Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[Acim]

According to God that is sin. God does not recognize homosexual marriages.

Wrong again.

Since God is the creator of all languages every letter in ever word is from God. Tell me how you know "better not to marry " is from Paul, not from God.

So, you go with the Progressive version of Word. Thus every book written, all of it is Word of God. Good to know you agree on that front. Therefore when Paul says (in 1 Corinthians 7:12) "But to the rest I speak (not the Lord)" it is God speaking, and you get this is God, because you uphold tenet of Progressive Revelation. Granted at the most extreme degree, but still if consistent with this, then can't really argue that any written/spoken word is not of God. All the books praising homosexuality, making it clear it is not a sin against God, are words from God.

 

[Acim]

My looking for someone to present we with a good argument in defense of homosexuality

Here is challenging argument in favor of homosexuality and marriage.

Let's say two people are of the same gender and attracted to each other. Both have made it known to anyone that cares that their attraction is homosexual. And both have taken a vow of celibacy. So both homosexual and neither is engaging in the behavior / act of homosexuality. Can you explain why you would not be in favor of these two people getting married to each other? Feel free to come from the bible, but if you can come from Gospel, I'll certainly sit up and take notice.

 

[Acim]

I think it was someone who suggested I use arguments from God instead of from the CDC.

I have witnessed to CDC making up statistics and conclusions based on reported statistics. I'm sure for many/most, citing CDC works wonders in confirming so called evidence. For me, it is a highly questionable source. I take all such citings with a grain of salt.

 

[Acim]

I don't see anything wrong with it at all.

So, if marriage between a 52 year old male and a 15 year old male were the law of the land, you'd be totally okay with making it so any business that wishes to discriminate (by not providing goods and services to this legal couple) are forced to provide their business service or product to that couple? In vein of a product that the business writes and says, "we are honored by your marriage, and wish you all the best going forward."

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Since it is the truth, it is the loving thing to do.

That is not loving, and your opinion of being "truth" does not make it so. Telling people they are abominations and going to Hell to the point is causes clinical issues should only ever be considered hatred.

Punishment is never mandatory.

Leviticus 20 is one example where the Bible mandates not only punishment, but specifically death over a number of things.

Have you ever seen a Christian demand a homosexual be stoned?

Yes, I actually have. Though specifically stoning tends to not be very common (I think I've only heard of one in the West wanting that).

How do you know tht?

Because I do know that as I refuse to let an ancient book written by people who didn't even know the value of pi, who consider women as part of the spoils of war, degrade and define me as this "sinner" concept that does not apply to me.

In over 40 years in conservative churches I have never heard a sermon condemning homosexuals.

Perhaps. Or perhaps you didn't notice it.

That is not typical and you know it.

Actually, it happens often enough that we are beginning to recognize "religious trauma syndrome" as a problem.

Where did He say that?

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. - Matthew 5:18

It is not bane unless it is put into law and just the opposite has happened.

We have seen laws permitting the discrimination and even bullying of LBGT based on nothing more than religion. We see Christians fighting against non-discrimination laws. We see Christians putting their own Bible before the health and well being of others (even when science and medical research support those the Christians are trying to order around).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, if marriage between a 52 year old male and a 15 year old male were the law of the land,

It isn't.

Edit: to clarify - my post was about reality as it is right now, not about any hypothetical scenario you might dream up after the fact.

 

[Shad]

I am not sure how I feel about teaching sex education in schools. It seems to be a modern trend that parents (especially bad ones) try to get the state to raise the children they won't. Liberals are taking away the rolls that parents and the Church should have and giving them to the state of all things.

This is hilarious considering Protestantism was the faction that moved education to the state away from the Church. Your grasp of history is very poor.

 

[Acim]

I am not debating homosexual orientation. I am debating homosexual behavior and every adult knows exactly what that is.

I don't think every adult knows exactly what that is. I think there are preconceptions, some of which are within domain of such behavior, but arguably a whole lot that isn't. Such that if two males are in a relationship and both are strictly against anal sex, I think it would confuse a few people as to what kind of sexual relationship they may enjoy together. Plus, there's the idea of foreplay or non-intercourse, non genital touching that would make for gray lines/confusion. If two males are hugging, is this homosexual behavior? Is it just two males embracing each other, in loving way, that makes for such behavior? I would think most people (probably mostly females) would say no. But surely some guys would see that as 'gay' and something to avoid, cause of feelings it could bring up in either of the males. Yet, imagine if such behavior was enough for two males who both self reference as homosexual. Or if it's more than this, but still not genital touching, as in full body (or nearly full body) massages being given to each other in loving way. Yet, neither is attracted to each other. I think some guys see that as gay. Me, I've had that done to me, massage from male in loving, caring way, but not a sexual way. Was clear to me this was not going to lead to sex/touching of genitals. At times, I definitely prefer such a thing from a male than female. Other times, I prefer a female touch.

