• 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!

"Christian Moms Group Condemns Hallmark Channel for Airing Lesbian Wedding Ad"

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
No, Tom. That is not true. (Sigh)

I'm only responding to this comment before your other ones because it popped up as "New Alert" while I was online earlier and it drew my attention - and because it is completely false.

I will give a summary list of posts and then an explanation.

@SkepticThinker began this whole "me comparing pedophilia to homosexuality" false narrative when he pointed out in Post #352 that I had "brought up" pedophilia (even though I had only mentioned an attraction to children and not pedophilia) in my initial post.

@9-10ths_Penguin responded to this by saying, "It's kind of a big red flag that consent and respect don't factor into what @JesusKnowsYou considers acceptable and unacceptable sexual relationships." in Post #353.

I responded to @SkepticThinker in Post #359 by sharing that the only reason I had brought up an attraction to children was to prove that people born with a certain presupposition (or "weakness") are not destined to act on that weakness (i.e. an attraction to children).

I also responded to @9-10ths_Penguin in Post #360 by claiming that I would consider any sexual behavior outside the boundaries God has set up (only between a man and woman who are married) to be inappropriate and that no one is destined to commit sexual sin.

I also said that, "It is not my fault that same-sex attraction and attraction to children both fall under the same category of sexual weakness and sexual sin" and I then claimed that I felt like he owed me an apology.

That last one caused @9-10ths_Penguin Post #361 to reiterate his earlier claim that "factors like consent and respect don't matter in your determination of what's appropriate and inappropriate expressions of sexuality" and he then claimed that I had treated others with "disrespect"(without explaining exactly how I did that).

He then refused to apologize to me and said, "the people who deserve an apology are the ones you compared to pedophiles."

@Jainarayan , @SomeRandom and @Shadow Wolf gave his post (#361) a "Winner" vote.

The next two posts were from @SkepticThinker (#362 and 363) where he said that I had tried to "demonize" homosexuals (even though I never "demonized" those attracted to children, so that made no sense) and then he made the claim (without evidence) that me having my beliefs somehow meant that I mistreat people.

@Jainarayan gave that post (#362) a "Winner" vote.

@SkepticThinker then responded to @9-10ths_Penguin original post (#353) (where he claimed that I did not consider "consent" or "respect") with a "Right?" (then a "shrugging shoulders" emoji) in Post #363.

Then this leads us to your response in Post #365 @columbus where you claimed that, "And furthermore, preaching this sort of thing causes a great deal of damage. Particularly when preached to young people, before they even know they're gay. So I put your preaching in a category similar to pedophilia."

@SkepticThinker and @Jainarayan gave your post a "Winner" vote.

Then @Shadow Wolf claimed in Post #370 that I owed an apology, "To people such as several of my friends whom you have compared to pedophiles and zoophiliacs."

@SkepticThinker and @Jainarayan gave that post a "Like" vote.

Everyone on here either posted that my "comparing" pedophilia to homosexuality (I never did) meant that I was comparing those who commit homosexual acts with those who rape children or they voted for a post that claimed thus.

Everyone on here also used the word "pedophile" to describe "those who rape children" and "pedophilia" to describe "the practice of raping children".

None of you used those words to describe a person who was attracted to children or the practice of being attracted to children.

You all associated rape with these terms.

When @9-10ths_Penguin discussed my supposed "comparison" he claimed that it meant that I did not consider "consent" or "respect" when I determined what was appropriate "expressions of sexuality".

So, obviously @9-10ths_Penguin does not define pedophilia as simply "an attraction to children", but as "the practice of raping children".

Being attracted to someone does not require "consent" and is not an "expression of sexuality" and any talk of lack of "consent" when discussing "expressions of sexuality" is a reference to rape.

@9-10ths_Penguin claimed that I had "compared" homosexuals to those who rape children (pedophiles), or in other words, I had compared those who commit homosexual acts with those who rape children.

@Jainarayan , @SomeRandom and @Shadow Wolf gave his post a "Winner" - signifying that they agree with his claim.

