• 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!

Homosexuality and the Church

Pah

Uber all member
FerventGodSeeker said:
...Thus, if two men love each other, in your view, they should be able to marry. Well if that's true, then, since I love my sister, I should be able to marry her, right? We love each other, we're not hurting anyone else, we would only be engaging in activities that others may deem inappropriate in the privacy of our own homes, and, more than anything, our attractions are not a choice. We can't help the fact that we are madly, romantically, deeply in love with each other. Aren't all those reasons the very ones you give for defending a homosexual couple's right to marry? Why, then, is homosexuality different?
The difference is your assumption that no harm will come to another. Incest, prohibited at the licensing bureau, has a health reason which attachs to progidy. Homosexuals, can not, as yet, procreate. The family those in the gay community would raise would not be at risk for genetic mutation due ti inbreeding. Try another excuse.
And if cows could fly, it would be much harder for us to get milk. But they don't, so it isn't. The fact is, heterosexual unions are the only ones that can produce life. Heterosexual unions are the natural, normative human sexual relationship, as is self-evident by the fact that, as you pointed out, only heterosexual sex can produce offspring and continue the species. If homosexual sex was the only way life could be produced in human relationship, then I would agree that heterosexual sex is frivolous and seemingly unnatural.
That is a thought clouded in ignorance.

Bisexuals produce children. Those forced, for whatever reason, into society's sterotypical roles produce children in spite of gay orientation. But, more importantly, the gay couple is willing and effectively able to raise children abandoned by heterosexual families/women. The species is NOT continued by only procreation - it is but the first step in developing a child to become reproductive. Survival depends on nuture and attainment of reproductive capability.

The Church and church members so easliy forget that
.

Then question is, why are those other attractions considered "unnatural", and how is homosexuality different? No one I've spoken to has been able to point out much of a difference.
Who said incest and adoptive parenting are unnatural? It one case it is forbiden by the state, in agreement with Church and biblical principle, for purposes of health of the child. "Other attractions" are forbiden because, as in every marriage vow, consernt of the parties is given. When it can not or is not given, marriage is not allowed. That too is a state issue and by virtue of the clergy being agents of the state is shows the confirmation of Church.

I'm perfectly willing to listen to an explanation, I've just never been given one that is very satisfactory. I've heard that homosexuality is different than pedofilia because homosexuality involves consenting adults who love each other, which makes some sense, I can see where that explanation is coming from. But polygamy and incest also involve consentual adults who love each other. How is homosexuality different?
I hope you listened when I spoke above.

On the matter of polygamy, the Bible in the Old Testament fails to condem it. I also see no secular reason to prohibit it. It was a great injustice visited on the LDS Church to bribe a renounciation of polygamy for statehood. I will support polygamous marriage.


While the attraction itself may not be a choice, acting on those impulses is a choice. Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike have a choice as to when and where to have sex (unless they're drugged or raped, which is obviously a different story). When I refer to a "homosexual", just to be clear, especially in a Biblical or Christian context, I refer to someone who is involved in a homosexual lifestyle, not simply someone who may struggle with homosexual urges or attractions. There are many former homosexuals who have left a gay lifestyle, and yet may still struggle with homosexual attractions. They make the choice not to have homosexual sex, just as a drug user has a choice to do drugs or not.
It is beyond the Church's reach to establish a class for discrimiination. That hetrosexuals should be allowed behavioral choice and not the gay community is pure injustice. It is an insult to the ideals of the Constitution under which the Church flourishes.

Again, I've addressed the love issue before. If you know that a particular lifestyle that a person is involved in is leading them down a path which could negatively affect their whole life, even their eternal state, then the loving thing to do is to point that out to them. Leaving them to rot in their own lifestyle which you know is wrong in the name of "tolerance" is not loving at all.
Enough of this talk of "lifestyle". A homosexual "lifestyle" is no different from a heterosexual "lifestyle". That you assume faith denies the gay community love, that even today's gayness is yesterdays sin, is an open truth. You have no "lock" on biblical interpreatation and can not, with out soulfull risk, deny the personal revelation that so many gay's have.
We tell people what they can and cannot do all the time in society. It's necesarry to maintain social order and stability. You can't drive 50 mph in a residential neighborhood. You can't do illegal drugs. Children cannot vote, or go to rated R movies by themselves. Homosexuals have the same rights in regards to marriage that heterosexuals do...they may marry a willing person of the opposite sex. Every adult has that right. No one, however, whether homosexual or heterosexual, may marry someone of the same sex.
What is not done is to deny self-identification. What is done is to control behavior with the police power of the Constitution justified only by a compelling state interest.

The gay comminity does not have the same rights as heterosexuals. If love and conmittment is anything, it is a fundemental, foundational reason to marry. That you and the Church would redefine marriage to eliminate the core of marriage is abominable. The natural right is a consenting mate of choice.
 

jeffrey

†ßig Dog†
A great article I found while looking for something else.

