posted
No, I did read it. I just disagree with you about the EXTENT to which people have dealt with their sin, and the argument that only people with RELATED sins need to worry about their own.
In other words, a hateful, loathsome person has not "dealt" with the temptation of homosexuality by not being attracted to men; he does not get a free pass on removing his "plank," even if that particular "plank" never existed in his eye. His OWN plank, his hatefulness, is one that he'll have to spend his own life dealing with -- and, frankly, I think a truly astonishing number of people prefer to start dealing with other people's sins WELL before they start dealing with their own.
In fact, in my anecdotal experience, I have NEVER heard someone lecture about sin who would not, himself or herself, benefit from listening to the same lecture; it's the "righteous" who are most commonly in need of their own salvation.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:First, I'd like to point out that, at least in LDS theology, homosexuality itself is not a sin. Homosexual actions are the sin.
Bingo. Same in my thinking, Amka.
If I look at a man and lust after him, I have sinned. If I have sex with my husband, I have not. If I have sex with a man other than my husband, I've sinned.
A homosexual is not committing a sin just by existing. If he lusts after someone he is not married to, he is sinning. If he acts on that lust, he is sinning. If he were to marry, into a marriage recognized by God, then he would not be sinning if he acts on it.
I disagree with dkw. I think God was pretty clear that he was against all forms of homosexual behavior. With the many passages regarding the sacrament of marriage, I would think at least one would list same-sex marriages if they were okay in God's eyes. Then again, absence of something doesn't prove its false, and I don't claim to know everything.
Yet, I find the evidence overwhelming. "A MAN shall leave his mother and cling to his WIFE" That's pretty clear - marriage is man to woman and only man to woman as far as I'm concerned.
Tom, you missed the point. Nowhere does it say you must be sin-free to inform another person of their sin. That's impossible. What the passage is saying is that if I'm deep in a sinful lifestyle, say a compulsive gambler, it's pretty hypocritical for me to criticize a friend who is having an affair. If however, I'm in gambler's anonymous and sincerely struggling to overcome my addiction and deal with my sin - then yes, I can point out to my friend that what she's doing is wrong. The difference is one of repentance - if I'm in repentance of my sin, if I'm asking for forgiveness and working on it - then I'm doing as God has asked. He knows we will never be sin-free, he asks us to confess our sins, and repent.
If I were an unrepentant sinner, then yeah - I should keep my mouth shut. However, I personally struggle very much every day with my own sin, which makes me feel that I'm barely ever capable of talking to someone else about theirs. Yet, I'm called to do so when I recognize it, but it can only be done out of love, not some selfish holier-than-thou condescending attitude. If I'm in the right state of mind, humbled by my own sin, then it will come across right.
And yet, some people don't listen and don't want anything to do with your attempts to help them. They won't turn from their sin, instead they embrace it and tell you to leave them alone.
At some point, you must. You must follow the steps God laid out for you, confront them with witnesses, pray for them, go to them in love, forgive them for what they did, etc. And when you do all that and they still refuse to acknowledge they've sinned and seek reconciliation, what then?
Then you get to hurt, for a long time, while someone you love refuses to acknowledge you or address you and says they are just writing you out of their life. They tell you if you're so intent on being "A Christian holy-roller" then you are no daughter of theirs. How do you choose between an earthly father and your heavenly father?
Easy choice, but it still hurts. I've watched my family crumble around me, and what can I do? Jesus never promised us our choices would be easy or would automatically make us happy.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really, really hate this pointless discussion. *sigh*
Why do I think it's pointless? In college, I took a class called "The Age of Milton". We studdied Milton, Dunne, etc. Lots of essays and moral treatises. Many of them were still just as relevant as when they were written.
Then there was the essay about whether or not women have souls. God help me, this was a serious question at one time. It makes me feel sick and angry just to think about it.
I honestly believe that if the world stands for another hundred or so years (at least the lifetimes of a couple more popes) all our hand-wringing about homosexuality will be about this relevant.
Then a few generations after that, God will get around to making it official. He's got some major time lag. I think it may have something to do with the speed of light...
posted
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and his mother, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." Matthew 10:34
"And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." Matthew 10:21
posted
Wow, Belle. Thanks for putting all of those things so clearly.
