Why does God care about Homosexuality?

[Sunstone]

somebody please, tell me what cooties are...

I'm sorry. In the US, "cooties" is a word small children use a lot. It doesn't refer to anything real. But small children often believe that they can get "cooties" from each other. Kind of like getting germs from each other. "Cooties" are considered bad.

 

[Fluffy]

Luke, that is the game they play here at RF. They try and portray us as bigots, homophobes and white supremists so they can disregard what we say.

It would be far easier to not cast generalisations over you if you refrained from doing it yourself. I believe that such activity is unfair, unproductive and divisive and so we all have a responsibility not to engage in it.

Sodomy (homosexuality) is an abomination to God: the act is, not the people.
The people are just as in need of salvation as any others
They're human beings with feelings and rights. (I mention this specifically because there are those who'd disagree)
I don't have to agree with the lifestyle, and can make it clear that I don't.
I have homosexual relatives, and I don't hate them for being gay
I don't hate anyone for being gay
I hate the lifestyle.

The position of many who support homosexuality is that it is a civil rights issue and that sexuality should be treated as similar to other areas of human diversity such as sex, gender, skin colour and religion.

Therefore, your views on homosexuality will be viewed in a similar light to how you might view them if they had been expressed about one of these other areas.

 

[Luke_17:2]

The position of many who support homosexuality is that it is a civil rights issue and that sexuality should be treated as similar to other areas of human diversity such as sex, gender, skin colour and religion.

Therefore, your views on homosexuality will be viewed in a similar light to how you might view them if they had been expressed about one of these other area.

I know.

That's what we call fascism.

Repress ideas not by legislation, but by coercion. You cannot disagree with homosexuality as a lifestyle; you can't be against it. Why? Because you'll be called homophobic. Considered no different then a racist, sexist, etc.

If you support such coercion, then you're a fasicst. I personally believe that people should be able to believe whatever they want without having to worry about being labled by society in general.

I think you'll find that many liberals are some of the worst fascists we have. And those who demand recognitian and toleration are the least apt to give it.

 

[Smoke]

If you support such coercion, then you're a fasicst. I personally believe that people should be able to believe whatever they want without having to worry about being labled by society in general.

Unless they believe that anti-gay bigotry should be named for what it is, and then you're happy to label them as fascists.

 

[Luke_17:2]

Unless they believe that anti-gay bigotry should be named for what it is,

Do you know the meaning of bigotry?

It means complete intolerance. I am tolerant of other beliefs and lifestyles -I wouldn't deny anyone the right to subscribe to beliefs or lifestyles I disagree with. But the fact remains that I disagree or even hate some lifestyles of beliefs.

and then you're happy to label them as fascists.

The difference is that the liberal will impose their prejudices on the rest of society.

I think that sodomy is immoral, and abnormal -I won't deny anyone the right to be what I consider immoral and abnormal.

A liberal would. A liberal apologizes for sodomy by citing tolerance, but then being completely intollerant of dissension.

 

[Mike182]

ignored?
there is no view without colours.

according to Islam;
when you judge, don't see the person, see the action.

see the difference between judging the person and judging the action? actions could change in time. what divine is person himself. i do respect people and i do love them. but it is possible that i don't like actions. since they are changeable, they donot lead my feelings about people. get me?

i disagree here because i can't separate the person and the action. if the way someone acts changes significantly, then something inside of them has changed, something in their personality, probably due to some realisation or maturity. people's actions and people's personalities are so entwined that a change in one will affect the other - so how can you judge a person's actions without judging them? i say you can't.

I know.

That's what we call fascism.

Repress ideas not by legislation, but by coercion. You cannot disagree with homosexuality as a lifestyle; you can't be against it. Why? Because you'll be called homophobic. Considered no different then a racist, sexist, etc.

If you support such coercion, then you're a fasicst. I personally believe that people should be able to believe whatever they want without having to worry about being labled by society in general.