@SkepticThinker also agreed with @9-10ths_Penguin claim when he said "Right?" in reply.

Then you @columbus by claiming that me sharing my opinion would cause "a great deal of damage" that was "similar to pedophilia" were making the claim that "pedophilia" means raping children, not simply an attraction to children.

To all of this I said in Post #372,

"I did "bring up" an attraction to children (not pedophilia) in a list of inappropriate sexual attractions, but after my list I immediately said,

"Before you flip your lid, I'm not trying to say that all of these attractions are exactly the same, but depending on who you ask people will draw a line somewhere as to what is or is not appropriate sexual behavior."

I only brought up the inappropriate sexual weakness of an attraction to children to help build my argument that just because someone suffers from a weakness, they are not destined to indulge or act on that weakness.

Someone who has an attraction to children is not destined to rape children. They have a choice."

And,

"I do believe that both an attraction to the same-sex and an attraction to children are inappropriate - but that does not mean that I consider the sins of homosexuality and pedophilia to be the same.

I also believe that shoplifting and murder are wrong - you would argue that my claiming so means that I regard both of these crimes to be the same? The same severity?

I never compared homosexuality to pedophilia. I pointed out that both of these sins come from an inappropriate sexual attraction, but I never claimed that they were the same.

Someone who suffers from the weakness of an attraction to children is not destined to engage in sexual behavior with children. They have the choice to resist their urges.

If they decide to indulge in their weakness and act on their urges and engage in sexual behavior with children - they have committed rape (because children cannot give consent) - and it is my belief that that is a crime that should be punishable be either castration or execution.

I do not believe that any consensual sexual behavior between adults conducted in private (no matter how inappropriate) is a crime nor worthy of any punishment."

Even though I never compared pedophilia to homosexuality - everyone mentioned in this thread claimed that I did - and they all claimed that "pedophilia" meant "raping children".

This was a false narrative that you all ran with and spun out of control.

Also, @Mestemia - why are you giving this a "Winner" vote?

Why haven't you explained to me why you decided not to defend me when @Jainarayan asked me to justify my beliefs?
Linking together pedophilia (which is actually not the same as child rapists, everyone knows that pedophilia refers to the attraction, it merely includes potential actions) to homosexuality is the logical fallacy known as false equivalence. You might view those two things as sinful, fine. But it is rather insulting to use as an example nonetheless.
The implication being that a person who experiences targeted lust or attraction towards someone who is unable to give fully informed consent (which results in every single potential scenario of fulfilling the desires physically being inherently abusive towards the minor, except self love I guess) is in any way shape or form comparable to a person with an adult sexual orientation that does not necessarily need abuse to function as a physical relationship. Ie homosexuality.
It doesn’t bolster your argument, if anything it’s entirely detrimental as most people don’t consider logical fallacies to be rational.
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
Linking together pedophilia (which is actually not the same as child rapists, everyone knows that pedophilia refers to the attraction, it merely includes potential actions) to homosexuality is the logical fallacy known as false equivalence.
Everyone keeps claiming that pedophilia merely refers to "an attraction to children" - but every time they talk about it they bring up things like "consent", "respect" and "damage".

That is why I separate the attraction from the actions that are motivated by that attraction. Someone being attracted to a child does not make them guilty of any inappropriate action.

The idea that the definition of the term "pedophilia" should refer to both the attraction to children as well as include the potential actions motivated by said attraction is asinine.

That would be like saying someone who has the desire to hurt someone else should be viewed as a murderer - when no actual action is taken.

I separate the attraction from the action. I made this explicitly clear in my initial post. I do this for all desires and attractions.

When I first mentioned what I considered the difference between same-sex attraction and homosexuality - I also mentioned many other sexual attractions - which included an attraction to children.

As I have said many times before - I did not mention these other sexual attractions to make any comparisons - but to argue that people are not bound by their attractions. They are not doomed to be puppets to their attractions. We all have free will.

