Mike182
Flaming Queer
so a human can't change who they are?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why does God care about Homosexuality?
- Thread starter Darkness
- Start date
so a human can't change who they are?
.lava
Veteran Member
no, they can't. what do you think?
So you've remained exactly the same your whole life? You haven't changed at all except maybe to grow a little taller?
I think you mean a person can't change WHAT they are. People change WHO they are all the time. If no one could change WHO they are then bad people would not be able to turn good and vice versa and there are numerous examples of both happening.
Scott C.
Just one guy
The only sexual experience that God approves of is between one man and one woman who are married and who are consenting at the time. Then, it's not only approved, but blessed and good. I don't know if its a greater sin for a man to have sex with a man than it is for a man to have sex with a woman to whom he's not married. Before I was married, I felt a quite natural urge to have sex with a lot of women I came across. The fact that the urge was biological and not a choice, did not give me the right to act on it. And, I did not act on it. The same thing goes for a homosexual urge. It may be biological, there since birth, or maybe learned. I don't know where it comes from. But, the fact is, God has commanded that this urge be not acted upon. That may be tough, but life requires discipline. A heterosexual who never has the opportunity to marry, should abstain from sex all of his or her life. That may not be easy, but it is the right thing to do. So, if you're attracted to members of the same sex, you have a challenge. Be disciplined, do what is right, and God will reward you well in the last day.
Can you explain why that is the only form of sex God approves of? What if two men were to be married? Why does God only approve of one form of sex? The thing is it is more than just an urge, which is a temporary desire, one that passes in time. a homosexual IS NOT attracted to members of the opposite sex at all never was and never will be. There "urges" will always be towards members of the same sex just as those who are heterosexual will have their "urges" always for the opposite sex. It's not a one time thing but lifelong. If two people of the same gender really love eachother and wish to show that love in such an intimate way then how can it be wrong? The only difference between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple is the gender of one person. How does that make it wrong?
Scott C.
Just one guy
The most compelling reason I have for believing sex is only right between a married man and woman, is that I believe the scriptures teach this. As a believer in scripture, that is enough for me. However, I think it's always good to try to understand why God decrees the things which he decrees. I believe the relationships between men and women stretch into eternity. The idea of a man and woman together is fundamental to the foundation of our society as God created it. I also believe that God created our society (world) as a reflection of the pattern of life in eternity. There is something absolutely essential in time and eternity about the nature of and oneness of a man and a woman. We will learn more about this when we die, I believe.
Smoke
Done here.
As a matter of fact, Luke has stated quite clearly that he's opposed to same-sex marriage. My point, though, is not exactly that Luke is a bigot; my point is that is that opposition to full legal equality for homosexuals is a form of bigotry. It may be a subtle difference in this case, but I'm not interested in probing Luke's character, I'm interested in probing his argument. Luke has argued that such attitudes are not, in fact, a form of bigotry, and that those who say they are, are fascist.I could be mistaken, but I thought Luke said that he supports the legal equailty of homosexuals. If he doesn't agree with that, then the point I was trying to make in my previous post does not apply to him.[B said:dictionary.com][/b]
big·ot
/ˈbɪg
ət/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[big-uht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
In support of Luke's first contention, you quote the dictionary.com definition of bigotry, so let's ask ourselves, first, what "utter intolerance" is. It could mean supporting a policy of extermination, or it could mean supporting a strict policy of suppressing free speech on an issue. It could hardly mean anything less. Dictionary.com has, in effect, by the unwarranted inclusion of the word "utter" in its definition, defined almost all bigotry out of existence. Here are a couple other definitions:
Wiktionary:
bigotry (plural bigotries)
1. The characteristic qualities of a bigot; intolerance or prejudice, especially religious or racial.
Members of the Ku Klux Klan practiced extreme bigotry.
1. The characteristic qualities of a bigot; intolerance or prejudice, especially religious or racial.
Members of the Ku Klux Klan practiced extreme bigotry.
bigot (plural bigots)
1. One strongly loyal to one's own social group, and irrationally intolerant or disdainful of others.
Wikipedia:1. One strongly loyal to one's own social group, and irrationally intolerant or disdainful of others.
Bigotry
A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.
