God's Attitude Toward Homosexuality

[Katzpur]

How can you be disappointed in me for sharing the doctrines and policy of the Church?

Does something about me just rub you the wrong way?

Are you sure you want to get into this with me? I'd rather just agree to disagree, but I'm willing to argue if that's what you'd like.

 

[SomeRandom]

Of course I know that , the point you may be missing is the fact that homosexuality is promoted by the media etc . There is many programs on the television that show homosexual couples . Children subjected to the viewing of these programs etc , are neurologically taught that being homosexual is normal . This influence becoming an embedded memory in the brain that ''sways'' thinking . Parents unable to make proper objective criticism in fear of repercussion of ''law'' because of homosexual rights . Additionally , it can not be offensive to call somebody a homo , if they are homosexual . Pointing out a truth and fact is objective .

Oh no. Children aren't taught irrational aversion and/or hate/fear of an innocuous sexual orientation. What is the world coming to, amirite?
People said exactly the same thing about the so called promotion of interracial couples. It's kind of eerie how the anti gay rhetoric mimicks racist arguments practically verbatim.


I have yet to see this objective criticism of homosexuality you speak of.

 

[columbus]

It's kind of eerie how the anti gay rhetoric mimicks racist arguments practically verbatim.

To me it's heartening. Sorta....

I expect people like that to be an embarrassment to their children, the way casual racists in the 70s became.
Tom

 

[Subduction Zone]

God let me down so now I am going to be evil instead because if God didn't help me then maybe the Devil will.

Perhaps it is just your version of God that let you down. If you God to be the God of the Bible then you are hoping for an evil God.

 

[SomeRandom]

To me it's heartening. Sorta....

I expect people like that to be an embarrassment to their children, the way casual racists in the 70s became.
Tom

Well if my younger nieces are anything to go by, that's exactly what's happening.
I think I actually heard her once exclaim, ewww homophobia.

 

[Prestor John]

Are you sure you want to get into this with me? I'd rather just agree to disagree, but I'm willing to argue if that's what you'd like.

I'm not looking for an argument.

I'm asking you what about me or about what I said disappointed you.

 

[Prestor John]

EXCUUUUSE ME!! The Bible is ALL about bullying. "Do X, Y, and Z, or I'll send you to hell. And if you don't think I will, just test me. . . Your Loving God "

Where did God claim that He sends anyone to Hell?

I've read a lot of God claiming, "Do this or don't do this or you will go to Hell", but that is not the same as Him sending anyone anywhere.

God sees the inevitable cliff that we are heading to and He gives us the directions we need to avoid the drop.

We send ourselves to Hell when we ignore His warnings and directions.

 

[Prestor John]

I'm saying that balance in all things is a far more healthy and intelligent approach to life in general. That includes reproduction. If everyone reproduces then our resources become thinner much faster. That's just reality. We need to cool it a little bit. Besides the percentage of the population who don't reproduce is rather negligible anyway. So it's not really fair or even true to say that those people are unnatural or unhealthy or will bring about the destruction of our species. Like I see so very often in the anti gay rhetoric. Even on this very thread. That's such an overly simplistic way of seeing things.
Think of it this way. You will die if you don't drink water, yeah? But too much water will drown you. Not everyone should reproduce. Not every relationship should end with babies, because that really will doom us all. Claiming that people who don't are somehow "bad" or against X or causing insert detrimental affect here is an excersize in futility. It doesn't do anything, it causes people far more harm than good and it's a pretty innocuous thing to even stand against if you really think about it. So homosexuality exists? So what? It doesn't really do anything except exist, leave them be.

Also the poster I was responding to literally said, sex is for making babies not self gratification in the very next post. (Which kind of ignores the existence of orgasms, but whatever.) Considering the context and honestly the common rhetoric that comes from, one can very easily surmise that's exactly what said poster was saying. Or meant. The implication is obvious. Just saying.

Said poster is perfectly free to correct me on his/her meaning of course. Though I would add a follow up question of why bring that up in the first place if not to illustrate to an alphabet soup person why they are wrong not to be heterosexual?

I believe the poster said that sex was not only for self-gratification.

There is more to heterosexual relationships than having babies or gratification.

It is this relationship, founded on Gospel principles, that leads both partners to eventual perfection.

"Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord." (1 Corinthians 11:11)

Men and women sealed in the marriage covenant make up both sides of the same coin. They become "one" eternally.

The issue that I and many others have with homosexuality is the fact that those relationships are not ideal, draw the partners further away from their eventual perfection (which stunts their eternal potential) and leads to endless misery in the life after this one.

There are no double-sided coins in Heaven.