Inspiration
The Bible is a book of word written by males. It is not the same as the Word of God since only Jesus was "the word of God". Some of the male writers were inspired but it seems some were also very abusive and taught male denomination, that the earth was flat, that slavery was supported, blacks are from a cursed family and females need to be owned by males. Christians continued to be inspired today and have been throughout the centuries. Inspiration did not stop when the bible was canonized.

You Have To Interrupt Scripture Based On Culture Of The Time
Even if you could conclude that O.T. did teach against homosexual behavior, as with other parts of scripture, maybe there was a cultural reason that was important enough to teach against then, but not today.

For example, homosexual activity plants the seed of life where it can't produce children. In biblical times, a man's economic and personal power was often linked to larger numbers of children (especially male) to help plant the fields and toil the land. Further, just as in dealing with the temple prostitutes, male homosexual prostitutes were also common and were also considered surrogates to the pagan gods.

Philo of Alexandria, A Jewish-Greek philosopher and contemporary of Jesus said: "Those who during intercourse bring about the destruction of the seed are undoubtedly enemies of nature." (Ref: On the Individual Laws 3,36). Because of the sterility of their sexual acts he also sharply condemns homosexuals since their seed is not planted. Today heterosexual married couples who practice birth control are going against nature, and might be called an abomination, just as much as the homosexual.

Man's Afterlife Determined By Number Of Children
In the Jewish Hebrew culture a man achieved immortality through his offspring. For example, Onan practiced coitus interruptus to prevent his deceased brother's wife from conceiving, so the LORD KILLED HIM! The sin was not having sex with dead brothers wife (that was required) but the "murderous act" that murdered the dead brothers soul no longer immortal with no children.

Since immortality is passed through the generations, it's clear why the sins for sexual deviation were so savagely condemned. Under those beliefs, homosexual acts, would have been murderous to all of one's forefathers since they did not pass on children to the next generation and jeopardize forefathers afterlife. Adultery was just as bad since it mixed blood lines. Singles sex was seldom an issue since everyone was married (often to many wives) at a young age.

One's state in the afterlife, according to other contemporary documents of the time, was determined by the number of living descendants one had. The more children one had, the more wonderful one's position in the afterlife would be. Hence, it was important to have many children. This may have been why men of wealth had so man wives and concubines (women as breeders). Solomon was very wealthy and had 700 wives and 300 concubines which God never spoke against. Today we need less children not more so these "laws" relating to protecting the bloodline do not apply.

This is an example of the Church making a whole class of people supposedly inferior and less spiritual based on unclear scripture that may have an entirely different meaning.

Sodom and Gomorrah Had Nothing To Do About Homosexuality
Some teach that the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexual. This has no theological support. A careful look at scripture corrects such ignorance.

Perhaps one of the most misleading term in English is the use of the word sodomy to describe anal penetration and/or male homosexuality. The mere fact of this linguistic development sealed in the minds of many English speaking people that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality. The Church's false teaching on this issue is an abomination and travesty, not loving homosexuals that are unfairly condemned by this ignorance.

God appeared to Abraham telling him that he and Sara would have a child and they were going to investigate the wickedness in Sodom & Gomorrah. Thinking God would destroy the cities, Abraham made a deal with God, that He would not destroy the cities if 10 righteous people could be found in Sodom where Abraham's nephew Lot lived.

God sends two angels to Sodom, where Abraham's nephew, Lot, persuades the angels to stay at his home. Genesis 19 records that "all the people from every quarter" surround Lot's house demanding "to know them". It was common in those times to use violent and brutal rape as a way to humiliate and establish power over another, not unlike in some prison situations today. It is also done by heterosexual males which is very unnatural for them. This was part of the terrible acts of pederasty, the opposite of today's loving homosexual natural relationships.

Lot attempts to protect the visitors sent by God by offering his two virgin daughters to be raped. The people of Sodom refuse them and the angels render the crowd blind. Lot and his family are then rescued by the angels as the cities are destroyed.

ALL of Sodom's people participated in the assault on Lot's house; in no culture has more than a small minority (7-10%) of the population been naturally homosexual. Therefore it can be assumed most of the violators were heterosexual. Lot's offer to give his daughters suggests he knew the crowd had heterosexual interests - in fact offering young women for sexual hospitality was common. While it is unclear, even if homosexual rape was what the people were after it was do defile the strangers unnaturally

between mostly heterosexual males against another heterosexual male as in pederasty. This rape attempt has nothing to do with loving, consenting homosexual love but was clearly not the reason for God's destruction of Sodom.

Homosexuality can not be called one of the sins of Sodom, Gomorrah or Gilbeah since it is not in any of the lists of their sins given in the O.T. Ezekiel 16:48-50 lists the specific sins of Sodom as pride, plenty, laziness, uncaring for needy, haughty and worshipping idols - which was an abomination - not homosexuality.

