. I will not demand that you change your policies to suit my beliefs, and you stop demanding that the church I belong to...and you don't believe in and never would no matter what it did...change to suit you.

 

[sojourner]

And what should I, personally, do that I'm not already doing, sojourner

Speak. Out. Call out injustice.

you stop demanding that the church I belong to...and you don't believe in and never would no matter what it did...change to suit you

Then you stop demanding that homosexuals are inherently sinful.

 

[sojourner]

Gays...they don't have to change their lifestyles: just join a religion that likes them

This right here tells us everything we need to know.
Perhaps they can also live next to people who like them, only take careers that people approve of, marry people others approve of, shop where people like them, and drink from approved fountains and sit in the rear of the bus. Wait! I know! Let’s relocate all of them to some land where we don’t have to deal with them.

Gays: they don’t have to change, but we can bring social pressure to bear that make them wish they could.

Gays: they don’t have to change, but they can just stay away from us.

...and Jesus ate with prostitutes and tax collectors. He spoke to women and hung out with Samaritans. He touched lepers and dead bodies.

 

[David T]

Are these the same preachers who yammer on about the rapture?

Yes!!!!! I understand why people get annoyed at religion. But we tend to confuse the idiots with being experts on the bible and male false assumptions the binle is the causality. NO they are idiots independent of the text abusing it.

 

[dianaiad]

Speak. Out. Call out injustice.

You mean, like telling bakers and photographers that, while they have the right to live their religion and express their beliefs, that they should be respectful of other beliefs....and then do the cakes and the photography myself?

I do that.

You mean, like telling people that gays who marry according to the law are JUST as 'married' as any other couple married until 'death do you part,' because that's a government function?

I do that.

You mean, like not caring whether someone is gay before I teach them how to knit?

I do that.

Isn't that what everybody should do?

What more can you expect from anybody? Really?

Then you stop demanding that homosexuals are inherently sinful.

Now THAT's just a plain fib. I have never claimed that homosexuals are inherentily sinfil. Nobody is responsible for the temptations to sin they find. This is as true for gay folks as it is for the randy teenager ready to take on the process of dating....women. What they DO about it may be sinful, if their personal belief system says it is, but by the same token, the teenaged boy who is 'admiring' the parade of thir

This right here tells us everything we need to know.
Perhaps they can also live next to people who like them, only take careers that people approve of, marry people others approve of, shop where people like them, and drink from approved fountains and sit in the rear of the bus. Wait! I know! Let’s relocate all of them to some land where we don’t have to deal with them. If your perlonal relin

Gays: they don’t have to change, but we can bring social pressure to bear that make them wish they could.

The only change they need ti naje us ti fund a bekuef systen that agrees with themk

Gays: they don’t have to change, but they can just stay away from us.

...and Jesus ate with prostitutes and tax collectors. He spoke to women and hung out with Samaritans. He touched lepers and dead bodies.[/QUOTE]

Yep, He dd. and he converted them .

 

[sojourner]

Now THAT's just a plain fib. I have never claimed that homosexuals are inherentily sinfil

You openly are a contributing member of a group that does.

Yep, He dd. and he converted them .

Not all of them. And that’s not why he was nice to them. Do acts of mercy have to have an ulterior motive?

 

[charlie sc]

The government has seen to it that I can't. Not if I want to receive the medical treatment I need, or have a roof over my head.

Ok but you aren't excluded or stopped from doing certain things. It sounds like your issue is more financially related.

Some are. Seriously...you've never heard of the Catholic priesthood, or nuns, or, say....the Shakers?

These aren't good analogies. Priests and nuns are usually revered and they choose their status as Christians. Are you telling me they don't have a choice? Shakers celibacy is limited.

Not in the belief systems that welcome them, they don't.

For crying out loud. *I,* as a Mormon, face stigma, negative attitudes and exclusions. I, as an old woman, do. I, as a woman who grew up in the sixties, did. I, as a woman who tried to work in the seventies, did. I, as a fat woman, do. I, as a cancer patient, do. I, as an American who refuses to appologize for BEING an American, definitely do. We ALL do, for some reason or other, and in some areas and with some people.

It's part of being alive and human. Gays, now...all they have to do is find a belief system that welcomes them, and they are fine. Others may not like them, but others don't like ME, either. I could fix it instantly by changing religions or political stances. Sheesh; I'm a Mormon conservative in southern California. The only way I could make myself MORE of a target is to be a Mormon conservative in Alabama. In California all I would have to do is don a "p*ssy hat" and walk in a feminist anti-Trump march and I'd be gold. In Alabama all I would have to do is become a Baptist, and I would be perfectly acceptable.

What you're saying here is that you suffered discrimination and survived, therefore, others can too. As someone who is stigmatised yourself, you should understand how stigma is, generally, not a good thing. Let me see if you're logically consistent by asking you a question. Let's assume some buses, not all, have a sign when you get on saying, "black people go at the back of the bus." Would you think this is acceptable in society? They can just get another bus that does not have this distinction. If yes, why, if no why?

 

[dianaiad]

Ok but you aren't excluded or stopped from doing certain things. It sounds like your issue is more financially related.


These aren't good analogies. Priests and nuns are usually revered and they choose their status as Christians. Are you telling me they don't have a choice? Shakers celibacy is limited.

the Shakers...who mostly do not exist any more because of this...had total celibacy. No sex. No sex outside OR inside marriage bonds; Married couples who joined were separated. Children were adopted, if they didn't come with convert families.

