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

[Jainarayan]

Sometimes it's just not worth the bother.
Tom

Especially when something has more than run its course.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

That you said it's immoral at all is why we won't defend you.

That makes no sense to me.

We can disagree on all kinds of things - but if I knew you were being mistreated or disrespected in some way - I would come to your defense.

We may not be able defend everyone's beliefs or opinions - I understand that - but why can't we defend each other when it counts?

Again - this mentality doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

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

What are you talking about?

You asked me to share my beliefs about homosexuality and sin and answer your questions.

You made the claim that since you were "born" with an attraction to the same-sex that made it "natural" and therefore above reproach.

You said this in your very first comment to me.

Everyone else keeps asking me questions about the very first things I said to you - so what you said keeps coming up as a result of that.

Me being able to recall why I said the things I said - and defend them - does not mean that I am obsessed with anything about you.

I can do this because - unlike you - I take responsibility for the things that I say and give my words proper thought before speaking.

Not only do you lack all accountability - but you seem to be very self-involved as well - thinking that I am obsessed with you in some way.

The more you say the more foolish you appear to be.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

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

The truth does not change - no matter how hard people try to change it.

I'm just reminding all of you people of that.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

which post?

I first asked you in Post #664.

I then asked you again at the end of Post # 678.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Without giving a reason that isn't purely personal and subjective.

You also have yet to give a reason that isn't purely personal and subjective.

Why should homosexuality be considered moral?

I can demonstrate the damage done by sexualising children. I can demonstrate the damage done by teaching kids that homosexuality is inherently wrong.

Couldn't it be argued that teaching children about sex at all is "sexualising" them?

I don't think you and I - or the schools - should be teaching anyone's children about what is or is not proper sexual attraction.

That is a decision that should be left up to parents.

@JesusKnowsYou cannot demonstrate any damage done by queers marrying each other.

You believe that something should only be considered immoral if there is immediate discernible harm or damage?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Well....
Given how upset so many people get for their chosen deity over it...

Or the fact that it has almost completely hijacked our society. That's kind of upsetting.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Wow. A lot of stupid to unpack here.

Here's another way that teaching impressionable kids that queers are bad causes some huge damage.

I never claimed that homosexuals were bad - so this - and any other thoughts along these lines - does not apply to me or my arguments.

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.

That is a dumb idea. Not one I have every espoused - nor will I ever.

First - no one can change their nature without the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Second - I never claimed that anyone was "hellbound" - although I do believe that every single human being - not just homosexuals - are sinners.

Third - making babies does not change our nature nor absolve anyone of past sins.

Fourth - a man who is suffering from same-sex attraction should not marry at all - until they have overcome their weakness through faith and repentance.

These are all really bad ideas. None of which I have argued for. It is irrelevant to this thread.

The poor quality marriages that result from this kind of deception by young people results in tons of divorce and badly raised children.

Yeah - that tends to happen with bad ideas.

Notice that God never told any of these men to deceive these women and get married.

The Church never did either.

It's almost as if they came to this decision on their own - but you are trying to blame God and Christianity for it.

Do you not believe that these men are accountable for their own actions?

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!

100% agree. Marriage should be built on trust - not deception.

It's almost as if everyone in the world knew this was a bad idea.

Way better for everyone if everybody realizes that straight marriage and babies just isn't for everyone.

There is no such thing as "straight marriage" - it's just called marriage.

It is "same-sex marriage" that needs the qualifier - because it is not actual marriage.

And - of course - there are people who do not want marriage and children.

I'm a solid believer in marriage, but the partnership absolutely must be based on honesty and compatibility.

That's good.

It cannot be based on Christian teachings about how people should be, or what marriage is supposed to be.

I believe it's Jewish teachings that you have your gripe with - since most Christians base there beliefs on marriage from Jewish teachings and traditions.

I believe that marriage came from God - not the Jews or Christians - and we must follow what He has commanded us in regards to it - or - it's just not marriage anymore.

Basically - you want marriage - but you are unwilling to follow what makes a relationship a marriage - so you are getting something else. A watered down version of marriage.

A pale imitation.

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.

The arrogance of "modern-man".

