Is Being Gay Ok If You're Born That Way?

[Buttercup]

I never said that wasn't a possibility. I gave my opinion on the issue, but I never said that was the only possibility. But, I did not realise you wanted me to expound upon every single conceivable possibility, and so my lack of such expounding should not be seen as denial of these possibilities.

If you agree that there is more than one possibility regarding homosexuality and infallibility in the OT, why not be neutral regarding the gay issue?

 

[Aqualung]

If you agree that there is more than one possibility regarding homosexuality and infallibility in the OT, why not be neutral regarding the gay issue?

I don't understand what you're saying, but I'll try to respond to it the best I can.

Just because one accepts the possibility of multiple possibilities does not mean that one agrees are all equal. For example, I can accept the possibility that you are actually a man posing as a woman. It would be quite easy to do on a forum. In fact, I do it all the time. And yet, this possibility is not quite as likely as the fact that you are indeed a woman. Why do I feel like this? There are a number of reasons. One - I don't see that you have any reason to lie. Two - you went through a lot of trouble what with your picture in your profile and all, and I would think that if one were trying to be a gender that they weren't online that they would just keep it more simple. Three - you've mentioned things before that I don't really see as things men would generally say. So, you see, even though I have two possibilites in regards to your sex (you are either a woman as you say or a man pretending to be a woman), the first possibility seems much more likely in my opinion and being neutral on this issue is therefore quite impossible. In the same regard, even though I see multiple possibilites on the the issue of homosexual sex in the Bible, one possibility (that of a corrupt and fallen which gives all people numerous shortcomings and equally numerous strengths when following the law) seems more likely. So, even though there are numerous possibilities, it would require me to throw out all my previously held ideas and thoughts about the Bible in general and Christianity more specifically just to remain "neutral" (a state which I do not find at all superior to actually having a preference).

So, now I must ask you, why WOULD I be neutral? I can't (but perhaps you can) think of one situation in which there are multiple possibilites in which one SHOULD be neutral.

 

[Buttercup]

So, now I must ask you, why WOULD I be neutral? I can't (but perhaps you can) think of one situation in which there are multiple possibilites in which one SHOULD be neutral.

You aren't neutral regarding this issue because of your religious convictions obviously. This very topic is one that I feel people should be neutral about...especially when the science behind it isn't decided. When the definitive answer to anything is unknown ...people should most assuredly remain neutral so as not to look stupid.

If homosexuality is genetically determined before birth and programmed as an unchangeable characteristic, my thought is that anyone who thinks of homosexuality as sin is a bigot and discriminatory.

 

[Quiddity]

You aren't neutral regarding this issue because of your religious convictions obviously. This very topic is one that I feel people should be neutral about...especially when the science behind it isn't decided. When the definitive answer to anything is unknown ...people should most assuredly remain neutral so as not to look stupid.

If homosexuality is genetically determined before birth and programmed as an unchangeable characteristic, my thought is that anyone who thinks of homosexuality as sin is a bigot and discriminatory.

What if you only see homosexual sex as sinful?

This is why I kept saying earlier that the scientific findings would be irrelavant to us. It's no different to us then a heterosexual committing certain sexual acts.

 

[Buttercup]

What if you only see homosexual sex as sinful?

Does this point matter to anyone gay in reality? How many homosexuals aren't going to have sex?

This is why I kept saying earlier that the scientific findings would be irrelavant to us. It's no different to us then a heterosexual committing certain sexual acts.

Sorry, but I still find this attitude troubling. It's almost as if the religious don't want to understand science. Or, more precisely, even if science says something is true...if it goes against your religious teachings, it's false.

 

[Quiddity]

Does this point matter to anyone gay in reality? How many homosexuals aren't going to have sex?

Sorry, but I still find this attitude troubling. It's almost as if the religious don't want to understand science. Or, more precisely, even if science says something is true...if it goes against your religious teachings, it's false.

That's the thing, it's not going against my religious beliefs. That might be what you are wishing would happen, but unless something actually does I'll let you know what my response is.

BTW, you really should stop painting this anti-science view in all Christians. I certainly am not anti-science.

Just thought I'd clear that up.

 

[Aqualung]

What if you only see homosexual sex as sinful?

This is why I kept saying earlier that the scientific findings would be irrelavant to us. It's no different to us then a heterosexual committing certain sexual acts.

Has anybody in this thread said differently? I just jumped in, after all, without reading, and your opinion is the same as mine, so I was wondering if there was any other opinion discussed apart from Buttercup's and ours.