The only way for them to have sex, even inside their marriages, was to leave the religion.

Exactly the way homosexuals have to do if they find themselves in a religion that sees homosexual sex as sinful.

Tell me: Do you feel ostracized because the SHAKERS did not allow sex AT ALL? Do you feel the need to tell them to change their ways because you want to have sex....and you don't believe in the Shaker religion?

What you're saying here is that you suffered discrimination and survived, therefore, others can too. As someone who is stigmatised yourself, you should understand how stigma is, generally, not a good thing. Let me see if you're logically consistent by asking you a question. Let's assume some buses, not all, have a sign when you get on saying, "black people go at the back of the bus." Would you think this is acceptable in society? They can just get another bus that does not have this distinction. If yes, why, if no why?

Busses are public transportation. My taxes pay for them. Therefore telling black people to go to the back of the bus is illegal (and FYI, a REPUBLICAN was responsible for that, and it was the DEMOCRATS who objected, violently) because it is a public service. The same for schools an public parks, pools and water fountains.

BUT.....

A private business, such as a baker or a photographer...or the owner of a social media site, or even a private bus company that only hauls, say, Baptists to church on Sunday Mornings, has the RIGHT to decide who sits where, who gets their service and what the rules are for discourse.

So, if that bus is a public bus, I go screaming to the courts. If it is a private bus, I realize that it's going somewhere I don't want to go, and I wait for the public one.

Because the only proper recourse to people who use their freedom of speech and religion to discriminate against others is to...not support them. To leave. It's why I left a group I've been a part of for a decade, even though it is incredibly inconvenient and will cost me time, and money, and sales, to do so.

If there's something about your religion that truly troubles you, then leave and find a religion you can be comfortable with. Don't be a bully. That's what the OTHER guy is trying to do, demanding that your RELIGION change utterly in order to accommodate the wishes of those who don't believe, don't want to believe, don't like, and would never be a member of your religion.

the Shakers don't exist any more, because nobody wants to join a group that doesn't allow sex even between married partners.

 

[1213]

Can a gay man have a sister? That should tell you why you could be wrong.

Sorry, I don’t think that answers to my question. Perhaps I should form it this way, what do you think causes “gayness”? If it is not own choice, there is some other reason, what is that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, I don’t think that answers to my question. Perhaps I should form it this way, what do you think causes “gayness”? If it is not own choice, there is some other reason, what is that?

Actually it did and tells us that you do not understand genetics. You denied that it could be genetic because it would not be passed on.

 

[3rdAngel]

Everyone who claims homosexuality is a sin must necessarily be bisexual. Here is why. According to the traditional definitions of sin, sin must always involve a choice. Thus, the claim that attraction to the same sex is sinful implies that attraction to the same sex is a choice.

Actually no, sin is defined in God's Word as breaking God's Commandments and not believing and following God's Word *1 John 3:4; Romans 14:23. Sin does involve choice but when we are all sinners and have a sinful nature all we choose without salvation is sin. Salvation is from sin where God gives us the power to walk as he walked and choose not to sin *John 8:31-36; 1 John 3:3-10.

But no one chooses who they are sexually attracted to. Nevertheless, people who are bisexual can choose to ignore one aspect of their sexuality, so that they can have the illusion of choice. This is why we see so many bisexual people claim to have "found Jesus," and "repent" of their homosexuality, and make the "choice" to be heterosexual. In reality, they are simply choosing to ignore the homosexual aspect of their sexuality and choose to only focus on the heterosexual aspect. For people who are either 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual, sexual orientation is not a choice. For instance, I could not choose to be attracted to men, even if I wanted to be. In the same way, a homosexual person could not choose to be attracted to the other gender if they wanted to be. A person who is 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual would understand this, which begs the question, why do so many Christians, especially pastors, claim that homosexuality is a choice? I think that the only logical answer is that bisexuality is fairly commonplace in the population, and likely even more common among Christian pastors.

Not really. We have a sinful nature that loves sin and is the very reason we need saving from it *Romans 7; John 8:31-36. Our natural choice is to choose to sin (break God's commandments and not believe His Word) *John 8:34.

So, since our conclusion implies bisexuality is likely much more common in Christian pastors than in the rest of the population, we should encourage these pastors to celebrate their bisexuality, rather than trying to mask it in homophobic preaching. A study has already confirmed that homophobic men who claim to be heterosexual have measurable responses of arousal to gay porn, while non-homophobic heterosexual men do not. See this study, which verifies my ideas. Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? - PubMed - NCBI

This is just a post that seeks to justify sin and not believe God's Word for which all will be held accountable come judgment day.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 9, Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

We ignore the warnings of God's Word at our own peril

 

[Neutral Name]

I have seen a Baptist pastor state that he knows, scientifically, that people are either hetero or homo, etc. but he still thinks that people can be changed to become hetero if they go through reprogramming. What really bothers me is the people who have gone through reprogramming who obviously would be more honest being gay. They don't seem happy being hetero. They are going against their own nature to prove something to supposed Christians.

 

[1213]

...You denied that it could be genetic because it would not be passed on.

Please explain how it would be based on? “Gays” don’t get children naturally.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please explain how it would be based on? “Gays” don’t get children naturally.

You actually made more than one error. Gay men can have children. The plumbing still works. And even if they don't their sisters and brothers can have children. If you want more you need to admit the obvious. Admit that you do not understand genetics and I will go explain into more detail.

 

[1213]

You actually made more than one error. Gay men can have children. ....

But are they then really gay, if they can have sex with opposite gender?