Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[Jainarayan]

It's struck me that the best explanation for all those people saying "homosexuality is a choice" is that for them, it is. IOW, the reason that they think people can suppress their same-sex attraction as an act of will is because they do precisely that themselves... and if they can do it, so can other people.

They're also equating orientation and feelings with sexual activity. A heterosexual man can refrain from having sex with women but he's still heterosexual. A homosexual man can refrain from having sex with men but he's still homosexual. I can force myself to have sex with a woman (note the word "force") using a lot of fantasizing, which makes me about as straight as a corkscrew.

 

[Skwim]

It's struck me that the best explanation for all those people saying "homosexuality is a choice" is that for them, it is. IOW, the reason that they think people can suppress their same-sex attraction as an act of will is because they do precisely that themselves... and if they can do it, so can other people.

Very interesting thought. Most likely a they're on the bisexual spectrum somewhere. Is that where you are, 1robin? Go ahead, Pick a square.

source​

.​

.

 

[columbus]

A heterosexual man can refrain from having sex with women but he's still heterosexual.

A heterosexual man can have sex with men and still be heterosexual.
A surprising number of gay prostitutes are only a 1 or 1.5 on @Skwim scale. But men will commonly pay well in cash for sex with a hot stud muffin. Women generally charge for sex with men. So guys willing to have sex for money often do guys for work and women for fun. Gross but true.
Don't ask me how I know this.

Tom

 

[randomvim]

I don't think that Jesus would have minded homosexuals in love with each other. He was much more aggravated by the greed, hypocrisy and carelessness of the priesthood.

And so Christians should disregard the rants of Paul, who never married! Was he covering something there?

and what is this based on?

 

[Jainarayan]

A heterosexual man can have sex with men and still be heterosexual.

Booyah!!!

Don't ask me how I know this.

Tom

We read?

 

[randomvim]

They're also equating orientation and feelings with sexual activity. A heterosexual man can refrain from having sex with women but he's still heterosexual. A homosexual man can refrain from having sex with men but he's still homosexual. I can force myself to have sex with a woman (note the word "force") using a lot of fantasizing, which makes me about as straight as a corkscrew.

what do we base the concept of homosexuality on, act or thought?

 

[Jainarayan]

what do we base the concept of homosexuality on, act or thought?

For me it's thought, feelings. But as I said previously I think many straight people view it as primarily behavior. That's why they say we can change. If that were the case, my sex life would make me straighter than a laser beam.

 

[oldbadger]

and what is this based on?

His total lack of comment about it, and his relaxed attitude to sexual laws.

Would you like to show me any word or deed of Jesus that showed that he was bigoted about Gays? Good luck with that.

 

[columbus]

and what is this based on?

The Gospels.
If Jesus ever expressed an opinion on the subject nobody wrote it down. He was far more clear about getting married and then staying married. But nobody is trying to outlaw divorce or write Constitutional Amendments prohibiting it.

The irony of that is intense. One of the big arguments against marriage equality is "break down of the family". But when two married people with a batch of small children break up the kids' home, that's sad but nobody wants laws and such.
What's with that?
Tom

 

[Shadow Wolf]

His total lack of comment about it, and his relaxed attitude to sexual laws.

Would you like to show me any word or deed of Jesus that showed that he was bigoted about Gays? Good luck with that.

Not directly, but when he said--three times the Bible records it--that he hadn't come to do away with the law he did condemn them, and many others, to death. Jesus basically came down and said to love and tolerate, and do mind his "Mr. Hyde" aspects because nothing really changes except for this one part of prophecy being fulfilled, and I come bearing even more prophecy that must also come.

 

[oldbadger]

Not directly, but when he said--three times the Bible records it--that he hadn't come to do away with the law he did condemn them, and many others, to death. Jesus basically came down and said to love and tolerate, and do mind his "Mr. Hyde" aspects because nothing really changes except for this one part of prophecy being fulfilled, and I come bearing even more prophecy that must also come.