Everyone in every period of time has looked on with scorn at those who came before them - thinking them stupid and primitive - whilst they themselves say and do all the same things done by these "primitives" - thus repeating all the same mistakes and learning nothing.

I never claimed that homosexuals are bad or that marriage is a band-aid to same-sex attraction.

None of this applies to what has been discussed in this thread.

I understand why you would want this thread to be about this stuff - this material gives you some great talking points - but it doesn't - so you don't.

 

[SomeRandom]

@Jainarayan , @Shadow Wolf and @SomeRandom voted "Winner" to Post #361 - proving that they also consider pedophilia to be indistinguishable from raping children.
.

Uhh no I don’t. I even specifically mentioned that there are instances of child abuse going on where there isn’t a pedophile involved. Rather an abused child is merely mimicking the behaviour as a known coping mechanism.

When people bring up the fact that there is a lack of consent, they simply mean that there is an objective reason for why someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children should not act upon those desires. Being sexually attracted to someone of the same sex and is roughly the same age you are does not carry that same objective stance.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That makes no sense to me.

It's basically the opposite of your position.

Fourth - a man who is suffering from same-sex attraction should not marry at all - until they have overcome their weakness through faith and repentance.

Disgusting. And unfortunately, other people who are not you will pay the price for perpetuating those falla ious and harmful opinions of faith.

 

[Jainarayan]

The truth does not change - no matter how hard people try to change it.

I'm just reminding all of you people of that.

What is the truth?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The truth does not change - no matter how hard people try to change it.

I'm just reminding all of you people of that.

It's not truth. It is your own personal beliefs. Nothing more.

 

[columbus]

It's not truth. It is your own personal beliefs. Nothing more.

This is the big problem here.
People who mistake their own subjective opinions for truth.
Tom

 

[Jainarayan]

It's not truth. It is your own personal beliefs. Nothing more.

This is the big problem here.
People who mistake their own subjective opinions for truth.
Tom

Exactly... truth is relative and subjective. Everyone has their truth. There's a line in the tv version of Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's End, in which the alien Karellen tells a very religious woman whose faith is shaken (paraphrasing) "All your religions can't all be right".

In my path, we're looking for the absolute truth, which may take a hundred million more lifetimes to learn. Or one lifetime, who knows? If we think we found the truth here, chances are we haven't.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is the big problem here.
People who mistake their own subjective opinions for truth.
Tom

Yup. I used to be one. It's a festering cancerous dogma, that is constantly feed by literalist, evangelical, and other fundamentalist groups. They are all certain they have the truth. And, zealous are unfortunately a malignant and malicious tumor that has spread throughout society.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I only asked @Jainarayan to justify homosexuality after he asked me to justify my beliefs.

It was an absurd retaliation for his absurd request.

I do not believe that homosexuality needs to be justified just as I do not believe that my beliefs need to be justified.

I would argue that it is the definition that most people agree upon - but don't use in practice.

Take literally everyone on this thread as an example.

@9-10ths_Penguin claimed that me mentioning my belief that same-sex attraction and an attraction to children are both sexual attractions that I believe are inappropriate meant that "consent and respect don't factor into what I consider to be acceptable and unacceptable sexual relationships" (Bold and italics added) (Post #353)

He even repeated this idea again in Post #361 - when he knew I was talking about sexual attraction - not actions - but he immediately began talking about the actions.

He equated the attraction to children (pedophilia) with the potential actions of that attraction (rape). To him - pedophilia is indistinguishable from raping children.

@Jainarayan , @Shadow Wolf and @SomeRandom voted "Winner" to Post #361 - proving that they also consider pedophilia to be indistinguishable from raping children.

Then you not only agreed with @9-10ths_Penguin in Post #363 - proving that you also believe that pedophilia is indistinguishable from raping children - but you then claimed that I had mentioned an attraction to children to "demonize gay people" (Post #362)

Even though I clearly did not even "demonize" those who suffer from an attraction to children (pedophiles) when I said in my initial post to @Jainarayan ,

"I would not label someone a "pedophile" simply because they suffer from an attraction to children.

If they resist their urges, refuse to entertain inappropriate thoughts and desires and never once engage in sexual behavior with children - then I would not consider them pedophiles or claim that they committed the sin of pedophilia." (Post #326)

It makes no sense to claim that I brought up an attraction to children to "demonize" those who have a same-sex attraction when I never even "demonized" those who suffer from an attraction to children.