 

[Quiddity]

Has anybody in this thread said differently? I just jumped in, after all, without reading, and your opinion is the same as mine, so I was wondering if there was any other opinion discussed apart from Buttercup's and ours.

I haven't seen it.

 

[Buttercup]

That's the thing, it's not going against my religious beliefs. That might be what you are wishing would happen, but unless something actually does I'll let you know what my response is.

*sigh* You are saying that a gay person who does not have sex is not sinning. Being gay is not a sin until the sex act comes in. I get that, I got that a million years ago. But, as I said...most gays are going to have sexual relations and that is sin to you, correct? So, your stance means nothing to them.

BTW, you really should stop painting this anti-science view in all Christians. I am certainly am not anti-science.

Just thought I'd clear that up.

I'm only making a reference to this issue (genetic origins of homosexuality) regarding Christians and science. It's almost as if science means nothing regarding the issue.

 

[Aqualung]

You aren't neutral regarding this issue because of your religious convictions obviously.

Don't pretend you know my psyche better than I do, especially to the point of it being "obvious". I'm not neutral on ANY topic (as I pointed out in my previous post), regardless of my religious convictions (and often in spite of my religious convictions). Now, I'm going to repost that comment, because you didn't address any of my points, especially the question directed specifically at you. Now, it's fine if you don't want to address my points; it leads me to believe that either you are confused and believe that you have answered my points (which can happen when debating multiple people along multiple lines) or (when, instead of answering my points, you begin addressing things towards me that AREN'T my points, in fact that are the antithesis of my points) that all you really want to do is fight me, and when my own views are not contrary enough you must create my views for me. Please, let me know which of these (or perhaps there is a third reason) it is. If it's the second it would be great to know so I don't waste my time with such disrespect, but if the first I would greatly like to continue, and will do my best to remind you of points that you have overlooked.

Just because one accepts the possibility of multiple possibilities does not mean that one agrees are all equal. For example, I can accept the possibility that you are actually a man posing as a woman. It would be quite easy to do on a forum. In fact, I do it all the time. And yet, this possibility is not quite as likely as the fact that you are indeed a woman. Why do I feel like this? There are a number of reasons. One - I don't see that you have any reason to lie. Two - you went through a lot of trouble what with your picture in your profile and all, and I would think that if one were trying to be a gender that they weren't online that they would just keep it more simple. Three - you've mentioned things before that I don't really see as things men would generally say. So, you see, even though I have two possibilites in regards to your sex (you are either a woman as you say or a man pretending to be a woman), the first possibility seems much more likely in my opinion and being neutral on this issue is therefore quite impossible. In the same regard, even though I see multiple possibilites on the the issue of homosexual sex in the Bible, one possibility (that of a corrupt and fallen which gives all people numerous shortcomings and equally numerous strengths when following the law) seems more likely. So, even though there are numerous possibilities, it would require me to throw out all my previously held ideas and thoughts about the Bible in general and Christianity more specifically just to remain "neutral" (a state which I do not find at all superior to actually having a preference).

So, now I must ask you, why WOULD I be neutral? I can't (but perhaps you can) think of one situation in which there are multiple possibilites in which one SHOULD be neutral.

This very topic is one that I feel people should be neutral about...especially when the science behind it isn't decided. When the definitive answer to anything is unknown ...people should most assuredly remain neutral so as not to look stupid.

The definitive answer to EVERYTHING is unknown, and yet people hold opinions on all things. Nobody will ever have complete knowledge about anything, no matter how inconsequential.

I have also mentioned a number of times that to me the science on this issue is a moot point. It doesn't matter to me if people choose homosexual sex or if it is a result of the fallen and corrupt state in which EVERYONE lives. All people have physical difficulties they must overcome in order to live the gospel. Nobody is immune to these - why should only one group of people get off easy? So, not only do I disagree that people should remain neutral about all topics upon which they do not have complete knowledge (as I maintain that complete knowledge can never be had), but the lack of knowledge in this regard is so completely distant from the topic at hand that it should have no influence on neutrality anyway.

 

[Quiddity]

*sigh* You are saying that a gay person who does not have sex is not sinning. Being gay is not a sin until the sex act comes in. I get that, I got that a million years ago. But, as I said...most gays are going to have sexual relations and that is sin to you, correct? So, your stance means nothing to them.

As if all homosexuals were in agreement on this.
There are several homosexual priests in my Church for example. Not to mention several in the Orthodox Church and Protestant churches.

