Homosexuality not included.

[no-body]

Everyone crams their beliefs down everyone elses throat, in fact, you are doing it now. Relativism and individualism are belief systems, whether you like it or not. Every religion offers a definition of morality, as do most philosophies. Jeremy Bentham comes to mind when talking about collectivism vs individualism.

This is why the neutral objective secular point of view is so important. You can justify some very evil beliefs with your philosophy, but whatever helps you sleep at night.

Like I said keeping someone else from discriminating against someone is not discrimination or an infringement.

 

[Spirited]

This is why the neutral objective secular point of view is so important. You can justify some very evil beliefs with your philosophy, but whatever helps you sleep at night.

Like I said keeping someone else from discriminating against someone is not discrimination or an infringement.

Objective secular points of view were used in Germany about 90 years ago to justify genocide and Eugenics.

 

[Looncall]

Whoa, great question!

In those terms, there is certainly a heterosexual lifestyle. Not all heterosexual people necessarily live this lifestyle, but most do (priests and nuns being an obvious but not exclusive exception, as they are celibate). All priests and nuns are either heterosexual, bi-sexual, or homosexual (pansexual I guess could be included here as well). They choose, however, not to give themselves to any sexuality at all. Do I have anything against homosexual priests who do not allow themselves any sexual contact at all or think that they are evil? Absolutely not. Likewise, I do not think there is anything wrong with harboring homosexual feelings if one tries to live a heterosexual lifestyle.

I don't hate anyone for choosing not to live by my ideals, but I will still evangelize my viewpoint and try to do what I can to help those who are willing to listen (straight or gay).

Once again, I don't hate anyone. I use very absolute, unyielding speech when I outline my beliefs, but that doesn't mean I hate gay people. I just think that allowing them to marry would be condemning them to a horrible fate. I personally have known and heard testimonies given by people who have strong homosexual tendencies that decided they wanted to live a heterosexual lifestyle with a wife and their own children. I believe that if an individual does this with the right motivation, and is open with their partner about their difficulties, they can succeed. Is doing this hard? Certainly it's hard.

There is a perception about asking gays to live a heterosexual lifestyle, and that it is somehow totally radical and different from what others go through, but it really isn't that different at all. Alcoholism runs in my family and if I have a single drink, I won't want to stop until I run out of money or pass out, it's simply how it works. Naturally, as I have that tendency, I love to drink! However, it is for that very reason, that I can never responsibly do so. Many people struggle with sexual addictions, gambling addictions, video game addictions, substance addictions, and other compulsions that they really cannot completely overcome in their lifetime. I'm not condemning anyone for having problems, I have a ton too, but I know that it's my responsibility as a human being to overcome them and set an example for others who wish to.

For some, no explanation I can give will ever be good enough. For people who don't understand the nature of alcoholism, the comparison is probably unacceptable. I hope that makes sense and I welcome more debate*


Edit*


Everyone crams their beliefs down everyone elses throat, in fact, you are doing it now. Relativism and individualism are belief systems, whether you like it or not. Every religion offers a definition of morality, as do most philosophies. Jeremy Bentham comes to mind when talking about collectivism vs individualism.

While you are welcome to impose religious taboos on yourself, you are not at all welcome to try to impose them on others.

 

[JacobEzra.]

How so?
You are the one who keeps repeating the fact that you are unable to masturbate without inappropriate thoughts of others as though you are looking for others to jump in and also admit to the same affliction in support of your argument.

Repeating? No I argued that masturbating included lusting after women, which according to the scripture I qouted, would show it to be a sin. I was not "looking for others to jump in" or anything else. I said it once when someone tried to say masturbation does not include any lust.

I am merely flat out asking if that is what you were doing.

How exactly is that uncalled for?

I read what you said differently the first time. But no, I am not repeating anything, but the fact that it takes lust to commit masturbation making it a sin to a christian. Which is on topic and relevant. Maybe you should stay with the discussion that involved that post?

 

[no-body]

Objective secular points of view were used in Germany about 90 years ago to justify genocide and Eugenics.

[citation needed] :areyoucra

Mass killings of people would obviously infringe on rights so it is not secularly humanistic. Religious and mystical reasons where equally used by the Nazis.

 

[A. T. Henderson]

Objective secular points of view were used in Germany about 90 years ago to justify genocide and Eugenics.

No, they weren't. An objective point of view cannot justify either of those things.

 

[McBell]

Repeating? No I argued that masturbating included lusting after women, which according to the scripture I qouted, would show it to be a sin. I was not "looking for others to jump in" or anything else. I said it once when someone tried to say masturbation does not include any lust.



I read what you said differently the first time. But no, I am not repeating anything, but the fact that it takes lust to commit masturbation making it a sin to a christian. Which is on topic and relevant. Maybe you should stay with the discussion that involved that post?

And yet again you admit that you cannot masturbate without inappropriate thoughts of others while claiming that because YOU cannot accomplish it, no one can.

You have done nothing here but further my point and avoid answering my question.

 

[Photonic]

Can't lust after your own wife?

How the &^@#?

 

[fallingblood]

Homosexuality is mentioned, no doubt. But it's never condemned outright. The reference in I Corinthians, if I'm not mistaken, is actually about idolatry, and the many things it could lead to. But it is the idolatry that is being condemned, and not the homosexuality.