If genitals are being touched, in sexual way, I'd draw line and call that sexual intercourse. For others, I've seen that not being considered intercourse, such that Bill Clinton didn't have sexual relations with Lewinsky, cause you know, people give other people head all the time, and have stains on the dresses to prove it.

Yet, if genitals are not being touched, I'd still consider it sexual. Yet, not strictly sexual, as it could be more loving, caring, nurturing than whatever the connotations are around sexual behavior. I know plenty of female attracted males who if a female just touches/embraces their forearm while they are having a conversation (both a fully dressed), they consider this a come on, and are sure the woman is into them. I mean, why else would she engage in such an action if she wasn't at least a little attracted to the guy, enough to touch/embrace him, in a friendly/loving way? Are guys slapping each other on the butt (fully clothed) engaged in homosexual behavior? Could both be straight, but the question remains, is that homosexual behavior?

These questions, and more can (easily) be asked, and is why I am fairly certain not every adult knows exactly what makes for homosexual behavior. And given all the unwritten stuff that makes for sexuality (all of it), I actually feel like there's a small handful of people that get it, and a whole lot of people that more or less need to be hit over the head for it to be discernible to them.

 

[Acim]

It isn't.

Edit: to clarify - my post was about reality as it is right now, not about any hypothetical scenario you might dream up after the fact.

So, you're afraid to speak to the hypothetical? Why?

When SSM wasn't the law of the land, were those who were afraid of it, proper (as you are now in refusing to answer) in their discrimination? Depending on how you respond to this, would seem then that the goal would be to change the law, not just accept it, and move on.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, you're afraid to speak to the hypothetical?

Wow - you're really bad at inference.

Since you have no problem inventing the other side of the conversation, I don't see a need to participate in this sideshow.

 

[Acim]

Wow - you're really bad at inference.

Since you have no problem inventing the other side of the conversation, I don't see a need to participate in this sideshow.

Hence your discrimination. Which in turn justifies the other. There is clearly reasons for (literally) all businesses to discriminate, and all of them do. When they are discriminatory, it raises red flags for some, but that's going to continue. And when new laws are passed that violate some people's sense of morality, it takes time to sort that out. Given that some are so afraid to consider doors that are being opened on certain policy decisions, and won't speak to such things for various reasons, then the goal becomes to repeal the law that is causing turmoil. As long as repealing is not occurring, then the businesses having problem will just resist any alleged mandate and hope a higher court can understand their side, and seek to undermine any sense of mandate.

I really do think if the religious/morality aspect of SSM is removed from the table, that the doors that will be opened (technically already are open, but not necessarily seen as wide open) will move things such as my hypothetical out into the open. Though, that won't be the next thing on the docket. I actually think it'll be the last.

 

[1robin]

You do realize that the existence of LGBT people isn't at issue here, right?

Can you please post what I said that made you respond with the above. I never intentionally mentioned anyone's existence. If I did it was accidental, outside of that you lost me.

When it comes to same-sex marriage, the only available options are:

No offense intended but exactly how many times must I say that I was talking about homosexual sexual behavior before it is enough? In addition I have also specifically stated I was not talking about orientation or marriage.

- LGBT people have relationships, and have the option of legally marrying. What each church does is up to them.
- LGBT people have relationships, and can't legally marry. What each church does is up to them.

Are you actually saying that I did not know homosexuals have relationships? Why do intelligent people commit intellectual suicide when they defend homosexuality.

Also I am not talking about anything so fluid or trivial as legality.

That's it. From a religious perspective, the only real question is whether God prefers gay sex to be between legally single partners or partners in a civil marriage.

What is it? I have emphatically stated over and over that I was not making a theological argument. See post #650 for one instance of this.

The only way I can see to link any of your arguments to the actual issue is like this:

- the existence of gay people offends you
- therefore, you want to make them as unhappy as possible.
- since same-sex marriage makes the couples in it happy, you're against it.

Am I wrong?

Wrong, and at this point I am done restating my arguments over and over and over, to no effect.

 

[1robin]

It is quite coherent indeed. To not see that is to show a grave misunderstanding, or rather, a non-understanding of what homosexuality is and is not.