Besides the point was that your assumption of science stumping my (and many others) religious beliefs has little merit because of what I just mentioned.

I'm only making a reference to this issue (genetic origins of homosexuality) regarding Christians and science. It's almost as if science means nothing regarding the issue.

It's not like it wouldn't have an influence on me BC. It certainly would.

 

[Buttercup]

Don't pretend you know my psyche better than I do, especially to the point of it being "obvious". I'm not neutral on ANY topic (as I pointed out in my previous post), regardless of my religious convictions (and often in spite of my religious convictions). Now, I'm going to repost that comment, because you didn't address any of my points, especially the question directed specifically at you. Now, it's fine if you don't want to address my points; it leads me to believe that either you are confused and believe that you have answered my points (which can happen when debating multiple people along multiple lines) or (when, instead of answering my points, you begin addressing things towards me that AREN'T my points, in fact that are the antithesis of my points) that all you really want to do is fight me, and when my own views are not contrary enough you must create my views for me. Please, let me know which of these (or perhaps there is a third reason) it is. If it's the second it would be great to know so I don't waste my time with such disrespect, but if the first I would greatly like to continue, and will do my best to remind you of points that you have overlooked.

I have no idea what you're talking about Aqua. But if you keep up this crappy attitude like you always do...I'm going to put you on ignore again. You drive me nuts.

The definitive answer to EVERYTHING is unknown,

This is complete BS.

I have also mentioned a number of times that to me the science on this issue is a moot point.

Exactly...because of your religious convictions as I already stated. Tell me another reason why you find being gay wrong? Anything logical will do.

 

[Buttercup]

As if all homosexuals were in agreement on this.
There are several homosexual priests in my Church for example. Not to mention several in the Orthodox Church and Protestant churches.

"several" is not a majority.

Besides the point was that your assumption of science stumping my (and many others) religious beliefs has little merit because of what I just mentioned.

mention of what?

It's not like it wouldn't have an influence on me BC. It certainly would.

How?

 

[Aqualung]

I have no idea what you're talking about Aqua. But if you keep up this crappy attitude like you always do...I'm going to put you on ignore again. You drive me nuts.

This is complete BS.

WEll, I see you have no point in actually debating the issues I bring up (as opposed to the ones you continually bring up but I contend are moot), so I guess that's the end of that. It was fun while it lasted, but for some reason I guess your opinions of my attitude get in your way of having a debate with me. I guess I'll let Victor be the mouthpiece, now - since we had the same opinion anyway it seems silly to try to continue on with this.

Exactly...because of your religious convictions as I already stated. Tell me another reason why you find being gay wrong? Anything logical will do.

I will respond to this - I DON'T. I have stated time and time again that I see nothing wrong with homosexuality qua homosexuality. You twist my words when you say (again, time and time again) that I do.

 

[Buttercup]

I will respond to this - I DON'T. I have stated time and time again that I see nothing wrong with homosexuality qua homosexuality. You twist my words when you say (again, time and time again) that I do.

You know damn well what the issue is at hand. We are talking about homosexuals having sex. You find that sin. You are the one that keeps twisting it around. NOBODY cares that you find it NOT a sin to be gay and not have sex. So what!!

 

[Quiddity]

"several" is not a majority.

Did I say otherwise?

mention of what?

That science concluding that homosexuality is deffinately something you are born with would be irrelavent to my faith because it's not homosexuality that is the sin, but homosexual sex acts.

How?

Beats me...I certainly won't keep silent when it does.

 

[Buttercup]

That science concluding that homosexuality is deffinately something you are born with would be irrelavent to my faith because it's not homosexuality that is the sin, but homosexual sex acts.
.

You've told me this multiple time before. Why you felt the need to contribute it again in my thread I have no idea.

 

[Quiddity]

You know damn well what the issue is at hand. We are talking about homosexuals having sex. You find that sin. You are the one that keeps twisting it around. NOBODY cares that you find it NOT a sin to be gay and not have sex. So what!!

Seriously BC, if "nobody cares" why are you talking to us then?

 

[Quiddity]

You've told me this multiple time before. Why you felt the need to contribute it again in my thread I have no idea.

Because you asked me:
"mention what?"

 

[Buttercup]

Seriously BC, if "nobody cares" why are you talking to us then?

Maybe I'm hoping to get a different answer from a Christian other than, "being gay is not a sin if it's not acted upon". So far, no luck....well except for Lunamoth.