Some try and see in the word "abomination", a false reference to homosexual activity. This word translated abomination is to'ebah in Hebrew and is frequently found in the Old Testament. If one reads it in context every where it appears it is always connected with idolatry - never homosexuality. Just a few examples are in Deut 7:25-26 where it is the idol used in false worship, Proverbs 21:27 having to do with broader false worship etc. The people of Sodom were involved in idolatry.

The attempts to stretch "abomination" to "unclean" acts in Leviticus as to mean homosexuality is just as false. That would mean that we would be just as justified to claim that the sin of Sodom was that of shellfish eating, beard trimming or that the sin of Sodom was menstruation on the part of the womenfolk for the same reason.
 

jeffrey

†ßig Dog†
Part 2
Jude 7 References To Sodom "Strange Flesh"
Jude 7 also provides another view of the sin of Sodom: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh..." In another discussion of fornication it is clear it is idolatry and has nothing to do with sexuality. But what is this strange flesh reference?

A view of strange flesh comes from Gen 6. Here we read of a time when the "sons of God" cohabited with the "daughters of humans", resulting in a strange progeny called in the Hebrew "nephilim", a rare word indicating something weird or strange.

To examine what is meant by "sons of God" look to Job 1:6. Here we see that Satan, a fallen angel, was before God as one of the "sons of God" we would understand the "sons of God" to be other angels. We again get the understanding that "sons of God are angels from Job 38:7. Strange flesh means a linking between angelic flesh and human flesh. Remembering that the two visitors to Lot in Sodom were angels, we see this was also going after strange flesh. This has nothing to do with homosexuality, but of the mixing of two distinct orders of creation.

Why Not Condemn Heterosexuals Based on Parallel Events in Gilbeah?
Judge 19 tells of a very similar event in Gilbeah, except that the house guest was a man, not an angel, and the people accepted the concubine women in place of the man. The concubine was raped until she died and the city was destroyed - for heterosexual rape and violation of the law of hospitality.

Gen 34 tells of a rape of Jacob's daughter Dinah by Shechem the Hivite. As a result of this heterosexual rape, Shechem's home town was destroyed. Yet in spite of this destruction, we hear no one condemning heterosexuality on the basis of this passage, but rather a condemnation of rape. So also is the case with Sodom but even worse the attempted rape of strange flesh (angels).

It is interesting that geologists say that the Five Cities of the Plain were situated on an active fault, where rocks are under tension and being pulled apart. A massive earthquake destroyed the cities in Biblical times,

and unchecked fires accompanied them. The Dead Sea now covers the ruined Bedouin settlements that were once Sodom and Gomorrah.

Homosexuality Is Clearly Not Unnatural
It would seem clear that homosexual would never choose such a behavior that generated so much hate and discrimination. Genetic research, studies of brain chemistry and studies of identical twins raised apart, strongly suggest its not choice but nature. It seems clear that homosexuality is just as natural in humans as it is with other animals and plants. The argument it is chosen is being clearly shown as false.

Most compelling is the many personal accounts of those that have tried so hard to change out of the fear of God, but fail since you can not change natural sexual orientation. Many commit suicide, or leave Christianity feeling they can't respect a God that would make them gay and then condemn them.

How can one believe that God condemns people who love each other tenderly and unselfishly just because they were born homosexual. It seems abnormal only because the predisposition is a recessive tenancy just as is left-handedness.

In August 1991 a researcher at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, Calf., found differences in the size of the hypothalamus region of the brain in gay and straight men. Research at Boston University and Northwestern University found that genetic factors may plan an important role in homosexuality. Studies of identical and fraternal twins have consistently found in the last 10 years, somewhere between 50-70% of identical twins where one is homosexual, so is the other. In fraternal twins its 15-25% but with just siblings their is no significant statistical correlation.

Homosexual Sheep
Since 1988, the Department of Agriculture has been doing similar studies in Idaho on hormonal and genetic differences in rams. The reason for its importance is not only to find human applications, but no sheepherder wants to pay $4000 for a breeding ram that isn't interested in ewes. In an extensive study they found the "Dud Stud Phenomenon" in some and other rams were judged to be homosexual. The study showed that about 8.5% of rams studied were homosexual - close to the estimate of 7-10% human homosexuals in the U.S.

Epilepsy
Epilepsy used to be viewed as demonic possession because it was not understood. The same may have happened to homosexuality. It simply is not understood by heterosexuals, thus it is condemned. Maybe we as Christians need to rethink this position and show more of Christ's love and compassion, rather than judgement.

A Test For All Heterosexuals
Try to imagine, I mean REALLY try to imagine this scenario. What if the Bible said that heterosexual activity was immoral, sinful, and to be despised and avoided, while homosexual relations were the norm the homosexuals were following the will of God.