I wanted to make that distinction because I know that most people immediately associate pedophilia with raping children and it is a core concept of my beliefs that a weakness is not a sin - having an attraction is not sinful - it is acting on an inappropriate attraction that leads to sin.

I believe that both an attraction to children and same-sex attraction are inappropriate and can lead to sin.

Then we come again to @columbus and his comment that me sharing my beliefs "causes a great deal of damage" and that it was "similar to pedophilia" - proving that he too does not distinguish pedophilia from raping children. (Post #365)

Both you and @Jainarayan gave his post a "Winner" vote - proving again that both of you do not distinguish pedophilia from raping children.

So - yes - you may all now bring up the dictionary definition of "pedophilia" - but none of you stuck to that definition in this discussion. You all instantly associated pedophilia with raping children - claiming that they were one and the same.

Well - since this entire discussion has been about my personal beliefs and how I view these sexual attractions and the difference between a weakness and a sin - doesn't that make sense?

Doesn't it make perfect sense when discussing my personal beliefs that we would use my personal views and definitions that I clearly explained in an attempt to avoid confusion?

If you don't want to use my definitions to discuss my personal beliefs - then it sounds like you don't want to come to know or understand my beliefs at all.

If that is so - then why do you keep asking me questions about my beliefs? Why are you really here?

I just shared a bunch of evidence above that proves that neither you nor anyone else mentioned in this thread believe that the word "pedophilia" defines only an attraction to children.

You all believe that "pedophilia" describes the actual raping of children. All of you. You cannot squirm out of it.

If you want to retract what you said earlier - that would be fine - but then you would have to admit that I in no way mentioned an attraction to children to "demonize" those who have a same-sex attraction.

You would also have to admit that I never claimed that "consent" and "respect" were not factors when considering appropriate sexual relationships or that me sharing my beliefs does any damage to anyone whatsoever.

Basically - you recanting on how you equated pedophilia to raping children - would dismantle most - if not all - of your arguments against me on this thread.

Considering that these arguments were only distractions in the first place - you wouldn't lose anything - besides face.

So? That doesn't make pedophiles rapists - as you and everyone else claimed.

I was the only one who accurately and appropriately separated attraction from action.

If someone who suffers from an attraction to children never submits to that attraction and acts on those urges - he commits no sin.

And I believe that if they were to rely on the grace and merits of the Lord Jesus Christ while resisting these urges - they may be able to completely overcome them,

It is you - and the others - who "demonize" those who have an attraction to children - labeling them as child abusers and rapists - while I offer them empathy and hope.

So - if one sexual attraction can be viewed as inappropriate - then is it so much of a stretch to consider that other sexual attractions could also be viewed as inappropriate?

That is @Jainarayan 's whole "justified thing" - not mine.

I only asked him to justify homosexuality after he asked me to justify my beliefs.

If you don't like the whole "it needs to be justified" thing - take it up with him - not me.

Because that makes no sense.

Having an attraction does not include "consent" or "respect" or having any kind of "relationship" with the object of attraction.

@9-10ths_Penguin believes that pedophiles are those who rape children. There is no line between attraction and action.

And you agreed with him.

I would go further and claim that any sexual interaction of any kind with a child is rape.

If you honestly believe that - then amend all those untrue things you said or agreed to previously.

Now you are being intentionally obtuse.

We all know that the "damage" @columbus mentioned was the damage done to victimized children - not to anyone who suffers from an attraction to children.

Even though I do believe that having such an attraction does do damage to the one who has it - which is why I recommend they come to Christ - we all know that was not what @columbus was talking about.

It's stuff like this that led me to believe that you are not being sincere.

This is true - but it doesn't change what @9-10ths_Penguin , @columbus or you said before.

You all claimed that pedophilia was synonymous with raping children. You did. There is no getting around that.

You can take this opportunity to amend and claim that you made a mistake. You are always free to do that.

Yes - but to be clear - if a person who suffers from an attraction to children acts on their attraction - it is always rape - since children cannot give consent.

That is not always so with those attracted to the opposite or the same-sex.

That is not what you and others have been claiming up to this point.