The origin of the word bigot in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of "religious hypocrite", especially a woman. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable.
Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.
Intolerance need not be utter intolerance to be bigotry, and intolerance so strong that it demands to be the law of the land definitely qualifies. Nobody is demanding that the law force people into same-sex marriages. Nobody is demanding that the law force religious groups to sanction same-sex marriages, or even allow to homosexuals to be members of their groups. However, the other side is demanding that we be excluded from equality under the law. That's bigotry, plain and simple.A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.
The origin of the word bigot in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of "religious hypocrite", especially a woman. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable.
Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.
This isn't about whether bigots are always and in every circumstance hateful psychopaths. Nobody said they were.
However, you don't have to be a violent psychopath to be a bigot. Otherwise kindly bigots are "simply ignorant" and "mistaken in their reasoning" precisely because they're bigots.
Strom Thurmond was kind to his biracial daughter, so much so that she has gone to great lengths to excuse his racism. Yet this was the same man who was careful to keep her out of the public eye, and publicly said, after he already had adult grandchildren by her, that he hoped to live to see a grandchild. He was the same man who said of the Governor of the Virgin Islands, "I would not have written him if I knew he was a Negro. Of course, it would have been ridiculour to invite him." Thurmond proudly declared, when his daughter was 23 years old,
And I want to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that theres not enough troops in the Army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the ****** race into our theatres, into our swimming pools, into our homes and into our churches.
Thurmond privately acknowledged his biracial daughter (but only privately), and paid for her education. She was, in her view, a kind if rather distant father. But he was still a bigot. He was still a man who worked, and worked hard, to make sure that she wouldn't have full equality in her native state. Even when his daughter was a middle-aged woman, Strom was still denying that black citizens were systematically disfranchised in South Carolina, and claiming that the only reason hardly any black people voted here was that they didn't want to vote. Essie Mae is an old woman now, and if she's forgiven her father, or even convinced herself that there is nothing to forgive, that's her business. But her father was, nevertheless, a bigot, and one who fostered bigotry in others for his own political gain.
I grew up among bigots. My grandfather despised every religion and nationality but his own. My uncle was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. I remember my parents gathering with other adults in the neighborhood to discuss the serious problem that a black family might move into our neighborhood. Of course, nobody "hated" black people. My uncle didn't wish black people any harm; he just wanted them to keep to themselves and know their place. My parents were just worried about what would happen to property values if "they" moved into the neighborhood.
I remember hearing a Christian minister, a good friends of my parents, say from the pulpit that we had to be patient with prejudiced people, and see that they were good people at heart. He gave as an example his own mother, who, he said, was not truly a racist. She was kind to black people, took them groceries and gave them cast-off clothing; in fact, "she loved black people -- in their place." But that's the catch, isn't it?
I'm not ashamed to tell you that I'm 47 years old, and my patience is exhausted. How patient do you think you'd be, thirty years from now, if religious bigots had always prevented you for having full equality; if you and Ceridwen decided to marry but were still prevented from marrying when you were old enough to be grandparents?
Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon have been a couple since 1952. In 2004, they became the first same-sex couple in the United States to be issued a marriage license. Six months later, their marriage was voided.
I am frankly, sick and tired of people telling me to patient. I'm sick and tired of well-meaning liberals who think it's acceptable if Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon are compelled by politicians pandering to religious bigots to live all their lives as legal strangers and to die as legal strangers. And I'm sick and tired of being told I must understand that religious bigots are really warm, loving, wonderful people, they who insist that Del and Phyllis must be compelled to live and die as legal strangers, that John and I must be compelled to live and die as legal strangers.
If you were compelled to live as we are compelled to live, if you were denied all the rights and privileges that are denied to us, I wonder how many decades you'd be patient. I wonder how patient and understanding you'd feel toward people like Luke.
I wonder, if Christians were denied all the legal rights and privileges we're denied, how many decades Luke would be patient and understanding. I wonder if he'd think it was fascist to say that the people who demanded that inequality were bigots.
It's easy to sit in a position of privilege and say that people who are denied equality should be patient and understanding. It's way too damned easy.