Now try saying to God: "I realize I am a sinner. My heterosexual life cannot be tolerated any more. I must break off my "wonderful" intimate relationships with my companion/spouse of the opposite sex, and make an attempt to live a normal life loving only those of my gender."

Such a shift would be anything but a simple act of recognizing one's "sinful ways" yet that is what many expect homosexuals to do! And then they blame it on the Bible without knowing the truth of the greek scriptures and context. That is far more an abomination and travesty that condemning loving homosexual relationships.

There Are Some Only Emotionally Homosexual Not Naturally
A women who was raped at the age of 4 by a man, found much more emotional closeness and understanding with women, and "turned" lesbian. But then she "found" God and "converted" to being heterosexual. She was not truly a lesbian in the first place, her early life experiences caused her to fear and avoid men. Yet some Churches call this proof that all homosexuals can be changed. Similarly many men who had poor childhood experiences emotionally become gay. These situations exist but appear to me very much the minority. Most homosexuals were born that way, did not have some bad emotional experience but are naturally homosexual. Also some people may have a natural born bisexuality, to naturally enjoy both sexes.

Homosexuality in The Hebrew Patriarchy Culture
Although there is no moral condemnation of homosexuality as such in the Bible, those who cite the Bible, especially the OT, to condemn homosexuality need to realize the OT was written in a very patriarchal society. Homosexuality, at least among males, poses a serious threat to patriarchy and could not be tolerated. This influence in a social context clearly left a mark on the writings of the authors of scripture.

At first it might seem that homosexuality among men should be well received. After all, the preeminent dignity of the male is a central doctrine of patriarchy, and what could be more affirming of that dignity than men loving men? However, this argument assumes that sexuality is closely associated with the sort of love that values the beloved and respects his/her dignity. Love in this sense is not an important component as sexuality in a patriarchy. Rather, sexual intercourse is one of the means by which the active male subjugates, controls and makes use of the passive female. Sex between men, at least when it involves some sort of bodily penetration, is seen as requiring that one of the partners assume the passive, female role. It is therefore inimical to the masculine dignity of that partner. If it is accepted as a possibility, it threatens the dignity of all men. This was a threat well understood by the Hebrews, who had spent a significant portion of their early history under Egyptian domination. Egyptian soldiers routinely sodomized their defeated enemies as a means of affirming the enemies' absolute subjugation. This indignity was no doubt suffered by many a Hebrew male during the Egyptian captivity, and its bitter memory probably influenced the approach to homosexuality in the holiness laws. Even today, it is not uncommon for men to assert their domination of other men by forcing the others to assume the "female" role. This is an important means of defining and enforcing the pecking order in male prison populations. In urban gangs dominant males often address subordinate males in derogatory terms that are feminine in gender.

It is also interesting to note the absence in the OT of any hint that lesbianism is frowned upon. So long as marriage is obligatory for women and their sexuality is tightly controlled, lesbian dalliances pose no threat to the patriarchal order. It in only when women achieve some degree of control over their sexuality and committed lesbian relationships begin to be seen as an alternative to marriage that they become a threat.

http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section06.html
 
Pah said:
The difference is your assumption that no harm will come to another. Incest, prohibited at the licensing bureau, has a health reason which attachs to progidy. Homosexuals, can not, as yet, procreate. The family those in the gay community would raise would not be at risk for genetic mutation due ti inbreeding. Try another excuse.
Who said that those in incestuous relationships had to have kids? What if they don't want kids, or want to adopt? Then, once again, the similarity between homosexuality and incest is drawn.

That is a thought clouded in ignorance.

Bisexuals produce children. Those forced, for whatever reason, into society's sterotypical roles produce children in spite of gay orientation. But, more importantly, the gay couple is willing and effectively able to raise children abandoned by heterosexual families/women. The species is NOT continued by only procreation - it is but the first step in developing a child to become reproductive. Survival depends on nuture and attainment of reproductive capability.

The Church and church members so easliy forget that
.
Due to adoption, procreation is not the ONLY way that the species is continued, but it is the obvious primary way. The species could live on without adoption. It could not live on without procreation. Also, the problem is, that a gay couple raising children is NOT the most effective. Children are desgined to have two parents, one male and one female. When only one parental gender is present in the household, there is an obvious vacuum, and the child is not raised as wholely. And please, spare me the speech about how some heterosexuals are bad parents. That's obvious. However, it's still clear that the most natural, normative, healthy environment for a child to be raised in is one with one father and one mother, who are married for life.

Who said incest and adoptive parenting are unnatural?
No one said anything about adoptive parenting, but Feathers did mention incest among other things: "...when some people view same sex attractions as being 'unnatural', they then move on to comparing them to other attractions that are grouped in the same category. (Incest, polygamy, bestiality, pedophila, etc.)" Are you saying you don't consider incest to be unnatural?