You can't be in denial about that.

Nice. A not-so-veiled attempt to claim that I am uneducated. Nice.

Either way - despite your "educational background" - you have been claiming that pedophilia is indistinguishable from raping children. That is a fact.

I never once claimed that the word "pedophilia" did not mean an attraction to children.

However - in a discussion about the difference between a weakness and a sin - I explained that an attraction was a weakness and an action was a sin.

I clearly separated the attraction from the action to better explain this belief.

I was also aware of the real life reaction had by those who hear the word "pedophilia" and how they instantly associate it with rape. Just as you and everyone else here has done.

Basically - I was trying to avoid the stupid of the world - but you guys hauled it in here and spread it all around.

Sorry, I don't feel like sifting through this same thing all over again.

But I do take issue with one thing you said ...

"It is you - and the others - who "demonize" those who have an attraction to children - labeling them as child abusers and rapists - while I offer them empathy and hope."

Look, I know you're trying to turn the tables and take the heat off yourself here, but what you've said here is an inane attempt to make yourself the victim in a thread where you are putting down gay people, (among others). I'm sorry to say but that seems par for the course with you, as I have read many of your long diatribes about how men are the real victims in society and African Americans are irresponsible decision makers, and on and on.

Remember what this thread is about? It's about homosexuality. Not pedophilia. Not the plight of the African American family unit. Yet, you've gone on at length about all these other, unrelated things, thus making the case that they are related in some way. You're the one who went right to pedophilia in a thread about homosexuality. That wasn't anyone else here. That was you.

You're not offering any hope to gay people or pedophiles or African Americans, or anybody else here. I'm sorry that you think you are.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is "laugh out loud" funny.

The sources you provide offer so many more reasonable explanations and they even discredit the idea of systemic racism.

What's "laugh out loud" funny is that you seriously think that.
I guess you didn't actually read any of them.

 

[Jainarayan]

I'm weak... I admit this is like eating potato chips, and sour cream and onion dip. I just cannot resist.

Basically - a person could have a same-sex attraction - but if they aren't actually engaging in homosexual behavior then they are not "practicing" homosexuality.

Meaning - they are not actually applying the idea or method of homosexuality to their lives. They are not having sexual relations "in that way".

...

As I said from the beginning - no one gets to choose their weaknesses - and I believe that same-sex attraction is a weakness.

You deciding to engage in sexual relations with a member of the same-sex - i.e. your homosexuality - is something that you decide to do.

Why should I be denied expressing physical love for someone because it doesn't fit the parameters of a religion that is irrelevant to me? Yes, I choose to have sex, as do you. Why can you have sex with the person you're attracted to and I can't? And you can't cite a religion I have no regard for.

That's what I asked you to explain and justify.

You are not a victim for being a homosexual.

When I have the **** kicked out of me for walking down the street holding hands with my husband or boyfriend... yeah, I'm a victim. Or is that my fault because I choose to display my homosexuality.

That's what I asked you to explain and justify.

Homosexuality hurts the individual who practices it - not the person preaching against it.

How? And you can't cite a religion I have no regard for.

That's what I asked you to explain and justify.

The idea that a person is born homosexual is contrary to the Word of God. Plain and simple.

The scriptures teach that homosexuality - which it defines as someone engaging in sexual relations with a member of the same-sex (not simply being attracted to the same-sex) - is sinful.

B-b-b-but I've already said those scriptures are irrelevant and meaningless to me. I'm not bound by them. Why should I be. What makes them valid?

That's what I asked you to explain and justify.

The scriptures also teach that God will never allow anyone to be tempted beyond what they are capable of enduring. Meaning - basically - that we will always be able to overcome temptation.

Therefore - sexual attractions - whether they be to the same or the opposing sex - can always be resisted and overcome - if that attraction were to lead to sin.

I don't believe in that definition of sin and temptation. Why should I? That's what I asked you to explain and justify.

Sexual attraction does not always lead to sin - but any sexual attraction that leads to sexual relations outside of a marriage between a man and woman is sinful - according to the scriptures.

Why should those scriptures mean anything to me? That's what I asked you to explain and justify.

So - no - homosexuality does not "shake" anything - but the false idea that people are born homosexual is in direct conflict with the Word of God.