I think you'll find that many liberals are some of the worst fascists we have. And those who demand recognitian and toleration are the least apt to give it.

and do you believe people can do whatever they want without having to worry about being labeled by society in general (obviously within the confines of the law)?

 

[MoonWater]

Hey Luke are you going to respond to my post or not. I specifically asked you to respond to this as I would like to hear your input.

The thing is if you study the etimology of the word "Abomination" you find that at the time it simply meant "Taboo". Or in other words meant that it wasn't really wrong just something that one who is a member of the biblical religions should not partake in. only in the past few hundred years has the word slowly come to mean what it means today. For that matter, back then the word "sin" simply meant "mistake". So neither abomination nor sin had the same connotation back then as they do now. And the same can be said for numerous other words in the bible. The best known example of this definition change is the word "knew". In the bible it means to have sex. But these days it is rarely used in a sexual conotation. If the word "knew" can have it's definition changed so drastically from biblical times to present then it logically follows that other words could have done the same. Which is exactly what happened. In order to understand what the bible is saying you should really look at it in the context of the time when it was written. It helps to avoid such confusion.

Oh, and conservatives are guilty of just as many crimes as liberals. The conservative religious right in particular have been trying to make their values into law for some time now. The thing is this is a secular nation and thus any laws made, while they may have commonalities with religions are not to be made because of religion. And it is only through religious reasons that Homosexuality can be considered wrong. Many believe that homosexuality is wrong and as a result try and deny them the ability to marry and other basic rights same as we did to negroes just 50 years ago.(I'm not accusing you of being apart of this). The way I see it the bible's rules are meant for those who follow biblical religions(like Christianity). Thus if you are say Christian and Christian doctrine says that homosexuality is wrong(debatable) then it simply means that you yourself are not to partake in it. But why should one who is not Christian or does not follow the bible be held accountable for the laws and mandates of Christianity and/or the bible? I eagerly await your reply

 

[sandandfoam]

i disagree here because i can't separate the person and the action. if the way someone acts changes significantly, then something inside of them has changed, something in their personality, probably due to some realisation or maturity. people's actions and people's personalities are so entwined that a change in one will affect the other - so how can you judge a person's actions without judging them? i say you can't.

What about the situation, shouldn't you take that into account?

 

[Mike182]

What about the situation, shouldn't you take that into account?

yes, situation should also be taken into account. in my experience most if not all of my friends act different around their parents than around their peers.

 

[Autodidact]

God cares. God cares about homosexuality because God cares about cooties. And God cares about cooties because James Dobson cares about cooties. Whatever James Dobson cares about, God cares about. And James cares about cooties. Deeply cares. Cares to the point of lying awake at night wondering if he's infested with homosexual cooties. And God worries too whether James is infested, because God worries about anything James worries about. So, that's why God cares about homosexuality.

Now do you understand? Now does it make sense?

Thank you for clearing that up. Can you explain how Ted Haggard fits in?

 

[Autodidact]

I know.

That's what we call fascism.

Repress ideas not by legislation, but by coercion. You cannot disagree with homosexuality as a lifestyle; you can't be against it. Why? Because you'll be called homophobic. Considered no different then a racist, sexist, etc.

If you support such coercion, then you're a fasicst. I personally believe that people should be able to believe whatever they want without having to worry about being labled by society in general.

I think you'll find that many liberals are some of the worst fascists we have. And those who demand recognitian and toleration are the least apt to give it.

O.K. this is exactly backwards. Being against prejudice is fascism. Forcing you to behave as if you were not bigoted is coerscion.

Here's the deal: You find homosexuality disgusting. Who cares. Frankly I don't find your sex life very appealing either. Your bizarre religious belief is that your God cares about the gender of two people who love each other. Go for it. You're entitled to your beliefs. You are not entitled to force the rest of us to conform to them, or to deny equal rights to those who don't. And calling people who want to prevent you from doing that fascist utterly perverts the meaning of the word.