We just disagree on whether or not same-sex attraction is an appropriate attraction to act on.

I personally do not believe that any attraction outside of marriage between a man and a woman should be acted upon. That's it.

I never made the claim that raping children is equivalent to having consensual homosexual relations.
You might view those two things as sinful, fine. But it is rather insulting to use as an example nonetheless.
Something being insulting is not really a good counterargument.

Especially when everyone jumps to a false conclusion about what an attraction to children was even being used as an example of.

@Jainarayan made the claim that I should not question or challenge his attraction to the same-sex because he was "born that way" and that it was "natural".

This led me to want to argue the point that, "An attraction being innate doesn't make it appropriate."

This was when I mentioned an attraction to children and how I did not consider it appropriate. I also mentioned other sexual attractions that I did not consider appropriate.

I have even included heterosexual attraction that leads to premarital sex in my list of "inappropriate sexual attraction". Why doesn't anyone freak out about that?

The only reason I chose to talk about an attraction to children was because I believed that it was universally agreed to be inappropriate.

We might not all agree on same-sex attraction or premarital sex - but an attraction to children - we should all agree that it's inappropriate, right?

We all agree that someone who has an innate attraction to children should not indulge that attraction, right? Not act on it? Because it's inappropriate?

I just wanted to prove that the whole, "My sexual preferences are appropriate because I was born this way" argument was weak.

I used an attraction to children as an example of a universally agreed upon inappropriate sexual attraction.

I did not use it as a comparable example to same-sex attraction.
The implication being that a person who experiences targeted lust or attraction towards someone who is unable to give fully informed consent (which results in every single potential scenario of fulfilling the desires physically being inherently abusive towards the minor, except self love I guess) is in any way shape or form comparable to a person with an adult sexual orientation that does not necessarily need abuse to function as a physical relationship. Ie homosexuality.
In layman's terms this is what we call a "stretch".

My belief that both of these types of sexual attractions are inappropriate is not an implication that they are the same or even roughly similar.

That would be like arguing that the movies in my list of "Bad Movies" are all the same or even roughly similar.

Besides, I mentioned many other sexual attractions that I would consider inappropriate - so why is no one upset that both same-sex attraction and heterosexual attraction that leads to premarital sex are on the same list?

Would you make the same argument based on the fact that an attraction to children and a heterosexual attraction that leads to premarital sex are both on the same list?

Would that make you conclude that I am implying that "a person who experiences targeted lust or attraction towards someone who is unable to give fully informed consent (which results in every single potential scenario of fulfilling the desires physically being inherently abusive towards the minor, except self love I guess) is in any way shape or form comparable to a person with an adult sexual orientation that does not necessarily need abuse to function as a physical relationship"?

Or does this reasoning only apply to same-sex attraction and an attraction to children?

Having a list of inappropriate sexual attraction does not imply that I consider them all to be the same in any way.
It doesn’t bolster your argument, if anything it’s entirely detrimental as most people don’t consider logical fallacies to be rational.
Just another conclusion jumped to.
 
Last edited:

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
We wont defend you because of your nonsense thinking that homosexuality is just as immoral and inappropriate as pedophilia.
First off - that was a comment for @Mestemia because he leaped to defend @Jainarayan when he thought that I was seriously asking him to justify homosexuality.

However - I explained that I had only asked @Jainarayan to justify homosexuality in retaliation after he had asked me to justify my beliefs.

When asked @Mestemia claimed that my beliefs did not need justification.

This is what led me to ask him (if he truly believed that) why he defended @Jainarayan when I asked him to justify homosexuality but not me when @Jainarayan asked me to justify my beliefs.

I'm still waiting for @Mestemia to reply to that post.

But he did give @columbus post a "Winner" vote since then, so I don't know if he will ever explain himself.

Anyways - I never said homosexuality is just as immoral and inappropriate as pedophilia.
 
