Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[ADigitalArtist]

If you find nothing wrong with 4% of the population creating over 60% of new aids cases in the US, nothing wrong with the fact that homosexual life spans are significantly lower than heterosexual life spans, nothing wrong with the higher rates of sexual assault, nothing wrong with massively higher rates of promiscuity, higher rates of unsafe sex, and higher rates of adultery within the homosexual community, etc...... then pray tell me what it is you do consider wrong? If your moral compass is off that far then there exists no common ground to debate these issues.

It's not like you actually care about the homosexuals in question, or you'd be talking about ways to reduce those numbers in a practical way, not a 'homosexuality is icky, I don't like it and it should stop' way. Which even your lauded CDC doesn't do, and instead proposes real ways to help (and also reaches out to other minorities with higher mortality, violence, lower life spans and higher HIV cases like blacks and Hispanics, showing a conclusive and undeniable truth that minority status can and does effect these numbers. Stigma and Discrimination | Gay and Bisexual Men's Health | CDC https://www.cdc.gov/actagainstaids/pdf/campaigns/lsht/cdc-hiv-togetherstigmafactsheet.pdf Latinos | Race/Ethnicity | HIV by Group | HIV/AIDS | CDC)
In the discussion of concussions, reduced lifespans and higher amounts of cognitive disability due to injuries in football, you'd be that guy saying 'I don't like football, football is risky so we should just ban it to protect players.'
And while you're at it, you're treating HIV/AIDS as this big bad boogeymonster to try and scare or shame gays away from homosexuality when in actual fact, the CDC is doing no such thing. It highly encourages prevention through testing and correct application of barrier methods, but also works to destigmatize people living with HIV, as the majority of people living with HIV in first world countries will, in fact, are not significantly lower than national average Gay life expectancy revisited (showing outdated data predicts a much larger gap than currently exists) HIV, the basics - How long will I live? Longer life expectancy for HIV-positive people in North America
By these numbers you should care more about people living with obesity than people living with HIV, and care more about recklessly lacking exercise and proper diet than people engaging in risky sexual behavior. And I wonder if your arguments will change at all on the inevitable day where we find a retroviral fighting agent that makes HIV pretty much inconsequential. I wouldn't be surprise if the answer is: Try to find some other way to stigmatize homosexuality, because your reasons for disliking it have no connection to their physical or emotional health and wellbeing.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

If you are to lazy to cut and paste, that's fine with me. To bad, some of your wilful ignorance might have been cured.

Are you able to articulate a response that goes intellectually beyond shovelling what I say to you back at me like snow from a driveway?

You also basically copied & pasted my response back at me. You've got no right to call anyone else lazy.

 

[Jainarayan]

So it seems you cannot make a meaningful argument concerning homosexual behavior

I don't have to. It's unnecessary. Homosexuality takes up too much room in some people's heads. You opened the door to a bizarre world of misinformation based on religion in post 218 Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

 

[Acim]

I don't limit my theology to just what Jesus said. What Paul said is just as important as what Jesus Said.

I'm guessing not all of what Paul said though, in terms of what you see as important. For he has said "do not marry." Is that seen as important to you?

The idea that Paul's words are as important as Gospel is bizarre to me, but from the pseudo, or orthodox Christian, perspective, it makes sense.

Don't worry, I never worry about what skeptics say. Is what I said what you expected?

It is. I knew you'd go outside of Gospel to justify your non-Christian belief.

When Gnostic knowleldge become perfect, get back to me.

Consider this post getting back to you.

 

[omega2xx]

I'm guessing not all of what Paul said though, in terms of what you see as important. For he has said "do not marry." Is that seen as important to you?

You guessed wrong again. He did not say "do no marry." He said it is better not to marry. He also said if you burn with lust, it is better to marry/

The idea that Paul's words are as important as Gospel is bizarre to me, but from the pseudo, or orthodox Christian, perspective, it makes sense.

The only thing that makes sense is that God said ALL Scripture is inspired by God. An in case you don't know it, Jesus only said what God told Him to say(Jn 16:13). That means ever word in the Bib le came from kGod and wht He told Paul to writs is of the same importance as to what He told Jesus to write.