It one case it is forbiden by the state, in agreement with Church and biblical principle, for purposes of health of the child. "Other attractions" are forbiden because, as in every marriage vow, consernt of the parties is given. When it can not or is not given, marriage is not allowed. That too is a state issue and by virtue of the clergy being agents of the state is shows the confirmation of Church.
As I've already mentioned, the health (at least psychologically) and upbringing of a child raised by a homosexual couple should also be considered. In the "other attractions" we've discussed, there is consent on all sides, so again homoexuality is no different.


On the matter of polygamy, the Bible in the Old Testament fails to condem it.
As I seem to recall from the very beginning of the Old Testament, from the very outset of the human race, God created one man, and then created one woman, and stuck them together for life. This was His obvious design from the beginning. When God flooded the Earth and appointed Noah and his family to repopulate it, notice the pattern again. Noah had one wife, and each of his three sons had one wife. Notice also God's command in Deuteronomy: "Neither shall he (the king) multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away;" Deut. 17:17

I also see no secular reason to prohibit it. It was a great injustice visited on the LDS Church to bribe a renounciation of polygamy for statehood. I will support polygamous marriage.
Well it's unfortunate for your position that the LDS church doesn't agree with you. ;)
It is beyond the Church's reach to establish a class for discrimiination. That hetrosexuals should be allowed behavioral choice and not the gay community is pure injustice. It is an insult to the ideals of the Constitution under which the Church flourishes.
EVERYONE has behavioral choices, that's what I just said. Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike must choose when and where it is appropriate to have sex. Homosexuals can choose not to have sex. When they do choose to engage in homosexual sex, it is a sin.

Enough of this talk of "lifestyle". A homosexual "lifestyle" is no different from a heterosexual "lifestyle".
The talk of "lifestyle" is essential if one is to understand the distinction between a sexually active homosexual, and one who chooses to be chaste although that individual may still struggle with homosexual urges. Those who struggle with homosexual attractions yet do not indulge those impulses are not in sin, while those who are active in a homosexual lifestyle are in sin.

That you assume faith denies the gay community love, that even today's gayness is yesterdays sin, is an open truth.
I never said faith denies the gay community love. I believe we are to love the gay community. However, my definition of love is probably different than yours. To me, it is loving to tell someone that they are in mortal sin. It shows concern for that person and a desire to see positive reform in that person.

You have no "lock" on biblical interpreatation and can not, with out soulfull risk, deny the personal revelation that so many gay's have.
I have no lock on interpretation, but the Church does, and the Church has declared homosexuality immoral and sinful. As for "personal revelation", particularly apart from or in contradiction to Church teaching, the Bible condemns it (2 Peter 1:20)

The gay comminity does not have the same rights as heterosexuals. If love and conmittment is anything, it is a fundemental, foundational reason to marry. That you and the Church would redefine marriage to eliminate the core of marriage is abominable.
Wait, wait, the CHURCH wants to redefine marriage? No, sir, it is the gay community who wants to redefine marriage. If you weren't aware, marriage in this country is defined as a union between one man and one woman. The gay community and those who support it wish to change that.

The natural right is a consenting mate of choice.

Which is why my sister and I, as two consenting adults who love each other, should have the right to get married....right?


FerventGodSeeker
 

Pah

Uber all member
FerventGodSeeker - Who said that those in incestuous relationships had to have kids? What if they don't want kids, or want to adopt? Then, once again, the similarity between homosexuality and incest is drawn. No simularity. There are not allowed to marry period and for a state reason - there is NO state reason to prohibit gay marriage.

Due to adoption, procreation is not the ONLY way that the species is continued, but it is the obvious primary way. The species could live on without adoption. It can not leave on without nuture and procreation I said that Also, the problem is, that a gay couple raising children is NOT the most effective. You'll have to cite the study becuase I do not accept your statement. There is no difference when there are two parents period. The difference is one parent vs two parent. Children are desgined to have two parents, one male and one female.Bull! and especially when you consider all of God's creation. You fail to recognize the family headed by a grandmother, an aunt or uncle, a commune of many When only one parental gender is present in the household, there is an obvious vacuum, Obvious to whom? Is there a study that confirms that? and the child is not raised as wholely. And please, spare me the speech about how some heterosexuals are bad parents. That's obvious. However, it's still clear that the most natural, normative, healthy environment for a child to be raised in is one with one father and one mother, who are married for life.It's not only "not clear" it is an erronous statement You must be ignorant of nature. and scientific study.

No one said anything about adoptive parenting, but Feathers did mention incest among other things: "...when some people view same sex attractions as being 'unnatural', they then move on to comparing them to other attractions that are grouped in the same category. (Incest, polygamy, bestiality, pedophila, etc.)" Are you saying you don't consider incest to be unnatural?
As I've already mentioned, the health (at least psychologically) and upbringing of a child raised by a homosexual couple should also be considered.There is no psycological damage to a cjild raised by two same-sex parents. In the "other attractions" we've discussed, there is consent on all sides, so again homoexuality is no different. I'm getting dizzy - your mind is a merry-go-round, a dirt race track. You have ignored each and every explanation I and many others have provided in answer to your unfounded, unproven claims. It is time for you to come up with better proof than the oft repeated distortion of the Religious Right.