Last edited:

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Everyone keeps claiming that pedophilia merely refers to "an attraction to children" - but every time they talk about it they bring up things like "consent", "respect" and "damage".
Yes, because those are literally the objective reasons one can give to object to a pedophile acting upon that attraction. This is in complete contrast to homosexual people, which is only objected to in terms of religious beliefs. And some prejudiced asshats who can't seem to give objective secular reasons.
You have no objective reasons to argue against homosexuality. There is only religious backing and not secular objective standards. And that's fine. Religion operates outside of the secular world, for the most part.
But if you say objected to interracial marriage on the grounds of biblical messages (which did used to happen) I would still object if you brought up bestiality in an effort to explain your hypothetical reasons for believing such things. The two are not comparable in an objective sense. There's not a rational explanation there. That's what people are quick to point out. It's also a common, if admittedly aggressive, technique to try to elicit a more introspective response. Dig deeper, find something more objective to explain your reasoning. Sin is not objective, it is not agreed to be a rational reason. Be more introspective and try to argue without the framework of religion for a moment. If only as a thought exercise. You can do it!

That is why I separate the attraction from the actions that are motivated by that attraction. Someone being attracted to a child does not make them guilty of any inappropriate action.
Of course. But there is a legitimate, objectively studied reason for why society would want a pedophile to go into therapy as opposed to just letting them give in to those desires. That does not really exist for homosexual people. The opposite is found to be the far better solution, from a medical/scientific perspective. Letting a homosexual person marry a person they love is found to reduce depression, anxiety and lead to much better mental health outcomes for all involved. And the relationship does not inherently have to contain any abuse or grooming of any kind. This is in stark contrast to the outcome of letting a grown man or woman marry a kid.

The idea that the definition of the term "pedophilia" should refer to both the attraction to children as well as include the potential actions motivated by said attraction is asinine.
Why? It's the agreed upon term used in the literal field that studies pedophilia for a living. Of course this also takes into account that not every child abuser is necessarily a pedophile or that every pedophile will necessarily hurt a child. There's also things like the idea that trauma victims can victimize others as a coping mechanism rather than out of attraction.
The term includes potential actions just cover their bases really, as the English language tends to be very intense and specific. But it's more of an option that the term implies, rather than outright saying that literally every pedophile will abuse children.

That would be like saying someone who has the desire to hurt someone else should be viewed as a murderer - when no actual action is taken.
The term "murderer" refers to a specific action, as it is a verb. You know, a "doing word."
Someone who has a desire to murder is often labelled a psychopath or sociopath.

I separate the attraction from the action. I made this explicitly clear in my initial post. I do this for all desires and attractions.
What about the desire to eat? Sleep? Attraction to shiny objects? (Not sexually.)

When I first mentioned what I considered the difference between same-sex attraction and homosexuality - I also mentioned many other sexual attractions - which included an attraction to children.
People have an inbuilt aversion to this, as it is a known false equivocation.
Don't shoot the messenger now.

As I have said many times before - I did not mention these other sexual attractions to make any comparisons - but to argue that people are not bound by their attractions. They are not doomed to be puppets to their attractions. We all have free will.
People need sexual release in order to function as healthy human beings. Maybe with the exception of certain Asexuals, I dunno.
This has been studied for years. Sexual frustration is not seen as particularly healthy. Though should also take into account sex addiction.
Moderation as with all things. So if doesn't hurt anyone, you need a better reason to convince people than "it's a sin."

I never made the claim that raping children is equivalent to having consensual homosexual relations.
You don't have to, explicitly. False equivocation occurs when someone brings up two unrelated topics in debate. One is usually an universally agreed upon "bad thing." This is why it's considered a logical fallacy.

n layman's terms this is what we call a "stretch".

My belief that both of these types of sexual attractions are inappropriate is not an implication that they are the same or even roughly similar.

That would be like arguing that the movies in my list of "Bad Movies" are all the same or even roughly similar.

Besides, I mentioned many other sexual attractions that I would consider inappropriate - so why is no one upset that both same-sex attraction and heterosexual attraction that leads to premarital sex are on the same list?

