Pres. stand against gay rights

[Christian_Vegan_Weirdo]

I really never use to care about gay and lesbian rights, my church told me that it was wrong to be gay or lesbian, and I simpally listend to them without question. Then I got into high school, and I made a friend. Within the first week or two of our friendship, she told me that she had lesbian parents. Since then, I have wondered why the PCA has been openly agianst Gay rights.

Why? What scripture in the Bible clearly states that gay or lesbian=bad?

Personally, I am "strate", but would like to know why the Pres. church is agianst gay rights.:help:

 

[Doc]

Although religiously, I am unsure of the issue of gay marriage, I don't believe the strates and leaders of this country can decide who marries who. They are taking away the equality granted to every person in this country. I frankly do not see how this hurts anyone in any way for people to marry each other. I don't understand why people should be bothered by two same sex people living together. People cried out when blacks and whites married and they still do. I personally support opposite race marriage because the more diversity we have, the better.
As for the Presbyterian church, I am unclear of many of its teachings and ideals. I believe it is a strict religion in some areas that I know of.

 

[t3gah]

That's the thing isn't it?! The Bible which Churches are adhering to was penned by persons chosen by God. The Constitution was written by men and not an inspired document with God's standards in mind completely. The whole Gay marriage thing by the states and cities is fine for the Constitution for equal rights but not ok with the statutes in the Bible. Since this thread is about what a Church is doing and not what Government is doing, the answer lies in the scriptures and not documents penned by the "founding fathers" of the USA.

 

[linwood]

Why? What scripture in the Bible clearly states that gay or lesbian=bad?

Personally, I am "strate", but would like to know why the Pres. church is agianst gay rights.:help:

Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

Thats it there ya go.

 

[Doc]

As is slavery

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

So's eating pork, darnit!

But yes, anyway, I'd say the Bible is anti-homosexual, and that's why Bush is.

Now, what does adultery have to do with this question, exactly? Unless you're having a homosexual affair with someone, but that's immoral for a completely different reason.

PS: Hey, we can help the, ah, problem of gay people having sex outside of marriage by letting them marry, there's a thought. Gets one sin out of the way, at least, right?

 

[Christian_Vegan_Weirdo]

Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

Thats it there ya go.

I really don't understand how that has to do with being gay/les., it sounds like to me that you are quoting a verse that says taht we should not lie with someone outside of marrage, but the problem with this verse is also that it is out of context. If I saw some of the verses around it, perhaps it would be different, and I could understand how it is an abomination.


T3gah (what does that stand for, by the way?), thank you for your verses, they were very helpful. Might I ask you what version of the Bible you used? I do agree with some of what you siad about the constitution, but I personally think that the constitution was perhaps written by man, but it was written by them to protect any beliefe, religios or not. That means that I can have a belief in anything, and I can not be prohibited from that belief, as long as it does not harm someone else. I can believe in computers, and think that computers created the universe, and the government can't stop me. The part of the constitution was allowing free will to all, and equal rights to all, be they man, woman, mexican, american, indian, african etc.. we must come to God by our own free will, and no government can force us into being a child of God, that is our own personal chouse and is granted through Christ, by the Holly Spirit. The man who wrote the consitution understood this, and also understood that our nation could not and would not advance if we were constintly stopping and listening to one person/man/woman/book whatever. If we were all Christians in America, every last one of us, and all had the same interpratations of the Bible, and same beliefs, then our laws could be set to say that no gay marrage is allowed. But, we are not all of the same religion and belief, so our laws have to be open enough to insure freedom, and closed to insure safetly. We can do this and allow gay marrage. If we all adopt the same religios beliefs in america, then this can be changed.

But this is really only 50% on topic, so let's not get off to much.

Another question I have: Why do you think that God would consider being gay/lesbian unnatual? Of course, I am not to question what God says, but I was just wondering if anyone had any inlightment to offer on this.