Do you believe our gender applies to soul as well as body? That when you go to heaven you will still be a man or a woman? Your description supports the notion that men and women should live in harmony together but it does not give any reason as to why homosexual sex is or should be considered wrong. And then with scripture there's the trouble with translation and different interpretations which I have made posts on previously if you wish to read them over and comment on.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Must be nice to have a direct line to God that way. Since you're in charge of knowing God's will, would you mind telling us where you got that information. Can you even substantiate that there is any such being?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Really? Where do your scriptures prohibit love or sex between women?
McBell
Unbound
Would you please be so kind as present the verse(s) that state between one man and one woman?
And would also be so kind as to explain why many of figures in the Bible had more than one wife if God did so clearly state one man to one woman??
Why exactly are they exempt from from Gods command of one man to one woman?
Smoke
Done here.
Actually, the Bible doesn't require monogamy for anybody but Christian bishops. This "one man, one woman" stuff is blatantly unscriptural.
I'd like to hear that too. But this has been brought up numerous times in this thread and no one on the opposing side has addressed or even acknowledged it.
McBell
Unbound
I know.
But I would still like to see what verse(s) he believes support his claim.
Scott C.
Just one guy
I'm a Latter-day Saint, so to clearly express my point of view on the scriptural mandate for monogamy, I need to refer to the Book of Mormon, which I consider scripture of equal validity and value with the Bible. I believe the Bible and Book of Mormon work togther to explain the circumstances in which having more than one wife was justified. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all had multiple wives and they were justified. If I were to take a second wife today, I would not be justified and would be excommunicated from my church (if I insisted on maintaining the practice). Let me explain why. The Book of Mormon setting is about 500 years B.C. The people of God began on their own to have more than one wife. The B of M prophet Jacob said: "For behold thus saith the Lord: this people begin to wax strong in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son...Wherefore I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old...For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines ye shall have none; For I the Lord God delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts."
These people were chastised by a prophet for thinking that because someone else had had more than one wife, they could also. Now, a later verse in Jacob is instructive:
"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people, otherwise they shall hearken unto these things". Here the Lord says he may command otherwise, if he desires to "raise up seed unto him". This is, however, the exception and not the rule.
There have been special times in the past where God commanded a man to take one or more additional wives. This was done by the spirit of prophesy, was the Lord's will, and was not based on lust or anything other than a desire to comply with the will of God. God wanted to "raise up seed" unto him through the loins of Abraham. He commanded Abraham to reproduce through different women to become the father of many nations.
Abraham was a good man and was justified in what he did, even commanded to do what he did. We are under no such divine mandate today, so it's one man and one woman in one marriage.
These people were chastised by a prophet for thinking that because someone else had had more than one wife, they could also. Now, a later verse in Jacob is instructive:
"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people, otherwise they shall hearken unto these things". Here the Lord says he may command otherwise, if he desires to "raise up seed unto him". This is, however, the exception and not the rule.
There have been special times in the past where God commanded a man to take one or more additional wives. This was done by the spirit of prophesy, was the Lord's will, and was not based on lust or anything other than a desire to comply with the will of God. God wanted to "raise up seed" unto him through the loins of Abraham. He commanded Abraham to reproduce through different women to become the father of many nations.
Abraham was a good man and was justified in what he did, even commanded to do what he did. We are under no such divine mandate today, so it's one man and one woman in one marriage.
There is one that I know of. Do you really want me to post it?
Why do you ask? Do you feel it might be innapropriate or offensive? Go ahead, I'd like to see it.
Romans 1:26,27
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
New International Version
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
New International Version
As I mentioned before the use of the word natural in this verse could also be interpreted as meaning that men who were already attracted to women(who were NATURALLY attracted to women) started having sex with men and therefore wouldn't apply to homosexuals who already NATURALLY attracted to men. As they are already NATURALLY attracted to men their would be nothing UNnatural about it. And it's even less specific about women so again it could simply be referring to natural attraction as in who they were originally attracted to. As such it would only apply to those who went against their sexuality, lesbians who slept with men and gays who slept with women. Thus by this interpretation it would be less a condemnation of homosexuality and more a condemnation of going against your natural sexual attraction towards whatever gender your oriented towards. More like a "be true to yourself" sort of thing.