Would you make the same argument based on the fact that an attraction to children and a heterosexual attraction that leads to premarital sex are both on the same list?

Would that make you conclude that I am implying that "a person who experiences targeted lust or attraction towards someone who is unable to give fully informed consent (which results in every single potential scenario of fulfilling the desires physically being inherently abusive towards the minor, except self love I guess) is in any way shape or form comparable to a person with an adult sexual orientation that does not necessarily need abuse to function as a physical relationship"?

Or does this reasoning only apply to same-sex attraction and an attraction to children?

Having a list of inappropriate sexual attraction does not imply that I consider them all to be the same in any way.
False equivalence - Wikipedia
Equivocation

Just another conclusion jumped to.

I'm just going by the agreed upon rules of logic. We read into the implications of an argument put forth, we never take it on face value. Don't blame me for reaching the conclusion.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
of.

@Jainarayan made the claim that I should not question or challenge his attraction to the same-sex because he was "born that way" and that it was "natural".

This led me to want to argue the point that, "An attraction being innate doesn't make it appropriate."

My sexuality and I are taking up a lot of room, an unhealthy amount of room in your brain.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
However - I explained that I had only asked @Jainarayan to justify homosexuality in retaliation after he had asked me to justify my beliefs.

I’ve known of pit bulls letting go of someone’s arm easier than you’re letting go of this.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Without giving a reason that isn't purely personal and subjective.
I can demonstrate the damage done by sexualising children. I can demonstrate the damage done by teaching kids that homosexuality is inherently wrong.

@JesusKnowsYou cannot demonstrate any damage done by queers marrying each other.
Tom
Hah!! Fat lot you know! When two queers marry (Mary?) it hurts my feelings. And it makes the Baby Jebus cry.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
@JesusKnowsYou cannot demonstrate any damage done by queers marrying each other.
Here's another way that teaching impressionable kids that queers are bad causes some huge damage.
It's one of those unintended consequences.
Lot's of queers, especially men, attempt to straighten themselves out, or prove that they aren't hell bound sinners, or whatever, by making babies. Oftentimes they get married to a female first.

C'mon, when you're married with children, who will suspect you'd rather be having sex with your wife's brother?

The poor quality marriages that result from this kind of deception by young people results in tons of divorce and badly raised children. The damage done to the women who don't recognize that they're marrying a gay man is huge.
It's just a disaster all around!

Way better for everyone if everybody realizes that straight marriage and babies just isn't for everyone. I'm a solid believer in marriage, but the partnership absolutely must be based on honesty and compatibility. It cannot be based on Christian teachings about how people should be, or what marriage is supposed to be.
It's gotta be from the heart, and messing up a bunch of people's lives because ancient people were culturally and ethically primitive is profoundly immoral.
Tom
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
@JesusKnowsYou cannot demonstrate any damage done by queers marrying each other.
Tom
It proves how insecure, petty, and malignant their god and his Conservative followers are, that's the damage done. Especially today when fewer people care about the consensual actions among adults that don't leave victims. We change and learn. The words "if a man lie with a man as he would a woman they shall both be put to death, their blood is on their hands" is forever "carved in stone," in a sense. And it makes them look bad because it doesn't matter if it's adults or teens with curiosities and urges, they have to make the sex lives of others their own business, and the damaging ends it's going to is being realized by more people. It'll probably still be awhile before America ha any sort of sex ed programs on par with other developed countries, but it probably won't be much longer before it's made an issue in order to address teen pregnancy, unwanted and unplanned pregnancies, and how sex ed and availability of contraception and family planning means is the greatest way to prevent abortion. Christians are running out of groups they can legally tell to bugger off, so they may be getting ready to lose this bit of traditional "barking allowance" in regards to women's reproductive rights and bodily autonomy.
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
Sorry for the delay. Everyone got sick at my house this week.

Anyways - everything I say below is my opinion or belief.
1)Homosex/gay marriage
2)Paedophilia
3)Homophobic teachings
I’m going to start by talking about the third subject on your list - Homophobic teachings.

