Is gay still gay?

[LuisDantas]

But putting that into perspective, do we have the same attitude towards pedophiles? Can we envision pedophilia becoming an accepted lifestyle choice among people who also "can't help" their natural sexual attractions?

Pedophilia, from the available knowledge, isn't a choice, but it is very different from homosexuality in that it can't be safety acted upon.

 

[Penumbra]

Has being gay become mainstream? Is being gay no longer an outsider activity?

The suicide rates and attempted suicide rates among gay youth are still several times the national average in many developed countries. I think that's a pretty good barometer of where it's at in terms of acceptance and mainstream.

Studies also show that the suicide rate is highly variable and is basically entirely attributable to society and discrimination. For example, youth with parents that accept their sexual orientation and that are not excessively bullied for it by their peers, tend to have suicide rates that get closer to the average, whereas youth that have unaccepting (often religious, but not always) parents, or that are extensively bullied for it, tend to have extraordinarily high suicide rates, and the overall demographic has high suicide rates because of it. Other things like Gay-Straight alliances at schools have been shown in some studies to halve attempted suicide rates among LGBT students at those schools.

So no, I don't think there's any quantitative reason to think that being gay is mainstream yet.

 

[JayJayDee]

Stop with your passive aggressiveness. I'm sick of your insulting attitude. Pegg isn't continually rude as you are to me, so stop it. I disagree with her but there's no reason to be mean about it. Don't try to turn this around on me. We're talking about homosexuality, not my personal beliefs.

My apologies, being "passive aggressive" was not my intention. I will refrain from responding to you in future. I did not deliberately single you out for criticism, but merely pointed out that your indecisiveness could be creating problems for you. I am sorry if that was out of line.

You said you were married. So you got to experience love, romance and intimacy.

Yes, when I was younger. But believe me, the whole passion/romance thing pretty much wears off with the honeymoon. Those who can keep the intimacy going strong throughout their marriage are an exception to the rule rather than being the experience of the majority. The romance novels and movies are a bit misleading. Why do you think people have such a regular turnover of partners these days? It is the only way to keep 'romance' alive. Marriage was to be a permanent arrangement, shared by two committed people. Love in marriage was to develop into more of a deeper relationship, not one depending on physical or romantic expression alone.

There are only two grounds to dissolve a marriage...adultery or death. Jesus' words, not mine. Many throw these rules out as old fashioned, but God does not change.

My husband was not a JW. I was married before I became a Witness.

I'm guessing that JWs are allowed to remarry. But you say that gay and lesbian people should deny themselves of that for their entire life. In other words, they should remain virgins for life. How is that even close to being the same?

The Bible allows for remarriage if a partner dies, but that is a personal choice. Some choose to remain single. I am in no hurry to find another mate. I am used to being alone.

The Bible does not allow for homosexual "marriage". All homosexual relationships are therefore "fornication". ("Unlawful sexual conduct".)
There are no exceptions to this Biblical law. Marriage is between males and females and should (if they choose, or allowing for physical abnormalities) naturally lead to the production of children in a family setting. Homosexuality does not naturally produce children, so becoming parents involves the actions of a third person. Marriage is not a threesome...it is a twosome.

I will leave it there.

 

[Penumbra]

Lesbians have lower rates of STDs than heterosexual people.

Bad arguments rely on cherry-picking.

Homosexual sex can be monogamous and safe just like heterosexual sex. Problems fall with unsafe sexual practices rather than sexual orientation itself.

 

[JayJayDee]

Lesbians have lower rates of STDs than heterosexual people.

Bad arguments rely on cherry-picking.

I was coming from the perspective of Biblical rules regarding the use of ones procreate parts. Sex has a function as we see in the animal kingdom. It ensures the perpetuation of the species. Animals mate to reproduce. Humans mate for the same result, although there is no mandate to produce children if a couple decides not to. The fact that sex is an enjoyable part of intimacy in marriage is a bonus. But pleasure is not its primary function. Its practice serves a nobler purpose.

