Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[fantome profane]

I'll stop being ignorant the moment you develop a sense of humor.

Are you familiar with Poe's Law?

 

[Prestor John]

First, Atheists can be anti-god but Atheism itself simply refers to not believing in a god. I think you are projecting here.

Secondly, it's not just atheists that support same sex marriage, it's any decent person who doesn't like seeing a portion of our population being harassed and discriminated against by religious folk in a secular country.

I believe myself to be a decent person, yet I don't support "same-sex marriage" nor would I consider it harassment or discrimination to deny them marriage.

However, it is the law of the land now, so there is little point in resisting it. I am happy because they are happy, even if I do not condone their relationship.

 

[Prestor John]

I would also be in favor of fining businesses that DISCRIMINATE against other groups as well, including Christians.

We get that you hate homosexuals, that doesn't mean that everyone else is motivated by hate.

I would not be in favor of fining any privately owned business for reserving the right to refuse someone their service.

I don't think anyone has the right to tell a business owner how they should run their business. They should be free to soar or fall.

 

[Prestor John]

Are you familiar with Poe's Law?

lol. Funny joke bro.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That is, care if others engage in them?


I know homosexuality has pretty much run its course here on RF, but I can't remember this specific point having been addressed, and just to be clear I'll restate the question.

Why do Christians care that people of the same gender engage in sex, and why do they care that they marry each other? Even caring to the point of voicing their objections and protesting?

.

.


.

Christians are caring because they are good people and only want what's best for humanity.

"The Almighty beareth Me witness: To act like the beasts of the field is unworthy of man." - Baha'u'llah

We were created noble beings and yet we have abased ourselves to such levels that we clamour for something that is wholly unnatural.

These Christians are courageous and to be commended for promoting the exaltation and not the abasement of humanity.

It's their world too. They have very right to have a say in its shaping and moulding.

 

[Prestor John]

You can protest marriages between people of the same genders when you start protesting non Christian marriages.

And you'd agree with me?

 

[Watchmen]

I would not be in favor of fining any privately owned business for reserving the right to refuse someone their service.

I don't think anyone has the right to tell a business owner how they should run their business. They should be free to soar or fall.

Really? So shops and restaurants in the South can go back to excluding African Americans without any pesky government interference?

 

[Skwim]

Christians are caring because they are good people and only want what's best for humanity.

As I told ronandcarol in post 167

"But they care to the point of actively protesting both, yet we don't see Christians actively protesting any of the Seven deadly Sins: Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, or Pride. OR actively protesting other sins, such as Profanity, Idolatry, Blasphemy, Witchcraft, Bestiality, Pornography, Adultery, Fornication, Hatred, Drunkenness, etc. etc. Why ignore these sins and focus on homosexuality and same-sex marriage?"

Why? Because the trouble with too many Christians is that they're titillated by the same sexual proclivities that titillated their puritanical forebears---unfortunately, window peeking and finger shaking is still alive and well in Christendom, and has been elevated to an ugly degree.​

Trouble is, gluttony, greed, envy, sloth etc. just don't have the draw that unconventional sex does. So don't try to peddle the lame excuse that Christians care about homosexuality "because they are good people and only want what's best for humanity." If they were truly good people wanting what's best for humanity they'd be protesting adultery, fornication, pornography and any of the other activities they consider sinful. Of course the reason they don't take on such sins is because they cut too close to home.

"Christian men are having an alarmingly difficult time abstaining from the sexual sins of viewing pornography and committing adultery on their spouses, according to a new national survey. Tragically, married Christian men are failing miserably when it comes to these sins, as 55 percent look at pornography at least once a month and 35 percent cheated on their spouses in an extramarital affair."
source​

And

80% Of All Christian Singles Are Fornicating
source
​

Nope, homosexuality is a nice, safe sin to protest.

These Christians are courageous and to be commended for promoting the exaltation and not the abasement of humanity.

I'd ask how homosexual sexual activity debases humanity more than all adultery, fornication, and pornography going on,---all of which greatly outnumbers the amount of homosexual sexual activity--- but I'm afraid all I would get is more hilarious back slapping.


.

 

[Prestor John]

Really? So shops and restaurants in the South can go back to excluding African Americans without any pesky government interference?

Yes.

 

[Prestor John]

As I told ronandcarol in post 167

"But they care to the point of actively protesting both, yet we don't see Christians actively protesting any of the Seven deadly Sins: Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, or Pride. OR actively protesting other sins, such as Profanity, Idolatry, Blasphemy, Witchcraft, Bestiality, Pornography, Adultery, Fornication, Hatred, Drunkenness, etc. etc. Why ignore these sins and focus on homosexuality and same-sex marriage?"

Why? Because the trouble with too many Christians is that they're titillated by the same sexual proclivities that titillated their puritanical forebears---unfortunately, window peeking and finger shaking is still alive and well in Christendom, and has been elevated to an ugly degree.​

Trouble is, gluttony, greed, envy, sloth etc. just don't have the draw that unconventional sex does. So don't try to peddle the lame excuse that Christians care about homosexuality "because they are good people and only want what's best for humanity." If they were truly good people wanting what's best for humanity they'd be protesting adultery, fornication, pornography and any of the other activities they consider sinful. Of course the reason they don't take on such sins is because they cut too close to home.

"Christian men are having an alarmingly difficult time abstaining from the sexual sins of viewing pornography and committing adultery on their spouses, according to a new national survey. Tragically, married Christian men are failing miserably when it comes to these sins, as 55 percent look at pornography at least once a month and 35 percent cheated on their spouses in an extramarital affair."
source​

And

80% Of All Christian Singles Are Fornicating
source
​

Nope, homosexuality is a nice, safe sin to protest.

