Gay Bashing

[Skywalker]

Different subcultures. Gay men and lesbians have their own cultures and ways of doing things.

How is their culture and way of doing things different?

 

[Skywalker]

Thanks for clarifying.
Well, since the scriptures say God created man and woman, specifically Adam and Eve and God Himself joined them in marriage and then told them to be fruitful and multiply, I think then example that the marriage/ sexual relationship was to be between a man and a woman who are husband and wife. This was also reiterated throughout the rest of the Bible.

Is that what people mean by why aren't meant to have those kinds of relationships.

 

[Skywalker]

Garbage. Get people should not closet themselves to please morons who think it's "icky". Those morons can mind their business as well as grow up. You can't live your life trying to please people who look down on you.

Yeah, homosexuality may seem counter-intuitive from an evolutionary standpoint at first glance, but it's really not. Male homosexuality is correlated with large families, with multiple siblings. One good theory is that it appears in such families as a way of reducing population pressure. The homosexual family member is able to provide for the family and support them without adding more children to the mix. That's for male homosexuality.
Fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation - Wikipedia

As for female homosexuality, females tend to be more fluid sexually. To be honest, it's probably because a female is more likely to sexually satisfy another female, since (let's be even more honest) males and females aren't very compatible sexually. They're almost different species with all the differences between them. But that's my own personal theory. At the same time, total lesbianism seems to be pretty rare, along with masculine females (feminine men seem more common than masculine women).

Why do you think androgen in women is not as common as estrogen in men?

 

[thomas t]

I'm bisexual and a transsexual man, and I have had very nasty bigoted remarks thrown at me by Christians over my sexuality and gender on this site. So I will answer yes to your poll, although I am not gay.

thank you very much, Frankenstein.
I should have written: "as a homosexual, or transgender, do you feel attacked by Christians" - I left that out. I shouldn't have.

So you say transgender? then you must have suffered from the reproach "it's an illness" - from my experience, Christian attackers mess up illness before the change and transgenderism itself.
Or there is another nasty and mean assessment by Christian attackers: peril of the youth in a sense that they would "recruit" them or successfully persuade them to change their gender. However, from my experience, they do not back this assessment up by facts. They don't have Bible verses at their side, either. They just declare... but cannot substanciate these claims, as I see it.

The reproach of "recruitment" also is made against homosexuals, from my experience. But here again, they have no evidence as to show that rhetorically apt people could go ahead and just change the sexual orientation of youths even if they wanted.

So I really think that you suffered a lot. Sorry.
Thomas

 

[thomas t]

The scriptures include a huge amount of information about sexual matters

yes, but they didn't talk about it, I suppose. To my knowledge, talking about sex prior to 1968 was a taboo.
As a personal example, I couldn't just go ahead and discuss sex with my mother (pre-1968) or even my grandmother (born 1916). My grandmother had expressions that only after you have given it some thought became clear to have been about sex.

it appears to be very clear that God had no problem providing instruction on what was right or wrong concerning sexual behavior and desires.

yes, in terms of what could be understood at that time.
But they didn't understand "sexual orientation", as I see it. Because there was no discussion about sexual orientation to begin with. An understanding of what that is doesn't drop from the sky as I see it, it has to be explained by someone and there has to be some amount of discussion about it.

 

[thomas t]

Hello Skywalker, hello InChrist,

God created men and women, but men and women living together before marriage is a sin. Maybe when people say God created men and women its a reference to husband and wives, because being gay is a different violation of how a marriage relationship works than living together before marriage.

+

Well, since the scriptures say God created man and woman, specifically Adam and Eve and God Himself joined them in marriage and then told them to be fruitful and multiply, I think then example that the marriage/ sexual relationship was to be between a man and a woman who are husband and wife. This was also reiterated throughout the rest of the Bible.

please let me allow to point out that this is not the topic.
The topic at hand is homophobia.

The topic is... even if many Christians think homosexuality is sin... does this justify the bashing?