The reference in 1 Corinthians is about a number of different "sins" or what what not. It is not talking about just one thing.

And I didn't say that homosexuality is being condemned.

 

[fallingblood]

Looks like someone got hit a little too close to home.

Why would any straight guy, secure in their sexuality care about homosexuality?

Same reason people cared about slavery, left handed people, Jews, Italians, Native Americans, atheists, etc. They are minorities that either get persecuted or supported.

 

[fallingblood]

I don't frown upon "being gay", I frown upon acting out on gayness. It's not equitable to the KKK because "black", is a state of being and no action contributes to or distributes from this distinction. I am aware that many call homosexuality a state of being as well, and I am not here to argue for or against that, but rather that it is the acting out of the desire that is immoral, not the having of said desire.

Heterosexual or bisexual people can commit homosexual actions. White people cannot commit "being black", so I don't see the comparison to the Klan at all. They target a single group of individuals who were forcibly removed from their own nation and placed in America against their will. They hate them regardless of their lifestyle choices or demeanor. I don't hate anyone, I just wish that certain actions that I see as inherently wrong will not become legally permissible for anyone, regardless of whether or not they are highly predisposed to committing these acts.

So you just want to punish homosexuals for being attracted to the same sex? Or just regulate how they can show love to each other? Why force them to hide who they are?

 

[fallingblood]

Objective secular points of view were used in Germany about 90 years ago to justify genocide and Eugenics.

It was hardly that simple. Much of the anti-Semitism stemmed directly from what many Christians claimed. Anti-Semitism was a product of the rise of Christianity and the battle that was fought between the two sides. Now both sides were guilty of the mudslinging, but regretfully, one side became very dominant and made their bigotry more common.

Now, it is not just Christianity that caused this idea, but they did have a huge hand in it. Another underlying factor was the fact that Jews were a minority, and people find any justification to persecute them. It is hardly an objective secular point of view that caused this.

Finally, there is also a form of state formed "religion" that comes into play. Those are just a few of the factors that played in the whole ordeal. To try to simplify is so crudely like you did simply causes more problems, and hides that actual problems.

 

[krsnaraja]

No, your all pretty much wrong. Its from the verse in Matthew 5
[27] You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. [28] But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.

You cant masturbate without lusting

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...es/122702-everything-revolves-around-sex.html

Learn from this thread, my dear Jacobezra.

 

[JacobEzra.]

And yet again you admit that you cannot masturbate without inappropriate thoughts of others while claiming that because YOU cannot accomplish it, no one can.

You have done nothing here but further my point and avoid answering my question.

You had no question to begin with.

I am arguing truth, you are not. All you have been doing is giving pathetic sly remarks.

 

[krsnaraja]

You had no question to begin with.

I am arguing truth, you are not. All you have been doing is giving pathetic sly remarks.

Calm down, my dear Jacobezra. I know you mean well. It is just that somethings never change. You make it an advocacy & bang! Homosexual mobs go after you. Just let them be.

 

[JacobEzra.]

I have not even talked much about homosexuality. I just said one thing, someone said another, and this shmuck jumps in, not with an argument, just with pathetic sly remarks.

 

[Awoon]

Are Homosexuals condemned sinners by God or Human religions?

 

[krsnaraja]

Are Homosexuals condemned sinners by God or Human religions?

Dear Jacobezra,

Even birdy, Awoon, knows the truth.


Truly yours,

Krsnaraja

 

[Straw Dog]

I still haven't seen God or Jesus post a comment on this thread. It's just everyone speaking on their behalf and they're really just speaking on behalf of other people who're speaking on behalf of other people speaking on behalf of other people, etc, etc.... eventually on behalf of Jesus and God, apparently. Why should I take what people thought two thousand years as absolute truth? We have all these advanced forms of communication and you're all telling me that the method most preferred by God is whispering into the ears of some people several thousand years ago and trusting them to convey it perfectly through oral tradition over generations upon generations before finally being put down in and disseminated after the invention of the printing press in the 1400s? Nobody else sees why this is worthy of distrust and doubt?

Strange...

 

[Straw Dog]

I still haven't seen God or Jesus post a comment on this thread. It's just everyone speaking on their behalf and they're really just speaking on behalf of other people who're speaking on behalf of other people speaking on behalf of other people, etc, etc.... eventually on behalf of Jesus and God, apparently. Why should I take what people thought two thousand years as absolute truth? We have all these advanced forms of communication and you're all telling me that the method most preferred by God is whispering into the ears of some people several thousand years ago and trusting them to convey it perfectly through oral tradition over generations upon generations before finally being put down in and disseminated after the invention of the printing press in the 1400s? Nobody else sees why this is worthy of distrust and doubt?

Strange...

I'm sorry, I realize that this is all beside the point I guess. It's just one of the few beliefs that genuinely baffles my mind and sometimes I cannot resist venting my profound sense of confusion over it. Perhaps its not for me to understand, as some Christians say you need the "Holy Spirit" inside you before you can accept it all on faith, although I don't know what that means either. Yet we are all debating what some people thought thousands of years ago and not even what they thought but what other people thought that they thought and then who wrote down what they apparently thought, etc. And this is all suppose to convey absolute truth about all the details in our lives, including how we treat homosexuals? Sorry, there I go again. I'm done venting now.