I think people keep failing to understand that the point is not to shout at someone at random and yell "Sinner, sinner!" regardless of if you yourself are sinning or not. The point is that we believe that sinful natures are destructive to us, and that what God wants for us is best. So if you care about your brother, then you will be concerned that a sinful lifestyle is detrimental to him. So IN LOVE, you will tell him so and then leave the poor guy alone and let him do what he thinks is best. You don't beat it into his head. Why would that work? The difference between me and the Pharisees is that they thought they were righteous and I certainly do not believe that I am righteous. Secondly, they were hatefully telling people how evil they were, whereas, I care very much for people and love them and want what's best for them. Let's please not get into an argument about "How do you know what's best for someone?" That's a never-ending argument, too.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread is not about whether or not a religion is scripturally justified in believing as they do about homosexuals/homosexuality. It's clear from the religions out there that have chosen one way or another that various interpretations *ARE* possible.
The initial point in my post is that if you base your feelings on homosexuality on what you experience and see and what God actually communicates to you, it seems to me that the case for acceptance of homosexuality if pretty strong. The only reason it seems to me to not accept homosexuals as full members of any society is because of tradition. All the other sins that people are listing along side homosexuality can easilly be shown to not work to be optimally healthy for the *individual*. Such is not the case for monogamous homosexual relationships, I think.
There are some social arguments that have been hinted at, that homosexual marriages will erode this, that or the other standard in society and so be bad for society. This cannot be answered, at present, because only one first world country has made homosexual marriages legal, and as is well known, that is Canada, and that only just recently.
So, let's say that we get in our time machine and go twenty years in the future and somehow, it is provably shown that homosexual marriage does nothing to a society. In fact, it's great. Since fewer gay people are out galavanting around, STDs in the general population are down. Productivity from all those happy, little gay worker bees is up.
That leaves tradition and doctrine. What then? Again, if doctrine does not change to accomodate new evidence, then how can that doctrine be seen as 'true' by our human, logical faculties? How can the society that follows such a doctrine be seen as anything other than unthinkingly doctrinaire? (I hope I didn't go too far with that last statement. )
Please note that I admit that the reverse could be true. Could be that gay marriage causes Canadian society to unravel and various bad things to happen, in which case those who have opposed homosexual marriage will be proved right.
posted
By the way, I in no way say that a religion is wrong for being doctrinaire. I might argue that it is not optimal for the happiness and health of the most people within that religion. I might also argue that once you place your beliefs into law, we're talking a turkey of a whole nother color. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could be that gay marriage causes Canadian society to unravel and various bad things to happen
I will be interested to see what happens in Canada.
I wonder if we will be able to recognize the ill effects, if they do happen? Or, if we do recognize ill effects in Canadian society, will it be "politically correct" to tie them to homosexual marriage?
In U.S. society, we have had a serious increase in divorce over the past several decades, and an accompanying increase in single parenting. Many in our society would refute the following statement:
Single parenting is not the ideal practice for our society.
Many people feel like single parenting is just another form of parenting that is equally as valid and even equally desireable as mommy/daddy parenting.
If there are negative consequences to Canadian society, will we even own up to that fact?
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why not Stormy? I mean, they get to speak out about how sinful homosexuality is. Of course, I'm sure Xav still likes all of them, even though their beliefs are an affront to him. You know, love the sinner, hate the sin and all. He can hate these threads, have them make him sick, but still love the people with the wrong opinions, can't he? Isn't it the same thing?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Damn, Xavier. Don't you think that your statement might carry its own intolerance?
Actually, yes I am intolerant of people using their religious beliefs to oppress others. Especially when they try and pretend they have secular reasons for forcing their faith on others. The last Homosexuality thread had about three pages of Christains trying to convince everyone that they were opposed to same sex marriages because of the fear it would harm society in some way. After being pressed to provide rational reasons for this, or some kind of evidence, those people finally admitted that they oppose same sex marriage because it would "validate the lifestyle", and that this was a bad thing because their religion says homosexuality is a sin.
This is no more valid than trying to legislate morality as stated by the Quran. We all think that Islamic governments are backward and wrong for legislating religious morality, but Christain morality is A-Okay.
Furthermore, people like aka, dkw, Sopwith, and others show me that people can still be christain and not accept bigotry without question. It makes me so glad to hear their stories about how they came to their beliefs by rational, independent thought.