I say no.

Regardless of what you think LGBT+ life is to be considered morally, Christians should not insult.
There is no reason to insult someone just for thinking they are wrong in some aspect of life.

Furthermore, many Christians even go ahead and plead for the political discrimination of LGBT+, saying that their partnerships must not have the same status as marriage between husband and wife.
This call for discrimination is wrong, as I see it. Our atheist fellow citizens could turn the calls for discrimination against us Christians.
They might think: what? they want to discriminate against LGBT+?
These Christians are the ones should be discriminated against!

I am glad that you accept me being neutral on the issue of homosexuality being a sin yes or no.
Normally, on Christian discussion boards, whenever I made homophia a topic they tried to "hijack" the discussion making it a debate on whether homosexuality is good or bad. As if an answer to this question could imply a justifaction of homophic remarks or slurs.
Normally they also tried to tackle my neutrality and I had to go into great lenghths explaining why I choose to be neutral here.

But please feel free to go on discussing if homosexuality/bisexuality is a matter of hormones or whatever it comes from... this is important for the thread, as I see it.
For if LGBT+ can't just change their orientation, slurs are even more idiotic. This is at least how I see the relationship between these topics.

edited to add last paragraph

 

[thomas t]

change is possible for homosexuals... why some do not change... and how their thinking is transformed.

let's see if your sources stands scrutiny. JW.org in green, my comment in black color. Note that the three links provided lead to the same web page.

"Because the bulk of available information agrees with the Bible: Homosexuals CAN change. Nothing but the person himself forces an individual to remain homosexual. Does that statement sound too strong to you? Well, consider the evidence."
While I do not doubt that sexual orientation may be subject to change...
JW.org did not provide the tiniest shred of evidence for their claim that "nothing but the person himself forces an individual to remain homosexual". It's presumption.

Now an interesting line of reasoning:
"one is struck by this fact: Homosexuals want to be homosexuals. An article largely sympathetic to the homosexual movement appeared in the Minneapolis Tribune, May 14, 1972. Notice the writer’s observations:

“Behind all of this, one senses the unspoken fear that some factor might be found in research that would make it seem possible to change a gay into a straight. They wouldn’t want this. They are happy in their gayness. They don’t want to be straight.


“Lena Hardin, who is coordinator with Mike McConnell of Gay House’s speaking bureau, put it this way: ‘The only advantage to being straight is that you no longer would be different. Other people’s concepts and considerations of you would be altered. And, to tell you the truth, it’s not all that valuable. I still want to be what I am.’”


Notice, no appeal to being ‘born homosexual’ or with a ‘poor family background.’ The individuals involved just plainly say: “I still want to be what I am.”


THINKING TRANSFORMED

Since a person chooses to be homosexual, [...]"
so, for JW.org, it suffices to cite a certain Lena Hardin and a newspaper article from 1972 to conclude: Since a person chooses to be homosexual.

That's ridiculous, in my opinion, since neither that Mrs. Hardin nor a newspaper article can establish the choice of one's sexual orientation as factual by mere declaration of their personal view.

BTW, Mrs. Lena Hardin and Mike McConnell do exist, but online, I could find only one single page mentioning them: From The Archives: "Counterculture Queens" Making History at Gay House - The Column, a source referring to the 1970s.

When it comes to a question with tremendous scientific relevance, you can't just cite a girl from the 70s and one newspaper article from the same era and think the issue is settled then. These two aren't representative of the world's homosexual population to begin with.

Also, Lena Hardin saying that she wants to be what she is... can in no way point to her having determined her sexuality by herself. She just makes it clear she is content with herself. That doesn't mean she somehow determined her own sexuality, as the source suggests.

At that point I stopped reading this source, since I don't want to waste my time.

 

[thomas t]

Christ never existed as I do. He was a fairy tale invented by persecuted people during Roman times.

However, I still find it sad that those who profess to follow such a prolific literary character are quite un-Christ-like in how they treat others.