For Christians, Paul's letter to the Romans confirms that even female homosexual activity was wrong in God's eyes. Lower rates of STD's really have nothing to do with how God views things. As the creator of the human body, he has the right to tell us how to live.

Even the Hebrew Scriptures were quite specific in recording the laws on sexual sin. Leviticus 18 is comprehensive and a warning to Israel about not adopting the ways of the Canaanites, who were extremely depraved in their sexual practices. Homosexuality was mentioned there as well.

Archeologists who have uncovered some of the Canaanite artefacts depicting their depraved practices, marvel that God did not destroy them sooner.

Homosexual sex can be monogamous and safe just like heterosexual sex. Problems fall with unsafe sexual practices rather than sexual orientation itself.

It isn't about the safety or the orientation.....it's about the practice itself. If our Creator says that unnatural sexual behavior is a violation of his law, then who are we to argue if that does not suit our lifestyle choice? Do you believe that God will change his rules to suit the choices of disobedient humans?

We will account to him, whether we like it or not...whether we believe it or not.

 

[LuisDantas]

Homosexuality isn't often a choice either. Like pedophilia, it is in the wiring.
Most people don't choose to be homosexuals, but as they sexually mature, they find themselves drawn to people of the same sex. It is only then that they realise in many cases that they are gay....but sometimes from childhood, the traits are plainly in evidence. The sexuality of the individual does not match their birth gender.

So true.

If by "safely" do you mean that no harm comes from the practice?
Sexually transmitted diseases come from all immoral sexual activity, no matter the orientation.

I hope you are not implying that homosexual or transexual sex is immoral.

We are designed for monogamy, not promiscuity. We are designed for heterosexual sex, not homosexual acts that are degrading and unnatural.

It seems to me that we can hardly claim to be "designed". Although we have broadly speaking been seleted for heterosexual sex, homosexuality is rarer, but hardly an less moral or natural.

As for promiscuity and monogamy, that is an interestin case of conflict between instinct and social expectations.

You can have sex all day with your marriage mate and never get anything but tired. Try that with multiple partners and disease is sure to follow.

"Sure" is an exageration, and that so many people have that drive must lead one to ask how natural exactly monogamy is.

Like some heterosexuals, many homosexuals are fond of multiple partners. No matter which, such immorality still contravenes God's law. The morals of alley cats should stay with the felines. Sexually Transmitted Infection is the end result....now not surprisingly still in epidemic proportions. Around 500 million people a year are affected by STI's.

Promiscuity without proper care causes the expansion of STIs. You can build an argument against the use of certain antibiotics or for the immorality of monogamy from that, but it does not follow that it makes sense or that it is considerate.

 

[LuisDantas]

It isn't about the safety or the orientation.....it's about the practice itself. If our Creator says that unnatural sexual behavior is a violation of his law,

Which he did not, at least that I am aware (and you can hardly expect me to assume that God even exists just because Christians and Muslims believe that he does)...

then who are we to argue if that does not suit our lifestyle choice?

She is Penumbra, and I happen to be Luis Dantas.

Honestly, I wonder why people even make such questions...

Do you believe that God will change his rules to suit the choices of disobedient humans?

Personally, I believe that projecting a God concept over moral considerations is a bad idea.

We will account to him, whether we like it or not...whether we believe it or not.

Maybe. This, too, is something that surprises me. Why people say such things?

 

[HonestJoe]

Has being gay become mainstream? Is being gay no longer an outsider activity?

Some places it pretty much is, some places it can still get people imprisoned or killed and pretty much everything in-between.

 

[BSM1]

It isn't about the safety or the orientation.....it's about the practice itself. If our Creator says that unnatural sexual behavior is a violation of his law, then who are we to argue if that does not suit our lifestyle choice? Do you believe that God will change his rules to suit the choices of disobedient humans?

Are you saying that God's law is contained in Old Testament verses? If so, do you eat shrimp? Clams? Lobster?

 

[ShivaFan]

Harassment is not tolerated where I work (well, where I will soon be retiring from which looks like next year). Making "jokes" about someone's gender, orientation, religion, birth origin is all grounds for termination since it is considered harassment. There are legal consequences if harassment is not dealt with.