For every dkw though, there's a popatr that accepts the doctrine without even the slightest bit of independent thought. They make me want to scream, cry, and then give up entirely (in that order ).
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." Matthew 10:34
Very appropriate passage to my situation, Jeffrey. I have been set against my father because of my faith, and yes, I do believe there are time when Christians must rise up and "hate" their parents, if the choice is serving their parents' will vs. serving God's will.
I made my choice, and I'm dealing with the consequences. I don't think I made the wrong one, I just hate feeling the pain the decision caused. Of course, to decide the other way would have caused much more pain.
As to the topic, there are days when the homosexual debate seems very pointless to me, in a society that allows abortion and no-fault divorce and teenage pregnancy is rampant, it almost seems to be a minor blip on the radar.
And I am concerned about the other issues. But, just because there are "worse" things to speak out against doesn't mean we should ignore things that we feel compelled to speak against. I don't have a personal problem with KarlEd or any other homosexual, there are brilliant, funny, compassionate, caring, and interesting people who happen to be homosexual. There are brilliant, funny, compassionate, caring, and interesting people who happen to be adulterers. Doesn't make either activity right.
No matter how much I personally like a person, that doesn't mean I can accept their sinful behavior. I don't accept my own sinful behavior, I pray and ask forgiveness for it daily. I don't accept the sinful behavior of my children, I point it out and correct them of it. I don't love them any less.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get especially frustrated when they use the bible as the basis for oppressing homosexuals, because there is so very much in the bible which is flat out ignored. Like Tom once said, when was the last time you guys went out to burn some witches? Hey, there are even some self-proclaimed Wiccans on this very message board. Anyone got a match?
Kayla, while being sarcastic, is actually sort of correct in my views. I do like Christains just fine, and they are some of my favorite hatrackers. In fact, for a while (until fairly recently) I considered converting to a christain church (and think I may still someday). This does not mean, however, that I would then accept all official beliefs of that church without question. At the very least, I would not ever think of using those religious beliefs to decide how my fellow americans can live their lives.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
Just because, Xav, I have come down on the same side of the issue as church doctrine doesn't mean that I haven't thought independantly about it. This statement of yours shows an obvious prejudice.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
There are caring people on both sides demanding the respect they deserve.
However, this whole debate is not about bringing one's Christian ethics into a public forum.
It is about using a public forum, the state, what is Ceasar's, to protect "CHRISTIANITY".
Homosexuality has made fantastic strides in the last fifty years to be more accepted in Western Culture. Those who are gay have found less intolerance, and more acceptance in almost all facets of their lives.
They have sought the freedom to live their lives as they believe they are biologically driven too, and not to hide or supress these drives with a suicidal furry.
No longer are they locked up in insane asylums.
No longer are they routinely stoned or murdered.
Yet there is one part of their lives where they sought to be welcomed. They sought a church that would allow them to live a spiritual life.
Several Christian churches welcomed them into their congregations. The Gay Christian movement was growing, as the Christian values of acceptance, community, and love allowed them to enter.
Other denominations refused them. They saw homosexuality as a sin, and practioners of any sin would not be welcomed into their church.
Now despite the fact that Christianity is divided into sects, divisions, and a multitude of sub-churches, there is still an underlieing bond that connects these churches. The Episcopaleons don't burn the Baptists as heretics. The Methodists do not raid Lutheran services to save the souls of those misguided fools. There is a basic belief that all Christians are really the same.
Even the wars between the Catholics and the Protestants has been peaceful, well, accept for in Ireland, and that's more a revenge treadmill going on there.
So when those Christians who saw homosexuality as a sin saw other Christians accepting homosexuals into their congregations, it became a threat to Christianity as a whole. It didn't matter that there were differnt churches, different sects, different cities. It was still a threat.
So they have gone to their elected officials to stop anyone from allowing homosexuals to marry, forcing the legitamate Christian churches to deny gay couples this sacrament.
And most of the gay couples that I have spoken to do not want a politically official "State Union." Certainly the politically active gay people in the press have pushed for the secular reasons to allow marriages. That is not what my friends want.
They want the sacrament. They want the sacred vow between themselves and God. They believe that a loving God will not condone them for falling in love, or for experiencing the joy that their bodies crave, and that other married couples can routinely experience.