I think he did exist. Bible is a true story in my view.

 

[Skywalker]

Hello Skywalker, hello InChrist,

+

please let me allow to point out that this is not the topic.
The topic at hand is homophobia.

The topic is... even if many Christians think homosexuality is sin... does this justify the bashing?

I say no.

Regardless of what you think LGBT+ life is to be considered morally, Christians should not insult.
There is no reason to insult someone just for thinking they are wrong in some aspect of life.

Furthermore, many Christians even go ahead and plead for the political discrimination of LGBT+, saying that their partnerships must not have the same status as marriage between husband and wife.
This call for discrimination is wrong, as I see it. Our atheist fellow citizens could turn the calls for discrimination against us Christians.
They might think: what? they want to discriminate against LGBT+?
These Christians are the ones should be discriminated against!

I am glad that you accept me being neutral on the issue of homosexuality being a sin yes or no.
Normally, on Christian discussion boards, whenever I made homophia a topic they tried to "hijack" the discussion making it a debate on whether homosexuality is good or bad. As if an answer to this question could imply a justifaction of homophic remarks or slurs.
Normally they also tried to tackle my neutrality and I had to go into great lenghths explaining why I choose to be neutral here.

But please feel free to go on discussing if homosexuality/bisexuality is a matter of hormones or whatever it comes from... this is important for the thread, as I see it.
For if LGBT+ can't just change their orientation, slurs are even more idiotic. This is at least how I see the relationship between these topics.

edited to add last paragraph

Christians arent just against LGBT partnerships having the same status as marriage between a man and a woman, they are against domestic partnerships for unmarried straight people.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Christians arent just against LGBT partnerships having the same status as marriage between a man and a woman, they are against domestic partnerships for unmarried straight people.

Not all of them. It's not unusual for some of them to see people in a committed, long term relationship as "married before god."

 

[thomas t]

You are right about that. Those therapies don’t work and do cause a lot of problems for same-sex attracted individuals, including depression or worse, suicide. On the other hand, I think the transforming power of Christ does work because that is a complete change of identity or as the scriptures say one becomes a new creation in Christ. This transformation is not only possible in regard to homosexuality, but any area of one’s life that falls short of God’s perfect wholeness.

Below is a link to someone’s own personal experience and change of identity, if you’re interested...

I watched the vid. Nice story.
But at minute 7:04 it starts to get tricky.
He says: "people say isn't it unloving to say homosexuality is sin! [..] But isn't it more unloving to let people spend eternity apart from God?"
So the question arises, what is he planning to do to not "let" people go that way?
Is he going to set people under pressure?

Every homosexual has listened to the stance "it's sin" an estimated thousand times, already, I think.
I personally don't believe in the love behind statements such as "it's sin, sin, sin!"... in a situation where everyone knows already that this is the conservative view of the matter.

In my view, one's sexual orientation is part of one's identity.
Looking down on other people's identity traits effectively means partially looking down on them as a person, in my view. And that's not healthy, I think.


Still neutral towards whether or not it's sin to be LGBT+.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I also want to throw in that gay men, especially, appear to be over-represented in the arts, literature and entertainment. This is not a new phenomenon and goes back many centuries in the West alone, but not the West only. Philosophy, too. So if Yahweh hates gay men so much, apparently he hates art and intellectualism, too. He hates culture, then.

 

[nPeace]

that's a myth.
Children of that age cannot consent to having sex, in my opinion.

Yes, many people do decide for themselves that anything they don't believe is myth, but this is a clear example of why people should be careful about being swayed by opinion, rather than evidence based on the facts.

Hence when a person says, the Adam and Eve account is a myth, they really are doing so, based not on examining the facts, but personal opinion.
There is a lesson to learn from this.

 

[nPeace]

Nope.

No? Well one can't just sit and read the Bible, and say, "Aha!" without taking the time to understand what they read. Sooner, rather than later, they'd be doing what these men did... John 6:60, 66.
They fail to get the sense of it. A sad loss really.
Imagine losing out on living eternally with perfect health with loving friends - no deceitful persons, no crime, no wars, no suffering... just abundant peace.