I would argue that neither myself nor anything I have shared is “homophobic” in any way.

I do not “dislike”, “hate”, “fear” or feel any “prejudice” towards homosexuals.

Trying to claim that I am homophobic simply because I believe homosexuality is sinful would be like trying to claim that I am prejudiced towards those who drink alcohol - becasue I also believe that to be a sin.

Or, that I “fear” those who make purchases on Sunday - the day I consider to be the Sabbath - because I believe that to be sinful as well.

Or, that I “hate” those who have heterosexual relations outside of marriage - because I would also consider that to be sinful.

So - logically - if you are trying to claim that I “dislike”, “hate”, “fear” or feel any “prejudice” towards homosexuals because I believe that homosexuality is sinful - then you would also need to argue that I “dislike”, “hate”, “fear” or feel any “prejudice” towards anyone and everyone who does what I believe to be sin.

Do you believe that I “dislike”, “hate”, “fear” or feel “prejudice” towards anyone who does something that I consider sinful?

If so - then you are claiming that I “dislike”, “hate”, “fear” or feel “prejudice” towards everyone in the world - since I believe that everyone commits sin - including myself.

Is that what you are claiming? I hate everyone in the world? I hate myself?

Anyways - even though the main subjects of my post have been “an attraction to children” and “same-sex attraction” (not pedophilia and homosexuality - which I consider to be descriptors of potential actions) - I have no objection to them being on your list - because they are relevant.

Homophobia - on the other hand - does not belong in this discussion at all.

You would have had to ignore the majority of my posts before thinking of including that in your list. That and making completely unfounded assumptions about the motivations behind me and my beliefs.

Unless - of course - you are arguing that disagreeing with homosexuality in any way or for any reason is homophobia - then we would have a huge disagreement on our hands.

Is that what you believe homophobia is?
You lump the first two together, referring to them as wrong and "inappropriate".
Not really.

I “lumped together” an attraction to children and a same-sex attraction (along with every other attraction that can lead to sexual relations outside of marriage) as “weaknesses” in my list of “inappropriate sexual attraction”.

I never “lumped together” pedophilia and homosexuality.

I do consider them both to be sinful - but pedophilia is always rape while homosexuality is not.

I mean, homosexual rapists exist - obviously - but two consenting adults having homosexual relations is not rape - while sex with a child is always rape because children cannot consent.

I believe rapists should be punished while those who engage in consensual sexual relations warrant no punishment.

I “lumped together” two types of sexual attraction - not the actions motivated by those attractions.
I lump the second two together as "child abuse".
It’s hard for me to know exactly what you are talking about without a proper understanding of what you mean by “homophobic”.
Your category is based on your personal feelings.
As is yours - obviously.
You don't like gay stuff, and your interpretation of your Scripture of choice says that God doesn't like it either.
Really? You boil down all of my posts into, “I think gay stuff is icky!”

It could have nothing to do with my beliefs about God, marriage, eternity and the reasons for our existence?

It has to be, "I think its icky!"

I honestly don’t care if people are homosexual and I don’t consider it “icky” in any way. I have explained this on this thread a number of times.

I only start to care when they use their sexual orientation to redefine marriage, bully business owners and scare religious organizations away from offering adoption services.

Not to mention trying to use their sexual orientation to make all T.V. and movie characters homosexual as well.

Or try to shame me for disagreeing with their lifestyle for religious purposes.

Notice that none of these grievances have anything to do with “homosexuality” but rather with “what homosexuals decide to do”.

I believe that God commands us not to engage in homosexuality because it hinders our eternal potential.
It's entirely subjective, not even all Christians agree with your interpretation.
Just as subjective as yours is and not all homosexuals agree with your claims about child abuse either.
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
My category is based on objective evidence for causing harm to people, sometimes very severe.
What exactly causes harm to people?

Me claiming that since everyone has weaknesses that means that there is nothing wrong with anyone?