Thanks!!!
Jennifer

 

[linwood]

I really don't understand how that has to do with being gay/les., it sounds like to me that you are quoting a verse that says taht we should not lie with someone outside of marrage, but the problem with this verse is also that it is out of context. If I saw some of the verses around it, perhaps it would be different, and I could understand how it is an abomination.

The context of this one really doesn`t matter much considering this chapter of Leviticus is merely a laundry list of things God doesn`t want you to do.
Here is the chapter in it`s entirety...
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Lev/Lev018.html#22

The irony is that these laws are supposedly "ceremonial" and not "moral" which many Christians tell me they no longer need to abide by.
However this is the one they quote to me when this subject comes up anyway.

The other support Christians claim to have for an anti-homosexual agenda is the Ten Commandments and the "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" law there.

The irony and catch 22 mentioned by Standing On One Foot is that Christians will not allow gay people to marry therefore they shall always be guilty of breaking that commandment and the reason they will not allow them this right as far as I can tell is leviticus 18:22 which they supposedly no longer have to follow.

I don`t get it either.

Another question I have: Why do you think that God would consider being gay/lesbian unnatual? Of course, I am not to question what God says, but I was just wondering if anyone had any inlightment to offer on this.

If God does consider it unnatural then he is grossly unaware of his own creation considering I know of no species that does not indulge in homosexual actions at some point.

 

[john313]

The Christians who say the law of Moses does not need to be followed are the followers of Paul the Liar. He said the law is nailed to the cross with Jesus. But of course Jesus said the Law shall not change until the heavens and earth pass away. Evidently the Pauline christians follow Paul instead of Jesus, whom they claim is God......I don't understand it.

In Nature, there is no biological niche for homosexuality. It runs counter to all principles of biology and physiology. Sex originally came into existence for the purpose of procreation, and the pleasurable component of sex exists merely to ensure that animals (humans included) have intercourse and procreate the species. Hence, sexual activity that exists outside the realm of procreation-that is, sex with animals, sex with prepubescent children, sex with inanimate objects, and sex with someone of one's own sex-are all unnatural. While two men may care for each other, it would be unnatural for either of them to feel a sexual attraction for the other: homosexuals claim that they feel an attraction to others of the same sex, but this does not change the fact that they are biologically not capable of having natural intercourse with that individual. In other words, for those who choose a homosexual lifestyle, the mind is always out of balance with the body. Intuitively speaking, homosexual intercourse is clearly forced. Unlike the vagina, the anus is not self-lubricating, so an artificial lubricant must be used. The vagina is self-cleansing, while the anus is a filthy wasteland of bacteria. The anus exists to excrete fecal matter from the body; it should be apparent to any reasonable thinker that the anus ought not be used as a receptacle for a penis. Furthermore, one could only wonder why the rate of sexually-transmitted diseases among those who engage in homosexual sex is many times greater than among those who engage in natural sex.

Put quite simply, sexual attraction to something or someone with which or with whom one cannot reproduce is not natural, balanced or healthy.

 

[Lintu]

I think that due to the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply," homosexual activity was looked down upon. If everyone on earth refused to have heterosexual relationships, humanity would die out. Prohibitions against homosexuality, I believe, are simply to encourage the spread of the religion that is stating the prohibitions. Religious traditions are self-perpetuating. I think that there is a very positive place in this world for people who cannot bear their own children (note: I do realize that homosexual couples can have biological children through surrogate mothers/sperm donors). For one, the earth is overpopulated; there is no dire need for a high birth rate. Second, although it is true that a homosexual person can produce a child, it seems that the demand for adopted children would be higher in homosexual relationships just out of pragmatism. What could be better than having even MORE loving couples around to adopt children who wouldn't otherwise have a family?

 

[Pah]

Put quite simply, sexual attraction to something or someone with which or with whom one cannot reproduce is not natural, balanced or healthy.

Perhaps you'd like to start a thread in the debate section. Your comments do not "fit" here. I'd gladly debate the issue if you did!

Bob

 

[Mr Spinkles]

*MOD POST*

Moving to debates...