As I seem to recall from the very beginning of the Old Testament, from the very outset of the human race, God created one man, and then created one woman, and stuck them together for life. This was His obvious design from the beginning. When God flooded the Earth and appointed Noah and his family to repopulate it, notice the pattern again. Noah had one wife, and each of his three sons had one wife. Notice also God's command in Deuteronomy: "Neither shall he (the king) multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away;" Deut. 17:17 Read the Bible again. God created animals before man and animals in toto exhibit all tha variety of sexual orientation. That was the pattern when God got around to mankind and that was the pattern preserved on the ark. God further created the various factors of fetal development that lead to transgender and intergendered animals of which man is one.
[/COLOR]Well it's unfortunate for your position that the LDS church doesn't agree with you. ;) ?????
EVERYONE has behavioral choices, that's what I just said. Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike must choose when and where it is appropriate to have sex. Homosexuals can choose not to have sex. When they do choose to engage in homosexual sex, it is a sin. So says you that it is sin. Just what practise that the gay community indulges in that the straight comminity does not? THE BEHAVIOR IS THE SAME except vaginal penetration for gay males. So what practise is sinfull for gays and not for straights.

The talk of "lifestyle" is essential if one is to understand the distinction between a sexually active homosexual, and one who chooses to be chaste although that individual may still struggle with homosexual urges. Those who struggle with homosexual attractions yet do not indulge those impulses are not in sin, while those who are active in a homosexual lifestyle are in sin. You'll have to define "lifestyle" becuase as it is usually used in this topic it is meaningless. and you'll have to provide the answers to the questions just above.
I never said faith denies the gay community love. I believe we are to love the gay community. However, my definition of love is probably different than yours. To me, it is loving to tell someone that they are in mortal sin. It shows concern for that person and a desire to see positive reform in that person. It is a perverted love apart from the unconditional love Jesus and God possess. I don't think you will appreciate being told and you will doubt any love in tha act when I tell you, in all seriousness, that when denying the personal revelation of Christian gays, you place your own soul at risk, It is further at risk when you fail to follow the commandments of Christ.
I have no lock on interpretation, but the Church does, and the Church has declared homosexuality immoral and sinful. As for "personal revelation", particularly apart from or in contradiction to Church teaching, the Bible condemns it (2 Peter 1:20)
Wait, wait, the CHURCH wants to redefine marriage? No, sir, it is the gay community who wants to redefine marriage. If you weren't aware, marriage in this country is defined as a union between one man and one woman. The gay community and those who support it wish to change that. Nope, the redefinition is in the exclusivity of the expression of love to "priviledged" Christians.



Which is why my sister and I, as two consenting adults who love each other, should have the right to get married....right? You have the right - you do not have the freedom to ignore the social prohibition.


FerventGodSeeker
 

Feathers in Hair

World's Tallest Hobbit
While I've noted that I've withdrawn from this debate, someone then still took the opportunity to debate my last post. Because of this, I will return only to post this helpful message about the difference between being able to marry your sister and being able to marry your wife or husband.

If one cannot honestly differentiate between the type of love that they feel for their sister and the type of love that they feel for their wife, then there are much greater things for them to be worried about than whether two other consenting, loving and unrelated adults can marry.
 

pdoel

Active Member
For those of you who like to compare homosexuality to incest, let's think about this.

The key to making incestual relationships wrong is that the offspring tends to have medical problems. In order for an incestual relationship to spawn, they would have to be heterosexual.

So, instead of comparing homosexual relationships to incest, why not actually look at it for what it is. These incestual relationships you are against are HETEROSEXUAL relationships. Wouldn't that then be a reason to deny heterosexual marraiges?
 

Jerrell

Active Member
jeffrey said:
Part 2
Jude 7 References To Sodom "Strange Flesh"
Jude 7 also provides another view of the sin of Sodom: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh..." In another discussion of fornication it is clear it is idolatry and has nothing to do with sexuality. But what is this strange flesh reference?

A view of strange flesh comes from Gen 6. Here we read of a time when the "sons of God" cohabited with the "daughters of humans", resulting in a strange progeny called in the Hebrew "nephilim", a rare word indicating something weird or strange.

The Greek word Translated Strange, means Diffrent, it has nothing to do with the Angels that slept with Daughters of men and became Nephlim. Fornication is Sexual immorality, not idoltry. If idoltry was the sin, then they would have said idoltry, but they said Fornication, which is sex before marriage, among other things.