The business cannot benefit from valued employees if others engage in harassment and disturb the goals and team work of the business, in most every corporation or mid-sized business I know of you would be terminated in no short order for "gay" jokes and such harassment.

The idiot convert to Islamic extremism who beheaded another person in Oklahoma was terminated for adamant comments to other employees that women should be stoned if (they do not adhere to some Islamic "rule"). This is a form of obvious harassment and grounds for immediate termination.

The word gay can have more than one meaning. However if it is used at the work place to belittle another or make fun of another by coloring it to sexual orientation to demean or belittle or cast aspersions then it is harassment.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Quite a few years ago before I turned 25, and was therefore an idiot about real life, I worked in a factory that made concrete products. It was a horrible job with the small benefit of a couple of interesting coworkers. One, named Ben, was a Holocaust survivor. He got liberated by the Yanks when he was 8 or 9, but as you can imagine he had some unpleasant memories. I, being a history nut, drove him pretty much up the wall asking questions (see idiot comment above) about life in a concentration camp, but he was pretty good about it. He didn’t really get into detail, but once he allowed that he had watched his sister die. I pretty much dropped it after that.
Anyway, there was a guy in the office named Terry, and Terry had the worst kept secret on earth. He was gay. He and his boyfriend weren’t exactly hiding it, if you know what I mean. To be honest, I didn’t really care what they did. But, I was still playing ball and I worked in industry and we all had to be manly men. Football! Boobies! Most of the guys here probably know exactly what I was talking about.
One day we were fixing a busted forklift right at lunch time. It had broken down just outside the main office doors and a few of the guys stopped on their way to the lunchroom to chat. One of them was Ben. While we’re chatting, who walks out but Terry, carrying a little bag we used to use for sending parts to trucks at other locations. Being a real funny guy, I made some lame purse joke in a falsetto voice. Everyone laughed, because, you know. Gay! To be clear, there’s no way Terry could have heard me. Hell, the Bionic Woman couldn’t have heard me. But Ben heard me.
He got really upset and said “You know what? You’re a bunch of ******** (he didn’t say ********, he actually said ********). Do you keep a poster with you so you can pick out the Jews by their noses?” I don’t think anyone else knew what he meant, but I did. I apologized to him about it, and he said okay, but we weren’t friends anymore after that. And I know this sounds like bullpucky, but I apologized to Terry too. He wasn’t as okay. I’ve never made fun of a gay man for being gay since, except Tom Cruise. I hate how much better looking than me he is.
Now, I work with another gay guy. His name is Bruce (hand to God). I told him this story and he said “I wish someone would make fun of me! I used to be so different because I was a queer, but now no one cares. It’s as exciting as having brown hair.” I paraphrased that, but it’s what he said.
Has being gay become mainstream? Is being gay no longer an outsider activity?

I think homosexuality itself is still widely seen as suspect. However, ever since the younger generation of men have coopted gay dress, mannerisms, affectations, and behaviors, being gay has certainly become a lot less fabulous. I'm pretty sure gay men are going to start acting more traditionally masculine in order to avoid being confused with clueless straight guys.

 

[JayJayDee]

Are you saying that God's law is contained in Old Testament verses?

I am saying that what was necessary out of the old law was continued in the teachings of Christianity.

When gentiles began to come into the congregations of Christ's followers in the first century, some of the Jewish Christians wanted to impose the circumcision laws on them. It was creating dissension in the ranks. But after careful and prayerful deliberation on the matter, the apostles came to the following conclusion...."For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things,  to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” (Acts 15:28, 29)

The old law covenant was now removed along with many of its features that were fulfilled in Christ. But the things mentioned specifically by the apostles were to remain. God's laws on blood, false worship and fornication were never to change.

Since there can be no scripturally recognized marriage between people of the same sex, all homosexual relationships are viewed as "fornication" in God's eyes.