 

[Christian_Vegan_Weirdo]

In Nature, there is no biological niche for homosexuality. It runs counter to all principles of biology and physiology. Sex originally came into existence for the purpose of procreation, and the pleasurable component of sex exists merely to ensure that animals (humans included) have intercourse and procreate the species. Hence, sexual activity that exists outside the realm of procreation-that is, sex with animals, sex with prepubescent children, sex with inanimate objects, and sex with someone of one's own sex-are all unnatural. While two men may care for each other, it would be unnatural for either of them to feel a sexual attraction for the other: homosexuals claim that they feel an attraction to others of the same sex, but this does not change the fact that they are biologically not capable of having natural intercourse with that individual. In other words, for those who choose a homosexual lifestyle, the mind is always out of balance with the body. Intuitively speaking, homosexual intercourse is clearly forced. Unlike the vagina, the anus is not self-lubricating, so an artificial lubricant must be used. The vagina is self-cleansing, while the anus is a filthy wasteland of bacteria. The anus exists to excrete fecal matter from the body; it should be apparent to any reasonable thinker that the anus ought not be used as a receptacle for a penis. Furthermore, one could only wonder why the rate of sexually-transmitted diseases among those who engage in homosexual sex is many times greater than among those who engage in natural sex.

First, I don't want you to think that I'm fighting what you're saying, I'm just trying to understand this, and I am a debater, which means that anything you say, I'm going to most likely find an orgument against it. So, with that in mind, I want to ask this:

You said that sex was for procreation, so can two married couples, who do not wish to have kids, have sex for whatever other purpose they have? Is this also a sin?

I have more questions... I'll be back!

Thanks everyone, your defently helping to clear this up!
Jennifer

 

[Christian_Vegan_Weirdo]

If God does consider it unnatural then he is grossly unaware of his own creation considering I know of no species that does not indulge in homosexual actions at some point.

Read the past post... up at the top, one of the first ones (I think it was infact he first one), and then go down to where it has the Bible verses and the first one under "Is homosexuality wrong?"

 

[Sunstone]

I don't get it. There are over 300 species of animals that scientists have identified as having homosexuality. That would strongly suggest that homosexuality is natural. The fact there are biblical passages which seem to contradict that homosexuality is natural, does not change the fact that over 300 species have been observed to have homosexual behavior.

So did God create nature or not? And if God created nature, why did he create over 300 species with homosexual behavior, but then turn around and condemn homosexuality in the bible?

 

[linwood]

Moving to debates...

Thank you Spinkles.

The Christians who say the law of Moses does not need to be followed are the followers of Paul the Liar. He said the law is nailed to the cross with Jesus. But of course Jesus said the Law shall not change until the heavens and earth pass away. Evidently the Pauline christians follow Paul instead of Jesus, whom they claim is God......I don't understand it.

As an infidel it is even more confusing for me.
I wish y`all would figure it out and let me know how it comes out.

Do you eat shellfish John?
Have you ever worn polyester? ( I agree this one may be a sin)
Have you ever stoned your son for disrespect?
Eveer cut your hair or trimmed your beard?

Do you advocate death for those who commit homosexual acts?

If you have ever done any of the first 4 you`re not following the laws of Moses.
If you do not advocate the last you do not follow the laws of Moses

In Nature, there is no biological niche for homosexuality. It runs counter to all principles of biology and physiology.

While this may be true (I say may be, not "IS") I can offer an insane amount of documented evidence to show it does indeed happen regularly and with great frequency in the natural world untouched by mans influence.

One of our closest biological cousins the Bonobo chimp has a bisexual percentage of 99% among females and close if not the same among males.

Homosexuality exists in nature, you cannot get around it.

Sex originally came into existence for the purpose of procreation, and the pleasurable component of sex exists merely to ensure that animals (humans included) have intercourse and procreate the species.

Yes and with absolutely no guidance or biological boundry that stipulates how this sexual urge is to be sated.
We, like animals have no pre-programmed biological mechanism that tells us who to copulate with.

All our urges do is create the desire to copulate.

Like all bioligical urges and or mutations, playing the percentages is relied upon.