It is. I knew you'd go outside of Gospel to justify your non-Christian belief.

Now you know it was you outside of the Gospels

Consider this post getting back to you.

OK

 

[Acim]

You guessed wrong again. He did not say "do no marry." He said it is better not to marry. He also said if you burn with lust, it is better to marry/

Which would be equally true for homosexuals, unless (pseudo) Christians are all about promoting promiscuity in the homosexual / bisexual population. Why, from Christian perspective, would it not be better to promote marriage among non-heterosexuals if they are burning with lust?

The only thing that makes sense is that God said ALL Scripture is inspired by God. An in case you don't know it, Jesus only said what God told Him to say(Jn 16:13). That means ever word in the Bib le came from kGod and wht He told Paul to writs is of the same importance as to what He told Jesus to write.

Clearly not every word in the Bible is from God, unless you go with the Progressive view that all words everywhere are from God. I'm guessing you don't. But Paul is fairly explicit about words he communicates that are not from God. I believe the "better not to marry" is example of this.

 

[Acim]

You guessed wrong again.

I don't think I guessed wrong, but at least I spelled right.

 

[viole]

You guessed wrong again. He did not say "do no marry." He said it is better not to marry. He also said if you burn with lust, it is better to marry/

So, all coherent married Christians burned with lust?

The only thing that makes sense is that God said ALL Scripture is inspired by God. An in case you don't know it, Jesus only said what God told Him to say(Jn 16:13). That means ever word in the Bib le came from kGod and wht He told Paul to writs is of the same importance as to what He told Jesus to write.

Jesus did not write anything.

Ciao

- viole

 

[columbus]

Jesus did not write anything.

Anything that we know about, to be fair.
But Christians do like to ignore this fact when somebody like Paul writes what they want to hear and Jesus is not quoted as having an opinion.
Tom

 

[SkepticThinker]

For the sake of a specific poster, let me ask you something. Which type of argument would feel is more compelling for you, being that your not a Christian.

1. My simply posting scriptures as to what the God I believe in has said about homosexuality.

Or

2. My using facts, evidence, and data to make an appeal to reason and logic.

Which type of argument would you personally find more persuasive?


That is all I can ask.

BTW, forgive me for using you as an example for others. It might make for an awkward debate but I am exhausted with responding to bad arguments. I hope to use you as example of what an actual argument looks like.

I'd have to go with #2, for obvious reasons, I think. I don't think quoting scripture to unbelievers would be very productive.

I'm so sorry I haven't responded to your other post yet. My weekend turned out to be crazier than I expected. Christmastime tends to do that to my life.

 

[Prestor John]

Where did you dig that up from, the county landfill? Rejection was not in the equation; agreeing or disagreeing was.

In post #533 you claimed that I was "making up" my beliefs and you even equated them to "drivel".

That was you obviously doing more than simply agreeing or disagreeing. You rejected them.

How can you agree or disagree with something if you don't know anything about it?.

What are you assuming I don't know anything about?

You were the one making fun of my beliefs. I did not say anything about Hinduism other than the fact that I do not agree with it.

I don't know anything about Siberian Shamanism (if there even is such a thing) so how can I agree or disagree with it? .

I don't know, but I'm sure you won't let your ignorance of their beliefs stop you from claiming they are all make believe drivel, will you?

There's a tendency in your arguments to twist words into strawmen.

You made a similar claim earlier, yet when I asked you to provide an example you ignored my request.

If you cannot provide an example of me twisting your words, why should anyone believe your claims about me?

 

[Prestor John]

Freedom of religion is upheld because there's nothing forcing, say, a wedding cake baker to keep producing wedding cakes..

You mean other than the lawsuits?

That baker is entirely free to choose some other profession where his religious beliefs won't conflict with the law.

Wait.

So the Supreme Court's decision should force these bakery owners to either change their profession or violate their beliefs?

You don't see anything wrong with the Supreme Court forcing people to make that decision?

For instance, he could change his business so that he only makes birthday cakes, not wedding cakes.

Wait. Wait. Wait.

Do you not understand how that would hurt their business? What if a third of their sales are for wedding cakes?