There is no way around this, no matter how hard people try to justify their conduct, it will not stand up to God's word.
One must leave all such conduct in the past and pray for God's spirit to help them to control the desires of their flesh.

Paul's counsel was to "Deaden, therefore, your body members that are on the earth as respects sexual immorality, uncleanness, uncontrolled sexual passion, hurtful desire, and greediness, which is idolatry. 6 On account of those things the wrath of God is coming. 7 That is how you too used to conduct yourselves in your former way of life. 8 But now you must put them all away from you..." (Col 3:5-8)

I don't know how anyone can make Paul's words say something else, but then justification is a convincing of oneself in spite of the evidence to the contrary. The heart can be an unreliable guide...sometimes our worst enemy.

“The heart is more treacherous than anything else and is desperate. Who can know it?  I, Jehovah, am searching the heart, examining the kidneys, even to give to each one according to his ways, according to the fruitage of his dealings" (Jer 17:9, 10)

But we will account to him.....like it or not.

If so, do you eat shrimp? Clams? Lobster?

No I don't, but that is out of personal preference, not adhering to the old law.

Dietary restrictions no longer apply, but they did benefit the Israelites in protecting them from many health issues that we now recognize with the benefit of science.

It also served as a vivid illustration when gentiles were about to be brought into the Christian arrangement. Peter was summoned to the home of Cornelius, the first gentile convert to Christianity. But before he arrived at Cornelius' home, God gave him a vision.

"Peter went up to the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10 But he became very hungry and wanted to eat. While they were preparing, he fell into a trance 11 and beheld heaven opened and some sort of vessel descending like a great linen sheet being let down by its four extremities upon the earth; 12 and in it there were all sorts of four-footed creatures and creeping things of the earth and birds of heaven. 13 And a voice came to him: “Rise, Peter, slaughter and eat!” 14 But Peter said: “Not at all, Lord, because never have I eaten anything defiled and unclean.” 15 And the voice [spoke] again to him, the second time: “You stop calling defiled the things God has cleansed.” 16 This occurred a third time, and immediately the vessel was taken up into heaven." (Read the full account in Acts 10 & 11)

God's people had been separated from the gentiles for centuries but now God was powerfully demonstrating that those previously considered spiritually "unclean" (as practicers of false worship) were now "cleansed" if they chose to follow Christ.

We are no longer under the old law, but we still benefit from understanding why God gave it, why some principles still apply, and how he used it to educate his people.

 

[Wirey]

So you pick and choose the sections of the bible that pertain to your life?

 

[ShivaFan]

I noticed the question came up, regarding "mainstream".

I do not think anyone is mainstream in that sense. Each person is too complex and so we are all in the stream but I don't know if stream is the best analogy but rather each is a star or planet in a solar system or universe and there are many universes. Some of us might be revolving around one sun, another a different sun, some may be like a comet.

We try to set some rules however. These are typically about real basics, such as against murder. But mainstream is not mainstream enough to be mainstream.

 

[Penumbra]

I was coming from the perspective of Biblical rules regarding the use of ones procreate parts.

And yet a perspective that probably conveniently ignores any rule that might otherwise apply to you, like dietary laws, rules regarding mixed fabrics, menstruation, or any of the other 600+ that Christians largely ignore, despite the fact that their savior said not the smallest letter would disappear from the Law. That's fine for those Christians that don't cherry-pick the law to others, but it quickly becomes a harmful contradiction when conservative Christians do it towards sexual minorities and other groups.

Seems to me like a matter of being quick to judge prior to removing planks from one's own eyes. If a person judges people according to a few lines from an iron age set of books, then they're bound to get a list of all the lines they're breaking in their own life.

Sex has a function as we see in the animal kingdom. It ensures the perpetuation of the species. Animals mate to reproduce.

I'll just leave this here:

Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humans mate for the same result, although there is no mandate to produce children if a couple decides not to. The fact that sex is an enjoyable part of intimacy in marriage is a bonus. But pleasure is not its primary function. Its practice serves a nobler purpose.

For Christians, Paul's letter to the Romans confirms that even female homosexual activity was wrong in God's eyes.