That we all need the merits and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ to overcome our weaknesses and sinful nature?

What have I said (quote me) that you believe is harming anyone?
There are different kinds of abuse, behavior that causes damage to youngsters who aren't completely developed and competent.
I agree, but I would not include “sharing an opinion they don’t agree with” to be one of those abuses.

Also, why do you keep assuming that I am talking to anyone’s children?
Behavior that wouldn't be a problem between adults can leave lasting emotional scars that results in all kinds of destructively dysfunctional behavior later in life.
I agree, but believe you are exaggerating the effects that hearing a dissenting opinion can have on a child.
While it's hard to draw a direct connection between sexual or psychological abuse and the resulting damage, the statistical correlations are overwhelming.
So - you believe that sharing an opinion can cause psychological damage and should be considered abuse?

You'd outlaw sharing an opinion?
That's why I compare the damage done by teaching kids that gay people have something terribly wrong with them that they can only escape by giving up some of the best things in life, like romance sex and marriage with sexual abuse. Because the damage done is very similar.
What are you even talking about?

First off - what “kids” are you talking about? I’m on a religious forum website.

As I have told you many times before - I don’t go to elementary schools or children’s bedrooms and “force” my opinion on them.

If you don't believe that there is anything wrong with homosexuality - you are free to teach that to your children.

If you do believe that there is something wrong with homosexuality - you are free to teach that to your children.

You cannot dictate what parents teach their children.

Now, on to your claims about stuff I supposedly taught to children.

When did I say that there was “something terribly wrong” with homosexuals or with anyone?

When did I say that homosexuals (or anyone) would have to give up finding romance, having sex or getting married?

It is you who believes that people are “born a certain way” - not me.

I believe that someone who has a same-sex attraction can eventually overcome it by relying on the Lord Jesus Christ.

They may not completely overcome it - but I believe that with God, nothing is impossible - so they can and should find romance, get married and have sex with their eternal mate - who is a member of the opposite sex.

You are the one who believes that people are “born a certain way” and that they can never change. Not me.
And no, adding some platitudes like "But Jesus loves you" to the abuse doesn't help.
Oh - you mean like people saying, “Diversity is our strength” while they assault someone for wearing a MAGA hat?

I’m still waiting for you to link anything I said to any of your examples of “abuse” mentioned above.

You seem to be confusing me with someone else or you are attributing the beliefs and actions of others to me - again.
So, while I totally support your rights to self-determination and not have gay sex, I vehemently oppose your forcing your opinion on vulnerable children.
Again - I am not talking to any children - I am on a religious forum website - and do I really need to point out that it is literally impossible to force your opinion upon anyone?

Could you now please explain to me what you imagine I am doing with my beliefs?

All I see me doing is sharing my opinion about sin and homosexuality on a religious forum website - but you keep seeing me abusing a bunch of children.

How is this happening?
People usually live their best lives with a compatible spouse. I firmly believe that, and I believe that my opinion is backed up by statistical evidence. Marriage is good for all healthy adults.
Even though I do not believe that homosexuality needs justification - what you said here does not justify homosexuality at all.

Nor does anything you say justify attempting to redefine marriage. It has always been between a man and a woman.

Putting a man in a skirt and having him sell cookies door-to-door doesn’t make him a Girl Scout.
Since sex and romance are such powerful bonds in such a union, compatibility is crucial. For gay men like myself, that means another marriage oriented gay man.
You don’t need to be “married” to have sex, romance or compatibility.

Marriage - as designed by God - is about more than that and is only between a man and a woman.
You are the one who needs to justify your opinion that my marriage is wrong.
No - I do not. None of my beliefs need to be justified - just as none or yours need to be justified.
And if all you've got is your personal feelings then all I can say is "Don't get married to someone of your gender. But don't tell me what to do without something a lot more objective than your sexual preferences."
I never told you what to do.

@Jainarayan asked me to share my beliefs about sin and homosexuality. I did that.