 

[Autodidact]

Do you know the meaning of bigotry?

It means complete intolerance. I am tolerant of other beliefs and lifestyles -I wouldn't deny anyone the right to subscribe to beliefs or lifestyles I disagree with. But the fact remains that I disagree or even hate some lifestyles of beliefs.



The difference is that the liberal will impose their prejudices on the rest of society.

I think that sodomy is immoral, and abnormal -I won't deny anyone the right to be what I consider immoral and abnormal.

A liberal would. A liberal apologizes for sodomy by citing tolerance, but then being completely intollerant of dissension.

And that's why you support gay marriage. Those mean old liberals, on the other hand, want to force you to have gay sex with them.

 

[Luke_17:2]

Go for it. You're entitled to your beliefs. You are not entitled to force the rest of us to conform to them, or to deny equal rights to those who don't.

Where did I say I wanted to prevent that? Praytell, for I am at a lost. Nowhere have I ever said that I wanted to force my beliefs on you. I've said the exact opposite.

If you want to have sex with an animal and a woman at the same time, go right ahead.

Makes no difference to me.

But is it too much to ask, as gays are marching around naked in California (and making fun of Christians I might add), that I reserve the right to think it's disgusting without being called a bigot because I disagree?

And calling people who want to prevent you from doing that fascist utterly perverts the meaning of the word.

"Perverts the meaning of the word"? Do you even know it?

Recite to me, without looking, the 14 points of fascism. -Did you even know there were 14 points to it?

 

[Autodidact]

Where did I say I wanted to prevent that? Praytell, for I am at a lost. Nowhere have I ever said that I wanted to force my beliefs on you. I've said the exact opposite.

Like I said, it's good to have another supporter of the right to gay marriage, and equal rights for gay people.

If you want to have sex with an animal and a woman at the same time, go right ahead.

If that's what you're into. Personally, I'm opposed to sex without consent.

Makes no difference to me.

Are you obsessed with sex?

But is it too much to ask, as gays are marching around naked in California (and making fun of Christians I might add), that I reserve the right to think it's disgusting without being called a bigot because I disagree?

Fascinating. Can you post a picture or cite an instance of "gays marching around naked?" I've never seen that, and thought it was illegal. Or gays making fun of Christians? Did you know there are thousands of gay Christian people? That they have an entire mainstream Christian church?

"Perverts the meaning of the word"? Do you even know it?

I think so.
[wiki]

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the interests of the state. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism.

Your use of the term obviously has nothing to do with the actual definition.

Recite to me, without looking, the 14 points of fascism. -Did you even know there were 14 points to it?

Describe to me everything you're wearing, omitting nothing.
Fascism is a word, a term, with a definition. There is not a single objective theory concerning it, with 13, 14, or 103 terms. Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with the liberal struggle for equal rights for all people, including gay people. If anything, it is opposed to the idea of equality.

 

[Smoke]

Recite to me, without looking, the 14 points of fascism. -Did you even know there were 14 points to it?

The fourteen points of fascism aren't fascist in origin; they're part of a scholarly analysis of fascism. And they don't describe the gay rights movement at all, but they make a stunningly accurate description of the religious right. For a member of the religious right to refer to gay rights advocates as fascist is nonsense, and is despicably dishonest and hypocritical. Such tactics exemplify the complete lack of integrity that characterizes the whole religious right.

 

[Reverend Rick]

they make a stunningly accurate description of the religious right.

I have to agree. Not 100%, but a very close representation.

I know for a fact that I do not hate anyone.

I believe in fairness and equal opportunity for all.

I do have to admit however that the religious right, (me included), may be well on our way to being fascists. I just considered it flexing our political muscle, but my eyes are wide open here.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

To my fellow homosexual-rights supporters:

Something to consider, in the interest of fairness:

There is a difference between regarding something as sinful due to one's religious beliefs, and actively/outwardly practicing intolerance towards those who commit the "sin". Some of you seem to be missing this difference.