That just confirms that it was wrong in Paul's eyes, actually.

A guy writes a letter to some other guys, and this confirms God's opinion on the matter? Hardly.

Lower rates of STD's really have nothing to do with how God views things.

You said (emphasis mine):
"If by "safely" do you mean that no harm comes from the practice?
Sexually transmitted diseases come from all immoral sexual activity, no matter the orientation."

A big portion of your post was on the dangers of homosexuality and promiscuity, with a focus on STDs. So I pointed out that lesbians have lower STD rates than heterosexuals, statistically. And now you're saying STD's really have nothing to do with how God views things. It looks like you're moving the goalposts because the facts were inconvenient for your position.

As the creator of the human body, he has the right to tell us how to live.

And yet you haven't quoted God. You've quoted men claiming to speak for God.

Let me know when you quote God.

Even the Hebrew Scriptures were quite specific in recording the laws on sexual sin. Leviticus 18 is comprehensive and a warning to Israel about not adopting the ways of the Canaanites, who were extremely depraved in their sexual practices. Homosexuality was mentioned there as well.

Archeologists who have uncovered some of the Canaanite artefacts depicting their depraved practices, marvel that God did not destroy them sooner.

Do you have a functional reason why homosexuality is a problem? You tried the STD route but then shifted tactics when that was called out. Safe sex practices and monogamy are ways to deal with STDs, regardless of sexual orientation.

It isn't about the safety or the orientation.....it's about the practice itself. If our Creator says that unnatural sexual behavior is a violation of his law, then who are we to argue if that does not suit our lifestyle choice? Do you believe that God will change his rules to suit the choices of disobedient humans?

We will account to him, whether we like it or not...whether we believe it or not.

Again, you haven't quoted God. You've referenced men, claiming to speak for God. Do you follow God's rules in the Bhagavad Gita or the Qur'an, or do you ignore them? First you have to figure out which one of these books even gets the god right.

And then even within this religion, you claim to speak for that religion's god and yet you ignore the other rules of the OT. It's called cherry-picking. And it's not a victimless thing to do in this case. It's been shown in studies repetitively that attempted suicide rates and other social problems among LGBT youth fall dramatically when a) parents accept them for who they are and b) their community or school accepts them for who they are. The type of things, generally incorrect things, that you've been preaching here, are exactly the types of things that are harmful to such people.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think homosexuality itself is still widely seen as suspect. However, ever since the younger generation of men have coopted gay dress, mannerisms, affectations, and behaviors, being gay has certainly become a lot less fabulous. I'm pretty sure gay men are going to start acting more traditionally masculine in order to avoid being confused with clueless straight guys.

They've been doing that for a long time, as it is. There's the whole "straight-acting gay" phenomenon and also the Leather community, many Bears and the whole Daddy scene present themselves in a hyper-masculine - even a caricature of masculinity - way. Feminine men are frowned upon in much of the gay community. It's internalized homophobia and sexism. The "straight acting gays" are throwing the fem queers under the bus and that's a shame because it's the gender-nonconforming males who get the brunt of all the discrimination, harassment, assault and murder.

 

[JayJayDee]

And yet a perspective that probably conveniently ignores any rule that might otherwise apply to you, like dietary laws, rules regarding mixed fabrics, menstruation, or any of the other 600+ that Christians largely ignore, despite the fact that their savior said not the smallest letter would disappear from the Law. That's fine for those Christians that don't cherry-pick the law to others, but it quickly becomes a harmful contradiction when conservative Christians do it towards sexual minorities and other groups.

Let me put it this way....if you don't take the scriptures as the word of God, (which you clearly don't) then nothing I have said has the remotest meaning for you.
You are free to do as you wish. God allows free will to be exercised....but just like the first humans in the garden of Eden, there are consequences for making bad choices, even if they don't happen right away.

Those who care whether the Creator has rules regarding sexual behavior or not will bring their lives into harmony with his will, rather than pushing the importance of their own.

Seems to me like a matter of being quick to judge prior to removing planks from one's own eyes.