You and others have since asked me many many questions about my beliefs as well.

I answered those questions. That is all that has happened here.

I never said that you - or anyone - had to do anything.
Here's another aspect of the problems with you sharing your beliefs with impressionable youth.
You’d need to prove that I actually talk with other people’s children first - wouldn’t you?
The damage done to gay kids is obvious.
First off - this statement assumes that people are “born gay” - which is not a belief I subscribe to.

A male child can be effeminate or a female child “manly” without either being homosexual or either wanting to have their genitalia rearranged or cut off.

Secondly - damage done to all kids is obvious - it’s not just the “gay” kids getting picked on.

I bet I got made fun of more for being a Latter-day Saint than any “gay” kids get made fun of today.

In fact - I’d go as far as to say that children who “come out” get nothing but praise and adulation.

It would be seen as a literal crime for them to receive anything else in 2020.
But there's a kind of damage done to the ordinary ones as well. By teaching them that there's something wrong with gay people you are none-too-subtly encouraging and endorsing some ugly behavior.
That’s not what I shared. You are misrepresenting me.
Kids can be cruel.
And stupid. Which is why no one should care about what bullies say and do. Rise above it.

Don’t teach your children to be victims.
By giving them justification for bullying and marginalizing and otherwise mistreating their peers you're abusing them as well as their victims.
Bulls**t.

Pure - unadulterated - bulls**t.
Sometimes they fully outgrow that sort of nasty behavior, but all too often such behavior becomes part of their identity and world view.
So - your argument is - I cannot believe that homosexuality is sinful because I am inadvertently creating bullies?

Have you thought this through?

This argument could easily be turned on its head. No one should disagree with anyone’s behavior because we all would be turning our kids into life-long bullies.
Even after they're adults, they see odd and vulnerable people as legitimate targets.
And when they get arrested - you believe the police should come knocking on my door and charging me as an accomplice?
So, I think it best for all kids if you keep your views to yourself in the presence of children.
What children?

And - No - I will say whatever I believe is appropriate whenever I please.

I noticed that you were trying to be "nicer" about your desire to take away my God-given rights - but you still want to take them away.

Which - again - is something Hitler would want.

These posts were a hoot.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Anyways - everything I say below is my opinion or belief.
We know. Many of us here, who have suffered in various ways from your beliefs, are cheering on the death and demise of your beliefs, and hear every loss of political power as a heavenly choir that lets minorities, women, atheists, non-Christians in general, and everybody else breath a little easier and more free.
Trying to claim that I am homophobic simply because I believe homosexuality is sinful would be like trying to claim that I am prejudiced towards those who drink alcohol - becasue I also believe that to be a sin.
Saying homosexuality is sinful is no different than saying black people are cursed, and, ya know, ineligible for priesthood.
But, in the end, the Church is worldly. It will change. Again. When, as it once again faces becoming irrelevant for clinging on to dated and obsolete views that anymore we just know better.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
That we all need the merits and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ to overcome our weaknesses and sinful nature?

No we don’t. Because we all don’t believe he is God, an incarnation of God or anything more than a sage, rishi, teacher, enlightened soul.

Marriage - as designed by God - is about more than that and is only between a man and a woman.

Yeah, uh... no it wasn’t. Except in your beliefs not mine. Therefore your beliefs have no right to determine what my marriage can and cannot be in a secular nation.

@Jainarayan asked me to share my beliefs about sin and homosexuality. I did that.

No, he did not. He asked you to back up statements you made. He is well aware, painfully aware, of your beliefs.

First off - this statement assumes that people are “born gay” - which is not a belief I subscribe to.

That’s all well and good but keep in mind your beliefs don’t trump what those of us who are homosexual know about ourselves. Especially since to believe that would upset the foundations of your beliefs.

I bet I got made fun of more for being a Latter-day Saint than any “gay” kids get made fun of today.

Not bloody likely.

In fact - I’d go as far as to say that children who “come out” get nothing but praise and adulation.

Not bloody likely.
 
Top