To them, the Christians that demand they reject their homosexuality leaves them living a life of Abstinence. For a gay man to marry a woman would be to lie to God and to profane that sacrament far more than marrying another gay man.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Episcopaleons don't burn the Baptists as heretics. The Methodists do not raid Lutheran services to save the souls of those misguided fools. There is a basic belief that all Christians are really the same.
Even the wars between the Catholics and the Protestants has been peaceful, well, accept for in Ireland, and that's more a revenge treadmill going on there.
Except the Baptists preach against the Mormons, and the Methodists have so freaked out my aunt she thinks my brothers and I are the only possibly-sane members of a rapacious cult, and the KKK targeted Catholics with impunity, and the JWs get called a cult with hardly a blink...
The largest gay congregation is in Dallas, Texas. If a spiritual life is important, there's a way.
quote:To them, the Christians that demand they reject their homosexuality leaves them living a life of Abstinence.
quote:In the Mosaic law the death penalty was inflicted
For murder Genesis 9:5,6; Numbers 35:16-21,30-33; Deuteronomy 17:6
For adultery Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:24
For incest Leviticus 20:11,12,14
For bestiality Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 20:15,16
For sodomy Leviticus 18:22; 20:13
For sexual immorality Deuteronomy 22:21-24
For the rape of a betrothed (engaged) virgin Deuteronomy 22:25
For perjury Zechariah 5:4
For kidnapping Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7
For the promiscuousness of a priest’s daughter Leviticus 21:9
For witchcraft Exodus 22:18
For offering human sacrifice Leviticus 20:2-5
For striking or cursing one’s father or mother Exodus 21:15,17; Leviticus 20:9
For disobedience to parents Deuteronomy 21:18-21
For stealing Zechariah 5:3,4
For blasphemy Leviticus 24:11-14,16,23
For desecrating the Sabbath day Exodus 35:2; Numbers 15:32-36
For prophesying falsely, or propagating false doctrines Deuteronomy 13:1-10
For sacrificing to false gods Exodus 22:20
For refusing to abide by the decision of the court Deuteronomy 17:12
For treason 1 Kings 2:25; Esther 2:23
For sedition Acts 5:36,37
Long list, eh? I suppose I should get my matches out and get busy, I've got a lot of people to kill, including myself, because I've disobeyed my parents....
Whoa, wait a second...this is Mosaic law, right?
*whew* See, I'm not bound by Mosaic law. I'm a Christian, and therefore I'm under the New Covenant. Now, if you wish to search the scriptures of the New Testament and find a scripture where Jesus tells me to kill a witch, you may have a point. To save you time, I've already looked. There aren't any.
In fact, I have software that searches through five different popular versions of the Bible, and I asked it to search the New Testament for any mention of the word "witch" and "sorcery/sorcerer/sorceress" this is all it found that would probably interest you.
quote:Ga 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Ga 5:21 envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Ga 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
Ga 5:23 meekness, self-control; against such there is no law.
The only other mentions were of Simon, the sorcerer in Acts who was baptized by Phillip, and a mention of the power of sorcery in Babylon in Revelation.
Don't think I'm missing your point - I know you're saying some people only believe selective portions of the Bible. Very True, in fact I'm ashamed to say many Christians have not even read the entire Bible, or even at the very least the New Testament.
However, there are those of us who do read and study and pray so that we can be firm in our beliefs and so we can try our darnedest to walk in the footsteps of Jesus, no matter how short we may fall. You belittle those of us with your challenges like this "What about witches? huh? huh? what about that?" because Tom at least knows very well that evangelical Christians do not believe they should enforce all of the Old Testament laws.
That does not mean, of course, that all of those laws are useless, I still think many of the things on that above list are wrong. I think what's very telling is what Jesus and/or the Apostles reiterated in the New Testament. I don't think there is little doubt that the Apostle Paul was reaffirming that homosexual behavior is still considered a sin.
In short, I don't believe I should be out burning witches anymore than I believe I should be sacrificing animals on altars. The Crucifixion changed all that.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh...I have a question. Probably a stupid one. Jesus said a whole lot about 'love your neighbor as yourself', and 'judge not lest ye be judged', and good stuff like that. Now, it's the Apostles who wrote the Epistles that say all the stuff about witches and homosexuality...stuff that leads people to judge and not love their neighbors. So...wouldn't Jesus's word take presidence over the Apostles'? Wouldn't you love and not judge before doing the whole witch- and gay-hating thing?