I have spent my whole life removing planks. I had big ones that did not allow me to see past the end of my nose. It isn't me judging anyone, but allowing others to see that God does have standards of behavior, (especially sexual behavior,) and requires us to live within them. Would you rather me tell you that and you have an opportunity to change your mind or would you rather front up to the Judge and make your excuses to him? It's your choice. Once that day comes however, there are no second chances.

If a person judges people according to a few lines from an iron age set of books, then they're bound to get a list of all the lines they're breaking in their own life.

That is true, but if that Iron Age book turns out to be God's instruction manual for human behavior, and you have ignored it, then you've pretty much run out of excuses.

I'll just leave this here:

Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you tell me what precipitates sexual activity in animals?

I have been a dog breeder for years. I know that my females will not allow a male near them unless they are ovulating. My males show no sexual interest in my females unless they are stimulated by the hormones and pheromones that are produced only at this time. This is the same with most other animals.

Animals in the wild that exhibit homosexual tendencies, are hardly operating by conscious choice, but through a variety of factors not fully understood...most of them from the effects of pheromones. Its part of their programming.

It's not a perfect world, so things don't always take place perfectly.

Humans are not animals, so their behavior is accountable because of their reasoning ability...you can hardly say that about animals who have no accountability with God and behave like animals without ability to respond to anything but external and internal stimuli. When did God ever say that he would judge animals?

That just confirms that it was wrong in Paul's eyes, actually.

A guy writes a letter to some other guys, and this confirms God's opinion on the matter? Hardly.

Again, that depends solely on whether you believe that Paul wrote under inspiration. I believe he did...you are free to disagree.

You said (emphasis mine):
"If by "safely" do you mean that no harm comes from the practice?
Sexually transmitted diseases come from all immoral sexual activity, no matter the orientation."

A big portion of your post was on the dangers of homosexuality and promiscuity, with a focus on STDs. So I pointed out that lesbians have lower STD rates than heterosexuals, statistically. And now you're saying STD's really have nothing to do with how God views things. It looks like you're moving the goalposts because the facts were inconvenient for your position.

That was not the gist of my argument at all. I was responding to Luis regarding the "safety" question. STD rates were merely a factor, not the thrust of the argument as to whether God's laws applied regardless of orientation or safety. It was sexual practice that ran contrary to nature that was the point.

And yet you haven't quoted God. You've quoted men claiming to speak for God.

Let me know when you quote God.

Perhaps I should let God speak for himself...it's just that when he speaks, it might not be what you want to hear.

Do you have a functional reason why homosexuality is a problem? You tried the STD route but then shifted tactics when that was called out. Safe sex practices and monogamy are ways to deal with STDs, regardless of sexual orientation.

Since humans are designed for heterosexual sex and no STD's result from monogamous marriage, it stands to reason that STD's only exist because people disobeyed God's instruction in the first place. Safe sex practices are unnecessary when you follow God's laws. Sexually transmitted diseases abound in this world simply because of immoral sexual activity. As long as people see sex as a right and not a privilege, nothing will change until God himself changes things. It is when we perceive ourselves as animals that we absolve ourselves from accountability.

And then even within this religion, you claim to speak for that religion's god and yet you ignore the other rules of the OT. It's called cherry-picking.

Well, actually it's called knowledge. It comes from evaluating the entirety of God's word and coming to conclusions based on what it says. When it goes against something we want to believe, many will simply ignore what suits them. The old law was for Jews. I am not a Jew. The Christian scriptures tell is plainly what God requires of his worshippers. Jesus was the model.

And it's not a victimless thing to do in this case. It's been shown in studies repetitively that attempted suicide rates and other social problems among LGBT youth fall dramatically when a) parents accept them for who they are and b) their community or school accepts them for who they are. The type of things, generally incorrect things, that you've been preaching here, are exactly the types of things that are harmful to such people.

It isn't the unkindness of any human's words that will cause lasting damage. What will cause the most lasting damage is being rejected by God for not obeying his laws. We will all account to him, so doesn't it make sense to find out what God requires of us rather than just what we want for ourselves?