The men of Sodom and Gomorrah went after Diffrent Flesh, other than what God Intended. That is, themselves.
 

SunMessenger

Catholic
FeathersinHair said:
While I've noted that I've withdrawn from this debate, someone then still took the opportunity to debate my last post. Because of this, I will return only to post this helpful message about the difference between being able to marry your sister and being able to marry your wife or husband.

If one cannot honestly differentiate between the type of love that they feel for their sister and the type of love that they feel for their wife, then there are much greater things for them to be worried about than whether two other consenting, loving and unrelated adults can marry.

Our world is at a great crossroad. Mercy, Love and Kindness to one another seems to be disappearing. I pray everyday for a Miraculous Intervention to correct this. I pray Beloved Mother to heal the wounds we as a people have inflicted upon one another. May we be granted the wisdom of matters that need our immediate attention. May we see the important problems of our world an strive to correct them . May we succeed with the Blessings of Heaven. Dear FeathersinHair I agree there are so many more important things to be worried about.



"We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel."



Karol Cardinal Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II), November 9, 1976
 

jeffrey

†ßig Dog†
standing_alone said:
I don't know. We have a modern example in San Francisco. :p
Even in San Fran only one out of 4 are gay. And it's the highest percentage of any city there is....
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
standing_alone said:
I don't know. We have a modern example in San Francisco. :p

What? My college roommate has just made a choice to be gay??

<ducking>

I'm sorry, that was just too good a set up to pass by. :D
 

jeffrey

†ßig Dog†
The Problem of Authority
These cases are relevant to our attitude toward the authority of Scripture. they are not cultic prohibitions from the Holiness Code that are clearly superseded in Christianity, such as rules about eating shellfish or wearing clothes made of two different materials. They are rules concerning sexual behavior, and they fall among the moral commandments of the Scripture. Clearly we regard certain rules, especially in the Old Testament, as no longer binding. Other things we regard as binding, including legislation in the Old Testament that is not mentioned at all in the New. What is our principle of selection here?
For example; virtually all modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting:

incest
rape
adultery
intercourse with animals
But we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores. The Bible condemned the following behaviors which we generally allow:
intercourse during menstruation
celibacy
exogamy (marriage with non-Jews)
naming sexual organs
nudity (under certain conditions)
masturbation (some Christians still condemn this)
birth control (some Christians still forbid this)
And the bible regarded semen and menstrual blood as unclean, which most of us do not
Likewise, the bible permitted behaviors that we today condemn:
prostitution
polygamy
levirate marriage
sex with slaves
concubinage
treatment of women as property
very early marriage (for the girl, age 11-13)
And while the Old Testament accepted divorce, Jesus forbade it. In short, of the sexual mores mentioned here, we only agree with the Bible on four of them, and disagree with it on sixteen!
Surely no one today would recommend reviving the levirate marriage. So why do we appeal to proof texts in Scripture in the case of homosexuality alone, when we feel perfectly free to disagree with Scripture regarding most other sexual practices? Obviously many of our choices in these matters are arbitrary. Mormon polygamy was outlawed in this country, despite the constitutional protection of freedom of religion, because it violated the sensibilities of the dominant Christian culture, even though no explicit biblical prohibition against polygamy exists.

If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, as Paul reminds us, we are obligated to keep every commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3). But if Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), if we have been discharged from the law to serve, not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6), then all of these Old Testament sexual mores come under the authority of the Spirit. We cannot then take even what Paul says as a new law. Christians reserve the right to pick and choose which laws they will observe, though they seldom admit to doing just that. And this is as true of evangelicals and fundamentalists as it is of liberals and mainliners.

Full story here
 

jeffrey

†ßig Dog†
Old Testament texts have to be weighed against the New. Consequently Paul's unambiguous condemnation of homosexual behavior in Roman 1:26-27 must be the centerpiece of any discussion.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their woman exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.No doubt Paul was unaware of the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has apparently very little choice, and sexual behavior, over which one does. He seemed to assume that those whom he condemns are heterosexual, and are acting contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up," or "exchanging" their regular sexual orientation for that which is foreign to them. Paul knew nothing of the modern psychological understanding of homosexuals as person whose orientation is fixed early in life, persons for whom having heterosexual relations would be contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up" or "exchanging" their natural sexual orientation for one that was unnatural to them.
In other words, Paul really thought that those whose behavior he condemned were "straight," and that they were behaving in ways that were unnatural to them. Paul believed that everyone was "straight." He had no concept of homosexual orientation. The idea was not available in his world. there are people who are genuinely homosexual by nature (whether genetically or as a result of upbringing no one really knows, and it is irrelevant). For such a person it would be acting contrary to nature to have sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex.