So, what you are saying is, the Supreme Court's decision forces bakery owners who have religious views regarding homosexuality to either change professions, severely hinder their sales or violate their religious beliefs?

You don't see any problem with the Supreme Court forcing people to make this decision?

Then, he can refuse wedding cakes to everyone, including same-sex couples.

And lose out on a bunch of business.

Why shouldn't homosexual couples just go to another bakery?

 

[Prestor John]

Tom

I don't find this funny.

Obviously what we believe will affect how we view the world.

What if I started claiming that your attraction to the same-sex was a "delusion" and your feelings about it did not affect that truth?

Don't associate me with robin.

 

[Jainarayan]

In post #533 you claimed that I was "making up" my beliefs and you even equated them to "drivel".

That was you obviously doing more than simply agreeing or disagreeing. You rejected them.

Mmm 'K... I reject them (your comments, not beliefs - difference) as made up drivel.

What are you assuming I don't know anything about?

Hinduism.

You were the one making fun of my beliefs. I did not say anything about Hinduism other than the fact that I do not agree with it.

Whoa, hold on cowboy... I did not, nor ever will make fun of your beliefs. If I was making fun of anything, it was your comments.

I don't know, but I'm sure you won't let your ignorance of their beliefs stop you from claiming they are all make believe drivel, will you?

Conjecture and speculation that I would reject their beliefs. I don't know enough about them to form an opinion. However, what we're talking about is not really your beliefs... it's what you do with your beliefs, or rather, how you apply them that's the problem.

 

[Prestor John]

You're emphasizing worthiness. I'm pretty sure I can still win on that point, but will just ask you go back to discrimination as defined by the dictionary (or as I already providing in this thread). Denying someone anything is based on discrimination.



You had me at yes. You are talking about 'discrimination against.' Denying someone something is likely to be discrimination against. As I brought up earlier, why if it's not a big deal that the civil union gets to occur, why not just have that for heterosexual types and the other form of marriage for homosexuals? Methinks, suddenly it would be bigger deal for you / heterosexuals, cause that will suddenly sink in how it is discrimination against. Either way, they're both man made versions of what our Father has already joined long before the physical existed.



From spiritual perspective, I would say it would be unreasonable. From earthly perspective, where morality is clearly (and always) relative, yeah, surely it can be justified. If we can justify murder/killing, after being explicitly told "do not kill," then pretty sure there's not something you can name that cannot be justifiable, and even appear 'reasonable.'



I think you are elevating caution to level of fear in this sort of assertion. In the Kingdom, there is literally nothing that can harm your child, any child. Here in the physical, where things are perceived as separate (namely from God, thus clearly outside of the Kingdom), fear is deemed 'justifiable' and considered in vein of 'wisdom.' It is not, and from spiritual perspective, it is being unreasonable. Fear is the opposite of Love, yet the tricky (and esoterically wise) point to be made is that Love has no opposite, nothing that can truly oppose it. Fear would just have zero reason to exist within the Kingdom. In reality (even our physical reality) it actually has zero reason to exist, but even I realize that takes great courage, and innocence, to fully be aware of this. I think a child is aware of this, until they learn what it means to be an adult.



Obviously, we'd disagree on this. It is us that have manifested a place where bounds (and separation of matter) exists. Not the Father. God's Word is all about having us become closer to Him/our Divine Self. For the truly devoted, some of what the message may entail is 'don't do this, as it will lead to your experiencing (or perceiving yourself as) hurt, delaying, dying, great anxiety.' I see much of that as highly personal to the one (on earth) that actually received the message, and not the truth for 'all people everywhere.' I realize it could be that way, but also realize it can be the other way. Sometimes to really understand Word, one needs to look for the positive message, rather than only focus on what 'God doesn't want us to do.' Helpful messaging, IMHO, is generally framed as "do only this" where 'this' is something positive to be affirmed in Life. The notion of "don't do this, but instead do this other thing" is not exactly helpful, and is, in and of itself a temptation. Cause surely we as Children are going to at least be wondering about what is wrong with doing the thing we're not supposed to be doing. Many of us might act that out, to test if Life truly is able to go on, or if Love does indeed have an opposite, a bound.