Jesus mentioning upholding the law was all to do with the priesthood ignoring the aspects of the law which protected the working people, this I feel sure.
Just look at how he stopped a self-righteous execution of an accused adulterer.
Jesus never made any mention about Gays, although I notice that several Web sites offer reasons why he actually supported gays.

Christians (and other religions) have shot themselves straight through the foot over this and other bigoted ideas about humanity.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Jesus mentioning upholding the law was all to do with the priesthood ignoring the aspects of the law which protected the working people, this I feel sure.
Just look at how he stopped a self-righteous execution of an accused adulterer.
Jesus never made any mention about Gays, although I notice that several Web sites offer reasons why he actually supported gays.

Christians (and other religions) have shot themselves straight through the foot over this and other bigoted ideas about humanity.

Jesus said that it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of the law, and that those who relaxed it shall be considered among the least in the Kingdom.

 

[randomvim]

Jesus mentioning upholding the law was all to do with the priesthood ignoring the aspects of the law which protected the working people, this I feel sure.
Just look at how he stopped a self-righteous execution of an accused adulterer.
Jesus never made any mention about Gays, although I notice that several Web sites offer reasons why he actually supported gays.

Christians (and other religions) have shot themselves straight through the foot over this and other bigoted ideas about humanity.

why would Jesus talk about something everyone already knew was wrong?

His encounter with adulterer was not to accept her actions, as we can see Jesus does criticize the woman. also telling her not to commit her actions any more.

what matters most is our behaviour towards each other. we are to be a community and condeming each other does not get the job done.


God sent a prophet every time His people needed Him more than they realize.

 

[columbus]

why would Jesus talk about something everyone already knew was wrong?

Maybe He did, but nobody remembered it by the time Paul started messing around with Christianity and the Gospels were being drafted.
The fact is that Jesus didn't say anything about gay marriage or abortion, but very definitely did condemn divorce under almost all circumstances. But somehow Christians don't care about that nearly as much.
Even though it does enormous damage to children and society!
What is with that?
Tom

 

[oldbadger]

Jesus said that it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of the law, and that those who relaxed it shall be considered among the least in the Kingdom.

Indeed...... and the relaxation was that the upper class, the priesthood, had ignored the laws concerning the poor and lesser classes. Further, many in the priesthood had been hellenised, secretly turning away from the old laws, hypocrites and quislings...... why, they even consorted with the Romans over Temple exchange rates, feathering their own as well as Roman nests.

You should read about what John the Baptist said about that lot!

No..... Jesus had no great scruples over who was in love with who. Jesus supported love above all else, methinks.

Jesus certainly was not a self-righteous judgemental bigot over such issues.

Now, Paul, who never married in his whole life of about six decades (????) he was very very outspoken about such things. Loudly outspoken.

As Shakespeare would have put it, 'Methinks he doth protest too much!' !!!!

 

[oldbadger]

why would Jesus talk about something everyone already knew was wrong?

Ah ha! Not for self-righteous judgemental Christians to decide upon what is right or wrong, based upon what Jesus did NOT say!

His encounter with adulterer was not to accept her actions, as we can see Jesus does criticize the woman. also telling her not to commit her actions any more.

..... just as he would have told you, or me, to sin no more.
But you and I do, methinks, me guess, so neither you nor I can pick up a stone, can we?
No...... best you leave people in love together, leave them be, leave them alone.

what matters most is our behaviour towards each other. we are to be a community and condeming each other does not get the job done.

Then we will not condemn Gay men or Lesbian women for marrying, eh? Of course, there was no law about Women being together, indeed, they WERE together a great deal, because women in close bond menstruate together, and so go to the tent together in most close bonds.

God sent a prophet every time His people needed Him more than they realize.

Oh come on! As if you or I would have realised, the last time a prophet came to us. A fairly well known rabbi, A GAY rabbi actually, once said that there have been at least 9000 prophets sent to Earth, but the most perfect ones were never even noticed. I believe him in that.