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a good question, Human. If it looks like two parts of the Bible are not in harmony, who gets precedence?
On the other hand, I'm pretty sure he didn't mean that kind of love when it comes to loving your neighbor.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Human- The Apostle's words were directly inspired by the Holy Spirit so in essence those are the words of God. As for judging, acknowledging sin is not judgement. It would be judgemental to scorn the person. I DEFINANTLY do not think we should persecute or deny basic civil liberties to anyone based on race, gender or orientation. However marriage is a sacred union created by God. I have friends who are athiests who are great people, and friends who are gay that are great too.
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ryan: Yeah...but...I've found that's a lot harder to do than it sounds. And besides...aren't we persecuting them? Couldn't it be considered a form of persecution to deny a couple the ability to have a legally and publically recognized 'marriage', no matter what the sexual preference? Isn't it basically like saying that their form of love isn't adaquate, but that the heterosexual kind is?
Oh...and why couldn't God change his mind?
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: They want the sacrament. They want the sacred vow between themselves and God. They believe that a loving God will not condone them for falling in love, or for experiencing the joy that their bodies crave, and that other married couples can routinely experience.
That is exactly what I wanted to say, Dan. It kills me... My best friend, as I said earlier, is a lesbian, but because of the way society is, she doesn't think she even WANTS to get married. Oh, she wants to get married, even to have kids, but society is telling her that it would irreparably screw those kids up for her to be their loving mother if it meant that they'd have another loving mother as well. This is what she wants, but she doesn't think she has the right.
She morally objects to her own happiness, and that's something no one should have to face.
quote: Oh...and why couldn't God change his mind?
Agreed. If anyone remembers that passage in the bible where it says that God "made man in his own image..." How could man change his mind if God was unable to?
quote: their faith believes that what they do is a sin, so they can't be equal members of either civil or religious society.
Sorry if this is a repeat, but if so it bears the weight of repeating: They are equal members because all have sinned. All still sin in one way or another every day and all need to continually repent.
I'm overweight. I am keen to lots of little messages that this is wrong and I should be living differently to overcome this, or at least not glory in it. Some come from church, but most come from society. It irks me that people won't accept me as I am. But deep down, I know it would be better for me to be healthier. And I know on a personal level, people do love me and accept me even when they speak glowingly of the ideal that I am not.
You may say that my example is totally disproportionate, but consider that obesity is linked to heart disease and cancer, the two biggest killers. ::Edit::Obesity is tantamount to suicide. ::Edit:: At least that's what the propogandists say...
quote: It's just giving all citizens equal rights to marriage.
We don't all have equal rights to marriage. Unless we decide that it is okay to compel some to get married so others can be married. What about the right to stay married, even if your spouse wants to leave you? Does this exist? I'm very uncomfortable with the word "right" as it pertains to marriage.
Besides, what about the argument that marriage is just a piece of paper? People can and do already come up with their own little pieces of paper. There are legal boundaries that come with marriage. Some are beneficial, like insurance benefits, and some are obligations like alimony, palimony, and the "marriage tax". One thing I do feel is sad is when a life partner's knowledge of the deceased's wishes are ignored after death. But don't people have the right to grant someone power of attorney and stuff like that?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Human-It has to do with the definition of marriage. Marriage is between a man and a women. We are not persecuting them anymore than we are persecuting a 20 year old by not letting him have alcohol.
God can change his mind. However there are things that he has declared to be against himself. Sexuall immorality would be under that category. He has defined homosexuality under that category.
His choice not mine.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Storm Saxon> First, you asked about whether one revelation can change another, and the answer in my fellowship has typically been yes--in fact, some people have taken it to such extremes that they claimed any small revelation would supersede the entirety of the Scripture. I'm pretty sure that extreme is nonsense, but the principle is correct. We just don't expect any further revelations prior to the Second Coming.
Second (and much later), you asked about how unchanging doctrine could remain true in a changing world. My personal belief on the subject is that doctrine is not simply a matter of objective truth, although that is involved. God's, um...personal perspective is also a major component of doctrinal truth. Likewise, guilt is as much a matter of God's attitude toward the sinner as it is the objective occurrence of a sin. Thus changes in the ordinary objective world are not always enough to change the meaning of doctrine.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Assuming you speak of America, you are persecuting a 20 year old by not letting him have alcohol. It is downright wrong to say that someone can vote, to say that they can be involuntarily sent to die for their country if they are male, to say that they can drive at 16 in most states, and then turn around and say that they cannot toss back a few beers.