Do you believe that this life is all there is? If you do, then I can understand your position..."eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" is a philosophy adopted by most who reject God. It fosters an "anything goes" attitude.
But I have eternity implanted in my heart. My everlasting future is so much more important than this temporary existence as a captive in satan's world.

I understand the reason for all the things that are taking place and look forward to a new world where pain and suffering from any source will be a thing of the past. (2 Pet 3:13; Rev 21:2-5)

 

[Penumbra]

Let me put it this way....if you don't take the scriptures as the word of God, (which you clearly don't) then nothing I have said has the remotest meaning for you.

You are free to do as you wish. God allows free will to be exercised....but just like the first humans in the garden of Eden, there are consequences for making bad choices, even if they don't happen right away.

Those who care whether the Creator has rules regarding sexual behavior or not will bring their lives into harmony with his will, rather than pushing the importance of their own.

I have spent my whole life removing planks. I had big ones that did not allow me to see past the end of my nose. It isn't me judging anyone, but allowing others to see that God does have standards of behavior, (especially sexual behavior,) and requires us to live within them. Would you rather me tell you that and you have an opportunity to change your mind or would you rather front up to the Judge and make your excuses to him? It's your choice. Once that day comes however, there are no second chances.

That is true, but if that Iron Age book turns out to be God's instruction manual for human behavior, and you have ignored it, then you've pretty much run out of excuses.

And you, if the Qur'an turns out to be true? Have you read texts like the Qur'an and Bhagavad Gita before coming to the conclusion that the scripture is the right one? Or no?

Your posts aren't going to change my mind based on the level of reasoning and consistency shown here. And I think that's because the base it's built on is itself untrue, and then even the interpretation of it compared other interpretations, is only that, an interpretation, and so far from what I've seen, I highly inconsistent and poorly defended one.

I don't base ethics on choosing the correct ancient instruction manual out of many, believing those men speak for god, and being willing to cause demonstrable harm in the name of their thousand year old words. Instead I'm only interested in compassion and reason to form ethical decisions, and do my best to follow them, and to live and let live for other people. Which is why I've asked for functional problems with homosexuality. None have been given, though.

Can you tell me what precipitates sexual activity in animals?

I have been a dog breeder for years. I know that my females will not allow a male near them unless they are ovulating. My males show no sexual interest in my females unless they are stimulated by the hormones and pheromones that are produced only at this time. This is the same with most other animals.

Animals in the wild that exhibit homosexual tendencies, are hardly operating by conscious choice, but through a variety of factors not fully understood...most of them from the effects of pheromones. Its part of their programming.

It's not a perfect world, so things don't always take place perfectly.

Humans are not animals, so their behavior is accountable because of their reasoning ability...you can hardly say that about animals who have no accountability with God and behave like animals without ability to respond to anything but external and internal stimuli. When did God ever say that he would judge animals?

What you did here is an example of moving the goal posts again.

You said,
"Sex has a function as we see in the animal kingdom. It ensures the perpetuation of the species. Animals mate to reproduce."

And in response, I showed the wiki article with 103 references discussing widespread documented homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom. You can look it up anywhere online.

And in response to that, you have this whole statement of how humans are not animals and so forth? It's a further case of moving the goalposts around when the facts ended up being inconvenient.

Again, that depends solely on whether you believe that Paul wrote under inspiration. I believe he did...you are free to disagree.

That was not the gist of my argument at all. I was responding to Luis regarding the "safety" question. STD rates were merely a factor, not the thrust of the argument as to whether God's laws applied regardless of orientation or safety. It was sexual practice that ran contrary to nature that was the point.

Perhaps I should let God speak for himself...it's just that when he speaks, it might not be what you want to hear.

Or what you want to hear.

My point is that you keep talking about what god wants and what god tells humans they should do, and yet, where are the quotes from god? All that are in this thread, are quotes of men.

You might not speak for god as closely as you think you do.