No no...... people who think most strongly that they would not have doubted, would not have fled from, would not have sold out, they worry me more than the quiet ones.

 

[randomvim]

Ah ha! Not for self-righteous judgemental Christians to decide upon what is right or wrong, based upon what Jesus did NOT say!


..... just as he would have told you, or me, to sin no more.
But you and I do, methinks, me guess, so neither you nor I can pick up a stone, can we?
No...... best you leave people in love together, leave them be, leave them alone.


Then we will not condemn Gay men or Lesbian women for marrying, eh? Of course, there was no law about Women being together, indeed, they WERE together a great deal, because women in close bond menstruate together, and so go to the tent together in most close bonds.



Oh come on! As if you or I would have realised, the last time a prophet came to us. A fairly well known rabbi, A GAY rabbi actually, once said that there have been at least 9000 prophets sent to Earth, but the most perfect ones were never even noticed. I believe him in that.

No no...... people who think most strongly that they would not have doubted, would not have fled from, would not have sold out, they worry me more than the quiet ones.

1. not for a christian to understand what is right or wrong based on what their own savior did and did not say? all the while you or another is granted all ability to do just that??? ha!

2. My statement is not based on what Jesus did not say but rather how he addressed the issues of that time. again, why adress and issu that was not an issue of that time?

3. there is a difference between picking up a stone and telling someone what they are doing is wrong or a sin.

otherwise I would think you believe it wrong for me to tell my nephew its wrong to steal your money.

4. i dont understate your reference to menstrating as that is not a sexual act. please be more clear.

5. the last prophet was Jesus. there havee been no more after Jesus.

6. who do you speak of otherwise? sounds like your comment is out of context.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Indeed...... and the relaxation was that the upper class, the priesthood, had ignored the laws concerning the poor and lesser classes. Further, many in the priesthood had been hellenised, secretly turning away from the old laws, hypocrites and quislings...... why, they even consorted with the Romans over Temple exchange rates, feathering their own as well as Roman nests.

If Jesus mentioned the Sadducees and the Pharisees while discussing that like he did public praying and making a spectacle of yourself while you fast, you'd have a point. But he didn't use this specific language, but rather stuck to generalized terms of things such as "anyone."

 

[oldbadger]

1. not for a christian to understand what is right or wrong based on what their own savior did and did not say? all the while you or another is granted all ability to do just that??? ha!

But this is a thread about Christian's bigotry against Gays, so we look to Jesus.
We are probably more exact about that because Christians choose several others for their Christian prophets!

..............................
otherwise I would think you believe it wrong for me to tell my nephew its wrong to steal your money.

But Christians can be such TERRIBLE thieves!!!!
Our prisons are FULL of thieves and many are Christians, and yet it's quite dangerous for gays to be amongst some of these, you know.
Jesus was against priests who were supposed to uphold laws protecting the working people, and they were doing NOTHING to care for such. Hypocrites all!
Read John the Baptist.

4. i dont understate your reference to menstrating as that is not a sexual act. please be more clear.

Jesus was not against Lesbians either. I just mentioned in passing how women were very very close to each other in that culture. I just mentioned in passing, that women together menstruate together, and at those times live together. I just though you'd be intertested, is all.

----------------------------------
Jesus.... last prophet?
Now many Christians would take you to task over that sentence, you know.

There are thousand of differing Christian Creeds and Denominations, and I suppose that some would be less inclined to Paul's bigoted rants...?

 

[oldbadger]

If Jesus mentioned the Sadducees and the Pharisees while discussing that like he did public praying and making a spectacle of yourself while you fast, you'd have a point. But he didn't use this specific language, but rather stuck to generalized terms of things such as "anyone."

Jesus really attacked the priesthood hard!
With words and with deeds and actions.

Let's face it, many Christians just cherry-pick their way through the rules, ignoring what they want to, and picking on what they feel self-righteous about.

That's OK. Yes! It's OK! ....... until it impinges upon decent people who love each other and want to marry. And then somebody needs to just keep them back from interferring.