Again I do not care about what you believe, I care about what is true and what you can demonstrate to be logical, rational, based on evidence, and coherence. I can demonstrate what was incoherent about what I responded to, and your claiming that you believe I am wrong does nothing to show that I actually am wrong. Cut out the appeals to what you believe, your not making arguments, your merely saying what you prefer.

 

[1robin]

An argument for something which is, does not need to be made. You really, honestly, truly think that we make a choice to be attracted to members of our own sex, don't you? Actually, I've heard that for so long - "it's a choice" - that it doesn't surprise me. But no, it's not a choice. And while it may be a choice (for anyone) whether to have sex or not, why should I be deprived of physical pleasure just because YOU don't think it's proper? My Gods, what effrontery, temerity and hubris! Nor do I care what your God thinks of it, because I don't report to him. I'm not even convinced he exists as you envision him, or that he even really cares, much as you'd like him to.

Well since you have at least twice admitted you not only do not have an argument, and do not feel you should post one even if you had one. In that case I will no longer respond to you in this thread and if you keep this up anyway I will put you on ignore because you appear to be nothing more than a troll.

 

[Jainarayan]

I care about what is true

Tell me what is true.

 

[Jainarayan]

Well since you have at least twice admitted you not only do not have an argument, and do not feel you should post one even if you had one.

I don't recall saying that. I said no argument needs to be made.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sounds good.

Let me restate my primary contentions and where it is I believe we left off at last time. You can correct me if you remember anything differently.

My two main contentions are:

1. Homosexual behavior (sex) causes losses of health, life, and property to such a massive extent that whatever benefits result from it are not enough to morally justify the behavior.
2. Heterosexual behavior (sex) causes far lower losses of health, life, and property and has a much higher magnitude of benefits so that it can be morally justified.

Keep in mind that these behaviors must be adjusted for population inequalities because the fact that more of us are heterosexual is not causally linked to the costs of heterosexual behavior.

As to where we left off. I believe that you showed that perhaps one of the pillars (divorce rates) I used to show the costs of homosexual behavior may not have been accurate but as I recall you did not present a serious challenge to the majority of costs associated with homosexual behavior.

So with that you may fire when ready. Lets try to keep this from growing prohibitively too large too fast if possible.

Okay, I'm just trying to figure out where to jump back into this thing here.

I think the main problem with the divorce stats is that a lot of them are inconclusive at this point, (with some higher and some lower than "traditional" marriage) given that in many parts of the world, same sex marriage has only recently been established and so the stats are lacking in many areas. So we really can't make any declarative statements either way.

Another one of the things I took issue with was your focus on sexual behavior that you deemed homosexual in nature, even though they are acts that are practiced by people of all sexual orientations and are not exclusive to homosexuals. And so any argument you make against "homosexual sex" also applies to "heterosexual sex." Heterosexuals are pretty good at spreading diseases all on their own.

I know I pointed out (as many on the thread have) that your argument about HIV/AIDS only sort of works if you focus only on American stats while ignoring the situation in the rest of the world, which actually paints quite a different picture.


Boy, it's kind of hard to jump in from memory like this. I'll see if I can respond to some of the other posts you've made on the thread, which might be easier.

 

[omega2xx]

Wrong again.

Don't tell m, show me.

[QUOTESo, you go with the Progressive version of Word. Thus every book written, all of it is Word of God. Good to know you agree on that front. Therefore when Paul says (in 1 Corinthians 7:12) "But to the rest I speak (not the Lord)" it is God speaking, and you get this is God, because you uphold tenet of Progressive Revelation.

First, I don't accept progressive revelation. The canon is complete.

ranted at the most extreme degree, but still if consistent with this, then can't really argue that any written/spoken word is not of God. All the books praising homosexuality, making it clear it is not a sin against God, are words from God.

What books are you talking about? I reject you whole premise. You have nothing to support it.

 

[Acim]

First, I don't accept progressive revelation. The canon is complete.

Then I see this as backtracking from your earlier assertion: God is the creator of all languages every letter in ever word is from God.

What books are you talking about? I reject you whole premise. You have nothing to support it.

All books, ever. Obviously, your doublespeak can't be of any help in supporting it. Such as: God creates every word, but God doesn't create every word, but God wrote everything in the Bible, but Paul said he speaks not the Lord and you interpret that as surely God is speaking.

 

[1robin]

My point

Straight people do this just as much as LGBT community. Homosexuality has nothing to do with behavior.

No straight people do not, and yes it is about behavior, that is the only thing it is about. Even if you entitled to your own opinion you want last long or do anyone any good by inventing your own non-existent evidence.

Why single out the homosexual community?

Because this is a homosexual thread, genius. However I did not single out a community I singled out a behavior, actually a whole series of behaviors.