 

[Prestor John]

Well His followers, His representatives on earth, quite literally protest too much. Are they not following God's word? Are they not representing His interests or the Bible when they march against gay rights or marriage or what have you?
If they're not, where did they even get the idea to "stand against the sin of homosexuality"?
Also if God proclaims homosexuality a sin, like is claimed so very often, how is that not protesting too much?

By what measure do you mete?

As far as you know, it may not be protesting enough.

 

[Prestor John]

Your simple math isn't the issue. It's its relevance. As in why

would be relevant?

​

And I'm still waiting for your evidence that "The majority of heterosexual think it is not ok," and that they "are afraid to say it straight."

.

I too believe that the majority of heterosexuals are uncomfortable with homosexuality.

They don't voice their true opinion for the same reason why I won't buy a red MAGA hat.

We don't want to be harassed.

 

[Prestor John]

Since it can be found in many animals, not just man, it is by definition "natural". It may not be natural for you or me but that does not mean it is not natural for everyone.

"Natural" does not mean "ideal" or "correct".

 

[Prestor John]

Oh my! What did God do wrong?

Even Christian apologist sites realize that oral sex is okay, at least between married couples, in the Bible:

Is oral sex between married couples okay? | CARM.org

When did God say that oral sex was wrong?

 

[JJ50]

I suspect some of those who have a big issue with homosexuality are actually gays in denial. I wonder if that unpleasant guy, Paul, in the not so good book, who had literary diarrhoea, was a gay in denial?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I suspect some of those who have a big issue with homosexuality are actually gays in denial. I wonder if that unpleasant guy, Paul, in the not so good book, who had literary diarrhoea, was a gay in denial?

Paul didn't have a "big thing" about homosexuality. He believed that sodomy was a sin, as did all the Jews of his time. But he never wrote about it extensively. It's mentioned maybe a couple of times. What Paul's "big thing" was, was the gospel message that he was bringing to Gentiles.

 

[Katzpur]

I'm not looking for an argument.

I'm asking you what about me or about what I said disappointed you.

Later. I've got to give some thought to how I want to word this.

 

[Thief]

sorry to get here soooooo late....

did anyone mention a quote....
to have done so in your mind and heart....
you have already done so

 

[Prestor John]

I suspect some of those who have a big issue with homosexuality are actually gays in denial. I wonder if that unpleasant guy, Paul, in the not so good book, who had literary diarrhoea, was a gay in denial?

Naw. He was straight. And an Apostle.

 

[SomeRandom]

By what measure do you mete?

As far as you know, it may not be protesting enough.

Hmm fair enough. Not sure why an all powerful being would even care about sexual orientation of mere mortals though.

 

[SomeRandom]

I believe the poster said that sex was not only for self-gratification.

There is more to heterosexual relationships than having babies or gratification.

It is this relationship, founded on Gospel principles, that leads both partners to eventual perfection.

"Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord." (1 Corinthians 11:11)

Men and women sealed in the marriage covenant make up both sides of the same coin. They become "one" eternally.

The issue that I and many others have with homosexuality is the fact that those relationships are not ideal, draw the partners further away from their eventual perfection (which stunts their eternal potential) and leads to endless misery in the life after this one.

There are no double-sided coins in Heaven.

I ask again why bring it up in the first place if not to try to shame gay people for not procreating?

And there's more to homosexual relationships than "teh gay butt sex." Or sodomy, if you prefer.
Also please correct me if I'm wrong here, but the traditional definition of sodomy used to be literally anything other than vaginal sex. There are actually old timey real life pamphlets explaining the sin of married couples performing oral. I remember they were shown in my history class to illustrate the differing attitudes of yesteryear. So even standing against sodomy is inaccurate when solely focused on "the gays." Mote in one's own eye, indeed.

If heterosexual couples are ideal explain the strangely high divorce rates. Explain why in study after study after study (ad nauseum) gay couples are found to be happier in spite of unequal treatment (my country only legalised gay marriage this year) homophobia, society at large shaming them for not proceating and churches constantly telling them they are sinful. If anything they have been found to have stronger bonds than a lot of heterosexual couples do.
I mean if anything forcing or coercing a gay person into a heterosexual relationship is far more stunting. (Not saying you're advocating that, of course. But it does happen in some communities.) That's far more unhealthy and leads to misery, broken families and all the so called detriments people blame gay couples of having.
So these claims don't seem to stand up, at least to my point of view.
Just seems such an innocuous thing to even care about.
If you're going to stand against anything, at least have it be something with tangible real world detrimental consequences.
The best the anti side can even come up with is they don't have progeny. With 7 billion people strong, pretty sure the population won't notice if some couples don't have kids.

 

[Skwim]

sorry to get here soooooo late....

did anyone mention a quote....
to have done so in your mind and heart....
you have already done so

No. Probably because it's so stupid.

.