I'd ask how homosexual sexual activity debases humanity more than all adultery, fornication, and pornography going on,---all of which greatly outnumbers the amount of homosexual sexual activity--- but I'm afraid all I would get is more hilarious back slapping.


.

There's too much "Us Vs Them" going on here.

 

[Skwim]

There's too much "Us Vs Them" going on here.

You may want to take into consideration that this isn't the Love-Fest Hugs-All-Around Forum, but a DEBATE FORUM where it's expected people will develop "Us Vs Them" positions.

But your complaint is duly noted ...............................................................................................and forgotten.


.


.

 

[omega2xx]

Because its not just the fact that these people care about who us queer people are and what we do in the bedroom, but we constantly have to hear about it.

I hear much more about from the secular world than I do from the Christian world. IMO homosexual are far more strident towards Christians, than Christians are toward homosexuals.

The supreme function of reason is to show man that some things are beyond reason. Blaise Pascal

 

[loverofhumanity]

Homosexuality shouldn't be an issue as long as people don't try to force their views about it on anyone. Live and let live.

 

[omega2xx]

Homosexuality shouldn't be an issue as long as people don't try to force their views about it on anyone. Live and let live.

Does that include homosexuals not trying to fore the views on others?

 

[1robin]

Very well. We will maintain overall comparison. The remainder of my point still stands.

Ok, sounds good.

"resurrect unjustifiable behaviour" - I take issue with two out of these three words.

I assume your quoting me here. If you do not like the words I used can you explain why? I can't respond until you do.

You said "heterosexual acts" are necessary to perpetuate the human race. This is an incorrect statement.

No, currently in vitro fertilization is not available to most people. However lets say that it was free and available to all people, that would mean that no sex is justifiable. Are you willing to concede that no sexual behavior can be justified?

 

[columbus]

that would mean that no sex is justifiable. Are you willing to concede that no sexual behavior can be justified?

This is the sort of nonsense you commonly post.
We humans aren't only animals. As animals we do need to procreate, somewhat. But that doesn't mean that non procreative sex needs justifying, much less that it can't be justified.
Tom

 

[Kirran]

Ok, sounds good.

I assume your quoting me here. If you do not like the words I used can you explain why? I can't respond until you do.

Well I assumed you would address the point I made previously regarding minority stress.

But yes, I can explain - I think that the term unjustifiable is itself not justifiable in this context, and I think it's strange to talk about resurrecting when homosexual behaviour has never not been a thing.

No, currently in vitro fertilization is not available to most people. However lets say that it was free and available to all people, that would mean that no sex is justifiable. Are you willing to concede that no sexual behavior can be justified?

If I followed your logic, I'd concede that. I am making the point to poke holes in your logic. I think sex is justifiable for non-procreative purposes.

 

[1robin]

~90% of HIV cases are the results of heterosex. People keep pointing this out to you and you keep ignoring the data.
Straight people are twice as likely to contract AIDS as gay people. And gay women practically never contract AIDS from sex.

People keep posting this stuff to you. We have for years. But you seem unwilling to let facts get in the way of your beliefs.
Tom

I have responded to this same silly argument over and over again. It is you who do not seem to accept reason, evidence, and logic. And no your statement about 90% of aids cases is not correct. It is not even close and unlike you I actually posted the statistics that the CDC uses and I sourced more than one study which proves your data is completely made up. However even if your data was right it still does not effect my arguments.

This will be the last time I show why this particular argument is pathetic. First your data is completely and utterly wrong. Second you did not source your data at all, I did source my data which refutes your. Third the fact that most people practice one behavior is what would make your data true if it ever was, your data is not true. However lets pretend your data was true. Fourth, even if your data was true it would be causally linked to a biological preference for heterosexual sex, the fact that most people are heterosexual explains your data, if your data was actually true. The dangers associated with a behavior are accessed by the damage or risks associated with an act not the popularity of an act.


For all those here that are attempting to defend homosexuality please take a college level class or two in statistics. Your not helping your case making these ridiculous arguments.

I will make you the same offer I made another. Present your argument here to professors in statistics, probability, applied mathematics, or pure mathematics. If you find one at a respected and accredited university that agrees with your argument, give me their phone number. If they confirm the soundness of your argument I will publically admit you were right and I wrong. Until you can do this please do not waste my time with bogus reasoning and data that is not true. I also do not care how many people you refer to that have made arguments as terrible as you did here. A bad argument does not become a good argument even if it is popular with many people on one side of an issue. Arguments work or fail irrespective of popularity. I wish someone would challenge me with a sound argument, that is why I am here.

 

[columbus]

I would not be in favor of fining any privately owned business for reserving the right to refuse someone their service.

I don't think anyone has the right to tell a business owner how they should run their business. They should be free to soar or fall.

Me either, really. The USA has changed enormously since the 60's. I don't think many overtly bigoted businesses would survive in the 21st century.
What I would expect is full disclosure. If a lunch counter won't serve black people that should be posted on the door and prominently in advertisement. Same with anti-gay wedding businesses.
If someone is not welcome in your business that should be made clear to everyone, not just the target of your bigotry after they are there wanting something. I want the option of avoiding businesses that discriminate in ways I discriminate against.
Tom

 

[Kirran]

None of this nonsense changes the fact that 1) people are going to engage in homosexual shenanigans regardless of legality and 2) there are a great many happy, stable monogamous same-sex couples, many of them raising children. I know some personally.