Likewise the relationships Paul describes are heavy with lust; they are not relationships of consenting adults who are committed to each other as faithfully and with as much integrity as any heterosexual couple. That was something Paul simply could not envision. Some people assume today that venereal disease and AIDS are divine punishment for homosexual behavior; we know it as a risk involved in promiscuity of every stripe, homosexual and heterosexual. In fact, the vast majority of people with AIDS around the world are heterosexuals. We can scarcely label AIDS a divine punishment, since non-promiscuous lesbians are at almost no risk.

And Paul believes that homosexuality is contrary to nature, whereas we have learned that it is manifested by a wide variety of species, especially (but not solely) under the pressure of overpopulation. It would appear then to be a quite natural mechanism for preserving species. We cannot, of course, decide human ethical conduct solely on the basis of animal behavior or the human sciences, but Paul here is arguing from nature, as he himself says, and new knowledge of what is "natural" is therefore relevant to the case.
 

jeffrey

†ßig Dog†
Morton Kelsey goes so far as to argue that homosexual orientation has nothing to do with morality, any more than left-handedness does. it is simply the way some people's sexuality is configured. Morality enters the picture when that predisposition is enacted. If we saw it as a God-given-gift to those for whom it is normal, we could get beyond the acrimony and brutality that have so often characterized the unchristian behavior of Christians toward gays.

Approached from the point of view of love, rather than that of law, the issue is at once transformed. Now the question is not "What is permitted?" but rather "What does it mean to love my homosexual neighbor?" Approached from the point of view of faith rather than of works, the question ceases to be "What constitutes a brach of divine law in the sexual realm?" and becomes instead "What constitutes obedience to the God revealed in the cosmic lover, Jesus Christ?" Approached from the point of view of the Spirit of the rather than of the letter, the question ceases to be "What does Scripture command?" and becomes "What is the Word that the Spirit speaks to the churches now, in the light of Scripture, tradition, theology, psychology, genetics, anthropology, and biology?" We can't continue to build ethics on the basis of bad science.

In a little-remembered statement, Jesus said, "Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57).[/COLOR] Such sovereign freedom strikes terror in the hearts of many Christians; they would rather be under law and be told what is right. Yet Paul himself echoes Jesus' sentiment immediately preceding one of his possible references to homosexuality: "Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!" (I Cor. 6:3). The last thing Paul would want is for people to respond to his ethical advice as a new law engraved on tablets of stone. He is himself trying to "judge for himself what is right." If now new evidence is in on the phenomenon of homosexuality, are we not obligated -- no, free -- to re-evaluate the whole issue in the light of all available data and decide, under God, for ourselves? Is this not the radical freedom for obedience which the gospel establishes?

Where the bible mentions homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant all that. The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct. The Bible sanctioned slavery as well, and nowhere attacks it as unjust. Are we prepared to argue that slavery today is biblically justified? One hundred and fifty years ago when the debate over slavery was raging, the bible seemed to be clearly on the slave holders' side. Abolitionists were hard pressed to justify their opposition to slavery on biblical grounds. Yet today, if you were to ask Christians in the South whether the Bible sanctions slavery, virtually everyone would agree that it does not. How do we account for such a monumental shift?
 

jeffrey

†ßig Dog†
An Appeal for Tolerance

What saddens me in this whole raucous debate in the churches is how sub-Christian most of it has been. It is characteristic of our time that the issues most difficult to assess, and which have generated the greatest degree of animosity, are issues on which the Bible can be interpreted as supporting either side. I am referring to abortion and homosexuality.
We need to take a few steps back, and be honest with ourselves. I am deeply convinced of the rightness of what I have said in this essay. But I must acknowledge that it is not an airtight case. You can find weaknesses in it, just as I can in others'. The truth is, we are not given unequivocal guidance in either area, abortion or homosexuality. Rather than tearing at each others' throats, therefore, we should humbly admit our limitations. How do I know I am correctly interpreting God's word for us today? How do you? Wouldn't it be wiser to lower the decibels by 95 percent and quietly present our beliefs, knowing full well that we might be wrong.

I know a couple, both well known Christian authors in their own right, who have both spoken out on the issue of homosexuality. She supports gays, passionately; he opposes their behavior, strenuously. So far as I can tell, this couple still enjoy each other's company, eat at the same table, and, for all I know, sleep in the same bed. [He is speaking of the Campolos. See http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/campolo.htm for a debate between Peggy and Tony Campolo.]

We in the church need to get our priorities straight. We have not reached a consensus about who is right on the issue of homosexuality. But what is clear, utterly clear, is that we are commanded to love one another. Love not just our gay sisters and brothers, who are often sitting besides us, unacknowledged, in church, but all of us who are involved in this debate. These are issues about which we should amiable agree to disagree. We don't have to tear whole denominations to shreds in order to air our differences on this point. If that couple I mentioned can continue to embrace across this divide, surely we can do so as well.
 

wmam

Active Member
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL ............. Thats the most stupid and asinine statement that has ever been posted on this forum.
 
Top