I don't believe that "Word of God" from that scripture means anything. Btw, where does it say in those scriptures no one is born homosexual?

Do you see and understand now what I asked you to explain and justify?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

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.

Please explain how my beliefs - those that I have actually presented - not those you and others have been falsely attributing to me - have caused you to suffer in any way.

If an example of your suffering is you hearing an opinion you do not like or agree with - then you and I have different perspectives on what constitutes suffering.

I would also ask you to to give an example of how my beliefs - not those you falsely attribute to me - have taken away your freedoms.

I would really appreciate that.

Saying homosexuality is sinful is no different than saying black people are cursed, and, ya know, ineligible for priesthood.

Oh wow. This is cut-throat. I love it! I'm going to give this post a "Like" vote just for that.

Unfortunately - the official reason for the implementation of the Priesthood Ban had nothing to do with the color of anyone's skin or any "curse".

The whole "curse" idea came about as speculation offered by various members and leaders of the Church in an effort to explain the ban - but no official explanation had ever been given.

As to "black people" being ineligible for the priesthood - that was simply not true. Black or other dark-skinned men were given the priesthood.

Only a select lineage was denied access to the priesthood - and this lineage was not always associated with skin color. Even certain men - who had white skin - were denied access to the priesthood if they descended from that lineage.

We do not know why the ban was implemented - but we do know that God had implemented bans like this in the past - like how within the House of Israel only the literal descendants of Aaron and Levi were allowed to receive and operate within the priesthood.

So - no - the ban had nothing to do with anyone's individual sins or worthiness - like homosexual behavior.

Any man who has a same-sex attraction - but does not engage in homosexual behavior - and who is otherwise worthy can receive and operate within the priesthood.

But, in the end, the Church is worldly. It will change. Again.[

I completely disagree and argue that the Church has not changed.

Sure - policies within the Church have changed - but that does not change the doctrine or organization of the Church.

When, as it once again faces becoming irrelevant for clinging on to dated and obsolete views that anymore we just know better.

Heh. I wouldn't hold your breathe. And you claiming to "know better" is "laugh out loud" funny to me.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

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.

None of this is relevant to either what I or @columbus was saying.

He has repeatedly - and falsely - claimed that I said that there was something wrong with homosexuals and that me saying that causes them harm.

When in reality - I have always that we are all in the same boat - we are all sinners - there is nothing "wrong" with anyone and that we all need the same things in life.

Whether or not you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ is completely irrelevant.

Yeah, uh... no it wasn’t. Except in your beliefs not mine.

Are you kidding?

I literally said at the start of my last post, "everything I say below is my opinion or belief" - and you're surprised by this?

Why do you think it's odd that I would discuss my own personal beliefs - in a thread that has been about my personal beliefs - in a response to someone who asked me about my personal beliefs - in a post that literally began with me saying "everything I say below is my opinion or belief"?

So - yeah - I'm going to continue to discuss my beliefs - and you can continue to discuss your own. We are equal in that regard -aren't we?

Therefore your beliefs have no right to determine what my marriage can and cannot be in a secular nation.

My beliefs can determine what your "marriage" can and cannot be - to me.

While we are on this subject - I find it a tad hypocritical of you - perhaps not of you personally - but of homosexuals in general.

They say things like, "Me getting married doesn't affect you!" or "You have no right to determine what my marriage can and cannot be!"

Yet - homosexuals often refer to my marriage as a "straight marriage" - which literally affects me and determines what my marriage is.

My marriage is a marriage. It needs to qualifier to describe what it is.

It is same-sex marriage that needs the qualifier - because it is "the one that doesn't look like the other".

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

Why are you speaking in third person?

Thank you for saying this. It's a second affirmation to the fact that you asked me to justify my beliefs.

Remember when you falsely claimed that you had never asked me to justify my beliefs?

You can look back at Post #716 for a recap on that fiasco.

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.

To me - to believe that would be to believe a lie.

You are just as human as I am. You don't have some "sixth sense" of discovering truth just because you are homosexual.

According to my beliefs - you were either born with or developed the weakness of same-sex attraction and instead of resisting and overcoming it - you eventually succumbed and engaged in homosexual behavior.

Not bloody likely.

You are not a victim for being homosexual.