Since humans are designed for heterosexual sex and no STD's result from monogamous marriage, it stands to reason that STD's only exist because people disobeyed God's instruction in the first place. Safe sex practices are unnecessary when you follow God's laws. Sexually transmitted diseases abound in this world simply because of immoral sexual activity. As long as people see sex as a right and not a privilege, nothing will change until God himself changes things. It is when we perceive ourselves as animals that we absolve ourselves from accountability.

And all of that can be done while homosexual or heterosexual. Unprotected promiscuity spreads STDs. Homosexuality in and of itself, does not.

Certain sexual practices, such as anal sex, have a higher rate of spreading STDs if they are practiced unsafely. In contrast, two homosexual men in a lifelong committed relationship, are not opening themselves up to any more risk than a heterosexual couple, essentially. And for lesbians, even less.

You've yet to provide a functional issue with homosexuality itself. All you have presented is that after cherry picking through 613 laws of the Israelite religion, it's one of the few of them that you've decided to judge others for, and speak on that god's behalf for, while ignoring the rest in your own life and claiming the law doesn't apply.

Well, actually it's called knowledge. It comes from evaluating the entirety of God's word and coming to conclusions based on what it says.

And, interestingly, people with PhDs specifically on Christian scripture disagree on tons of stuff. One group follows a certain interpretation and another group follows another interpretation and they can all provide these highly articulate descriptions as to why. There are extensively educated people that hold opinions on that scripture entirely different form your own. And that's because the scriptures are written by so many people, over such a broad period of time, and with so many contradictions.

Speaking in terms of knowledge more broadly, LGBT acceptance is correlated with higher levels of education.

When it goes against something we want to believe, many will simply ignore what suits them. The old law was for Jews. I am not a Jew. The Christian scriptures tell is plainly what God requires of his worshippers. Jesus was the model.

And yet Jesus never mentioned specifically homosexuality. You can quote Paul in place of your god, and you can quote the hebrew texts but Jesus never bothered. He was too busy hanging out with social undesirables and telling people not to judge, apparently.

It isn't the unkindness of any human's words that will cause lasting damage. What will cause the most lasting damage is being rejected by God for not obeying his laws. We will all account to him, so doesn't it make sense to find out what God requires of us rather than just what we want for ourselves?

Do you believe that this life is all there is? If you do, then I can understand your position..."eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" is a philosophy adopted by most who reject God. It fosters an "anything goes" attitude.
But I have eternity implanted in my heart. My everlasting future is so much more important than this temporary existence as a captive in satan's world.

I understand the reason for all the things that are taking place and look forward to a new world where pain and suffering from any source will be a thing of the past. (2 Pet 3:13; Rev 21:2-5)

This is all in response to me pointing out that studies show that this type of unaccepting attitude you express here causes demonstrable harm. Rather than defending that, you just talk about an afterlife here. You're essentially saying you don't care.

Further up in your same post, you say you are not a Jew and that the law isn't for you, and here you talk about god rejecting people for not obeying his laws.

I understand that you believe you have selected the right scripture whether you've read all the others or not, and that you have this this only correct interpretation of scripture and that you can cleanly divide certain things as being against god's law and others not being against them.

But from my perspective, it's a lot worse than that. What has been expressed here, is a willingness to throw the law at others while breaking it oneself, by inconsistently rationalizing which parts apply and which parts don't. I think that's a common problem among conservative Christianity today. It seems to be a matter of rationalizing why their lifestyle may break any number of the 613 laws of the Irsaelite religion while holding different laws against others, as though it affects their eternal salvation.

It seems to be a very shaky position, like being built on sand. You keep quoting men such as Paul and others, so it's all based on the speculation that those men speak for god, just like countless people around the world claim to do. I think it's a form of expression that lacks compassion, and lacks a focus on facts and evidence, in favor of arbitrary judgment instead.

 

[dust1n]

I was coming from the perspective of Biblical rules regarding the use of ones procreate parts. Sex has a function as we see in the animal kingdom. It ensures the perpetuation of the species. Animals mate to reproduce.

Except the several hundred thousand animals that don't.