Messages such as:
- Love your neighbor as yourself
or
- Love almighty God with all your heart, mind and spirit

are positive affirmations. To get back to topic of this thread, neither of these messages are promoting anything related to sexuality, though for us, where love between two committed partners may be seen as 'greatest love this world knows,' then it might be seen as exactly what the message is about. So, if then taking the bastardized version of 'love your neighbor as yourself' to mean this applies foremost to my spouse, AND adding in there the confusing message of, 'but make sure your spouse isn't the same gender as you' - that a) is going to greatly detract from the original message and b) is going to act as a form of temptation to see if Love can hold up in relationships of people that are the same gender. This just in... it does!

I'm sorry. I don't understand most of what you are trying to say.

My position is that sin will hurt us. It does hurt us. The Father does not want us to commit sin. He has offered the means to be forgiven of sin, through His Son's Atoning Sacrifice, but the process of receiving forgiveness will require the penitent to cease committing sin.

 

[columbus]

I don't find this funny.

Obviously what we believe will affect how we view the world.

What if I started claiming that your attraction to the same-sex was a "delusion" and your feelings about it did not affect that truth?

Don't associate me with robin.

I don't find much about this topic amusing. But I don't see you as very different from @1robin.
Both of you consider it your religious freedom to preach your beliefs, and I have seen up close the damage done to actual humans.
Tom

 

[Prestor John]

I don't find much about this topic amusing. But I don't see you as very different from @1robin.
Both of you consider it your religious freedom to preach your beliefs, and I have seen up close the damage done to actual humans.
Tom

I don't understand the qualifier "actual" you used to describe humans.

Are you saying that I or robin, or those business owners whose religious freedoms are being taken away, not "actual" humans?

Do you believe that that damage of this issue is only travelling one-way?

Again, don't associate me with robin. We are very different on this topic.

 

[Prestor John]

Mmm 'K... I reject them (your comments, not beliefs - difference) as made up drivel.

Whoa, hold on cowboy... I did not, nor ever will make fun of your beliefs. If I was making fun of anything, it was your comments.

This makes no sense.

I shared my beliefs in my comment and then you claimed that they were make believe drivel.

You made fun of my beliefs, cowboy. Deal with it.

Hinduism.

Ok, let's get this straight.

You assume that because I claim not to agree with Hinduism, then I must be ignorant of it.

How can you not see how illogical that assumption is.

Conjecture and speculation that I would reject their beliefs. I don't know enough about them to form an opinion. However, what we're talking about is not really your beliefs... it's what you do with your beliefs, or rather, how you apply them that's the problem.

Ok. All I have done with my beliefs is share them.

So...is that the application your have a problem with?

I'm not allowed to share my beliefs because there might be people out there that disagree with me?

What are you trying to say?

 

[Jainarayan]

I shared my beliefs in my comment and then you claimed that they were make believe drivel.

There was no "I believe", or "I think" or "my belief/opinion is" anywhere. I take them as you making statements of fact.

You assume that because I claim not to agree with Hinduism, then I must be ignorant of it.

Did you not say or at least indicate that you don't know anything about it?

Ok. All I have done with my beliefs is share them.

So...is that the application your have a problem with?

I'm not allowed to share my beliefs because there might be people out there that disagree with me?

What are you trying to say?

You're not sharing beliefs, you're making statements. I'm saying that if you think and purport that there is something inherently wrong with homosexuality and/or homosexuals and/or homosexual sex, I reject that.

 

[Acim]

I'm sorry. I don't understand most of what you are trying to say.

Let me know which parts specifically, I'll be happy to clarify.

My position is that sin will hurt us. It does hurt us.

Hurt us how? Please provide examples.

The Father does not want us to commit sin.

He knows we are sinless. He knows we are Perfect as we are (in Spirit). He knows we are incapable of truly rendering ourselves as less than perfect, but understands that we see our own selves (and hence God) as less than perfect. Forgiveness overcomes this perspective.

He has offered the means to be forgiven of sin, through His Son's Atoning Sacrifice, but the process of receiving forgiveness will require the penitent to cease committing sin.

I remember when I used to think like this. Now, I find this between challenging and impossible to defend.