Oh wait. Some people don't care about that apparently.

 

[nPeace]

I'll have to come back, but this confused me. The links you gave where biblical. I gave scientific links. Regardless who is conversing, why would any person rely on biblical biases for something that's physiological and psychological in nature?

I'd go to the bible to learn maybe how to talk to god but I wouldn't get advice from people before the common era to tell me about the neurological mechanisms of depression.

Perhaps you did not read the article. I don't think you could say that if you did.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No? Well one can't just sit and read the Bible, and say, "Aha!" without taking the time to understand what they read.

You think I have not?

Oh wait. Some people don't care about that apparently.

Some people don't believe in fanciful tales glorifying a hideously violent, savage, barbaric, and cruel god.

 

[nPeace]

Yes. You can still cause harm even if one doesn't realize it.

That's why I disagree with someone "not being homosexual anymore." I don't even agree that someone heterosexual can be homosexual. We can change our behavior but not our physiology.

Do you agree or disagree that sexual attraction is a physiological and psychological cause and not behavioral?

We went through this before remember? In the thread dealing with transitioning, and I provided data in that thread also.

The idea is that we are attracted to other humans from one degree to another (some full blown, others near to none). Not all of our attractions lead to sexual behaviors-depending on what type of attraction it is (platonic, physical, emotional, etc), their maturity (puberty, adult), and how strong their attractions (lust, love, marital, puppy love) are. We are born with the means to be physically and psychologically attracted to other people whether for platonic relationship, procreation, intimacy, or lust. (To add god) All of this is how we are born and assumingly how god created us.

You are assuming.
Based on the Bible. No.
God created Adam and Eve, and he brought the woman to the man, who was so delighted, he burst out in poetry.
“This is at last bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh.
This one will be called Woman,
Because from man she was taken.”
Then the narrative continues... 'That is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he will stick to his wife, and they will become one flesh.' (Genesis 2:22-24)

Jesus Christ - the son of God - who witnesses the event, testified to it, when he said...“Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man put apart.” (Matthew 19:4-6)

With that said, I only know believers to have issues with people's genitals. It's a moral issue. Our bodies and minds/brains don't have morals. Unless its inappropriate age or rape (others I havent mentioned), I don't see a moral and legal problem with same-sex sex (regardless the type above).

"Male and female, god made them" refers to procreation-type. It doesn't refer to two men or two women intimate because of companionship, relationship, love, marital consummation, and so forth. People before the common era also didn't know about sexual orientation. The bible is a poor choice to argue against scientific facts of sexual attraction and the neurological and biological causes of such.

One's genitals is besides the point.

There is no scientific facts on this, so please do not go there.
It is quite disappointing to hear people misuse science in this way. Very disappointing Artist. You have no idea.
Rather than make these claims, please show the data where there is consensus and confirmation on this.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hence when a person says, the Adam and Eve account is a myth, they really are doing so, based not on examining the facts, but personal opinion.

It is a fact there was no Biblical Adam and Eve. That is not opinion. It is a fact.

 

[nPeace]

You think I have not?

Some people don't believe in fanciful tales glorifying a hideously violent, savage, barbaric, and cruel god.

Many people do not believe in fanciful tales told today about the magical formation of the earth, but the do relate to the horrendous barbaric greedy selfish nature of the two footed creatures who ruin the earth with their godless worldview.

I glorify the creator God, who is nothing like you seek to paint. Satan continues to do that, so it's no surprise to me when people do it too.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Perhaps you did not read the article. I don't think you could say that if you did.

I actually did. Since they are from biblical views it would be biased. It's not the info, it's just when discussing medical things like physiology, it's best to side away from gay/straight and provide how sexual attraction can changed based on the sex of the person. If you take the hetero/homo put of it, the bias drops and you see it strictly as is. Attraction.

Bbl