People who vigorously criticize the (admittedly backward) religious belief that homosexuality is a "sin" often fail to criticize the (equally backward) religious belief that eating pork is a "sin".

We should regard anyone who would mistreat homosexuals with contempt....but if a person explicitly states--as some on this thread have--that they believe in the equal treatment of homosexuals, just as they believe in the equal treatment of non-Christians, then we ought not to insinuate that they are intolerant or bigoted for the mere belief that homosexuality is a "sin" any more than we ought to insinuate that strict Jews/Muslims are intolerant and bigoted for believing pork-eaters to be "unclean" (for example).

 

[frg001]

To my fellow homosexual-rights supporters:

Something to consider, in the interest of fairness:

There is a difference between regarding something as sinful due to one's religious beliefs, and actively/outwardly practicing intolerance towards those who commit the "sin". Some of you seem to be missing this difference.

People who vigorously criticize the (admittedly backward) religious belief that homosexuality is a "sin" often fail to criticize the (equally backward) religious belief that eating pork is a "sin".

We should regard anyone who would mistreat homosexuals with contempt....but if a person explicitly states--as some on this thread have--that they believe in the equal treatment of homosexuals, just as they believe in the equal treatment of non-Christians, then we ought not to insinuate that they are intolerant or bigoted for the mere belief that homosexuality is a "sin" any more than we ought to insinuate that strict Jews/Muslims are intolerant and bigoted for believing pork-eaters to be "unclean" (for example).

Much as I know what you're trying to say, you cannot equate an action that is a choice - 'eating pork' , to a biological/genetic fact of birth - 'homosexuality'


Much as I disagree with the validity of all religious texts, and thus make my own mind up on these mattters, proclaiming someone is sinful for the way they were born, is a whole heap more ridiculous, insulting and downright evil, than what meat they choose to consume(No pun intended).

 

[Smoke]

We should regard anyone who would mistreat homosexuals with contempt....but if a person explicitly states--as some on this thread have--that they believe in the equal treatment of homosexuals, just as they believe in the equal treatment of non-Christians, then we ought not to insinuate that they are intolerant or bigoted for the mere belief that homosexuality is a "sin" any more than we ought to insinuate that strict Jews/Muslims are intolerant and bigoted for believing pork-eaters to be "unclean" (for example).

Three questions:

• Are the people you defend advocating full equality under the law for homosexuals?
• If I say that black people are dirty, shiftless, stupid, and physically repulsive, and, but I believe in treating them similarly under the law, for instance maybe allowing them to enter into civil unions but not into marriages, am I a bigot?
• If, in accordance with the clear teaching of the Bible, I believe that Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons, if I am politically opposed to granting people of Cretan descent full equality under the law because of the danger their morality poses to our culture and our society, but I declare that I'm willing to tolerate Cretans as part of our society, and wish them no harm as long as they know their place, am I a bigot?

 

[Autodidact]

To my fellow homosexual-rights supporters:

Something to consider, in the interest of fairness:

There is a difference between regarding something as sinful due to one's religious beliefs, and actively/outwardly practicing intolerance towards those who commit the "sin". Some of you seem to be missing this difference.

People who vigorously criticize the (admittedly backward) religious belief that homosexuality is a "sin" often fail to criticize the (equally backward) religious belief that eating pork is a "sin".

We should regard anyone who would mistreat homosexuals with contempt....but if a person explicitly states--as some on this thread have--that they believe in the equal treatment of homosexuals, just as they believe in the equal treatment of non-Christians, then we ought not to insinuate that they are intolerant or bigoted for the mere belief that homosexuality is a "sin" any more than we ought to insinuate that strict Jews/Muslims are intolerant and bigoted for believing pork-eaters to be "unclean" (for example).

I agree. That's why Luke supports gay marriage. He's all for equal rights for gay people.