As for homosexuality, or specifically the marriage part of it, what is so hard about separating legal marriage from marriage within a church? You can join a liberal church if you think it is fine, stay in a conservative church if you feel it is wrong, and everyone can be equal under the eyes of the law.
Also, just because Christians may honestly believe it is wrong does not mean we have to like what we believe. I firmly believe that Bill Gates will not write me into his will and then suddenly die, but I do not particuarly like that either. There are a few Christians who basically hope that they are wrong on this issue, and that other Christians such as dkw are right. Well, one at least. Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ryan: But why is it only between a man and a woman? Is it because that's the way we've been defining it for centuries? If it's a 'that's we way we're going to define it, because that's how been defining it' argument, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. It's like saying that everyone is expected to wear only red clothing because that's what everyone's been wearing, and anything else is sinful!
On your second point...I guess I'm just not faithful enough. It has never ever made sense to me that God wants us to...look down on someone as a sinner just because they love someone of the same sex, or are attracted to someone of the same sex. Jesus preached time and time again about love and forgiveness and tolerance of others! He sat with the money-lenders and the tax collectors, not the righteous! Why do we assume we have the right to throw all that out based on a thousand year old collection of rules and stories?
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now money lenders and tax collectors are the not righteous? There aren't any "righteous". The folks who said they were righteous were called hypocrites. I'd also like to point out that Magneto was the one who called America, foremostly, "the land of Tolerance."
Christ said judge not that yet be not judged. That means we will be judged as harshly as we judge others. Though I think we will get judged on our thoughts even if we think we are only judging others' behavior. I dunno. In real life I've only known one gay person as a friend- who was out, anyway. But I'm kind of introverted.
If homosexuality were organized into a religion, I would say it should be afforded tolerance. But it goes back and forth between being a physical condition and being a lifestyle choice. Either one is acceptable, but I don't think it's fair for the gay community to decide in the moment that they are feeling offended what to define themselves as. They aren't happy unless you join them. Kind of like LDS.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When they changed the voting age, most states changed the drinking age too. Death tolls rose exponentially, they returned it to 21 soon after.
[Disclaimer: This is what we learned in social studies, complain to the educational system in America if it's wrong ]
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many states only changed the drinking age when the feds threatened to withhold monies to repair federal highways.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I have to wonder is why this keeps coming up. Couldn't we just get one of these threads archived? Everybody could state their position, and when someone new starts to post a homosexuality thread we could just point to it.
I don't understand why someone's consensual sexual preference makes a difference.
The only real, concrete fact against gay marriage that has been presented here is that most Christian faiths consider homosexual acts a sin. This is based on the words of St. Paul, a man who did not like marriage or sex of any kind. I urge you to check out 1 Corinthians, Chapter 7. The whole thing, I don't want to quote out of context. He doesn't think people should be married or have sex, although he grudgingly allows people to get married if they absolutely have to.
The words of St. Paul are, in fact, one of the main reasons I am not Christian. I cannot accept him as an authority due to his opinions on relationships and the role of the woman in life, and arguments based on his opinions sway me not.
Us heathen types need a secular reason to condemn something. Watch: Adultery is a violation of the commitment between two people. It requires lying to your loved one, and is an act of personal selfishness as it puts your pleasure over that of your spouse. It can often result in broken marriages, assaults, murders, and traumatized children after the deception is discovered. See how easy that was? Didn't have to mention scripture at all.
Now why is adultery comparable to two committed people wanting to cleave one to another, just because they're the same sex? Shouldn't we be encouraging commitment?
[ September 10, 2003, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is very little that is posted here that isn't a variation of something someone has said before, Chris. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, there is an awful lot of justification of actions restricting behavior like homosexuality in this thread... But can anyone point out a scripture or two that says one ought to legislate against the behavior?
That's not true. Many people have stated they believe it to be a sin, and most did not state exactly why. My reason has NOTHING to do with Paul.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
God help me, this was a serious question at one time. It makes me feel sick and angry just to think about it.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
).
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
]