Hence, sexual activity that exists outside the realm of procreation-that is, sex with animals, sex with prepubescent children, sex with inanimate objects, and sex with someone of one's own sex-are all unnatural.

Untrue, I`ve already stated why and provided evidence.

While two men may care for each other, it would be unnatural for either of them to feel a sexual attraction for the other:

Please inform the aforementioned Bonobos of this revelation.
Tell the rest of the animal kingdom too while you`re at it.

Intuitively speaking, homosexual intercourse is clearly forced.

Your intuition of this is based on..what exactly?

Unlike the vagina, the anus is not self-lubricating, so an artificial lubricant must be used.

You show your ignorance of homosexuality with the previous quote.
Homosexuality does not equate with anal sex.
In fact many homosexual men don`t practice it.

This also leaves lesbianism wide open for a free for all.

I`m sure you don`t mean to do that do you?

The vagina is self-cleansing, while the anus is a filthy wasteland of bacteria.

Perhaps you do.

Furthermore, one could only wonder why the rate of sexually-transmitted diseases among those who engage in homosexual sex is many times greater than among those who engage in natural sex.

Actually heterosexual women have the highest rate of STI contraction.
Not homosexuals.

Put quite simply, sexual attraction to something or someone with which or with whom one cannot reproduce is not natural, balanced or healthy.

My wife cannot bear children, my sexual relationship with her is unnatural and unhealthy according to your standards.

You`ll have to do better than that.

The final fact is that you nor anyone else has the right to tell me or anyone what to do with my body or who I can do it with.

You have no right to tell me who I can spend my life with and who I cannot.

You have no right to deny me the rights you take for granted because I do not use my body for the same purposes you do.

To cite a couple of quotes I recently stumbled across "

"[size=-1]The authority of any governing institution must stop at its citizen's skin"
[/size][size=-1]Gloria Steinem

or

"Keep your Jesus off my peepee"
Unknown
[/size]

 

[Fluffy]

In Nature, there is no biological niche for homosexuality.

What about as a control upon population levels?

Hence, sexual activity that exists outside the realm of procreation-that is, sex with animals, sex with prepubescent children, sex with inanimate objects, and sex with someone of one's own sex-are all unnatural.

Unnatural? Define what you mean as unnatural. There are plenty of unnatural things in life. For example eating food is primarily for sustenance. The pleasure we get from eating food is just a way of making us eat. This causes us to eat sweeter things, even if those things provide less energy for us or are bad for us. So this is "unnatural" as well. My question would be, so what?

The anus exists to excrete fecal matter from the body; it should be apparent to any reasonable thinker that the anus ought not be used as a receptacle for a penis.

Firstly anal sex is not something that exists soley for gay people, straight people do it as well. Secondly, there are other forms of sex, such as oral, which could be used by gay people. Thirdly, using a condom reduces the possibility of any harm caused by anal sex to the same level as that of using a condom in vaginal sex. In fact this is almost lessened further since many gay people using higher strength condoms (because the anus is tighter) which lowers the chance of the condom splitting.

You said that sex was for procreation, so can two married couples, who do not wish to have kids, have sex for whatever other purpose they have? Is this also a sin?

CVW, in his post, john has merely shown that homosexuality is "unnatural" and I am not yet clear what exactly he means by this. However, I doubt that you could jump from something being unnatural to something being a sin as you have done. See higher up in my post for other examples of unnatural behaviour by humans which isn't considered a sin.

 

[linwood]

Read the past post... up at the top, one of the first ones (I think it was infact he first one), and then go down to where it has the Bible verses and the first one under "Is homosexuality wrong?"

I read it vegan but it has no impact on my statement.

If God is against homosexuality then he messed up and gave almost every living animal a penchent for it.

Unless it is also one of his "tests" or he`s just funnin`with us.

 

[Pah]

[pah-I've cut the portions that had nothing to do with homosexuality]
What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

Rom. 1:24-27: "God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them . . . God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error."

1 Tim. 1:9-11: "Law is promulgated, not for a righteous man, but for persons lawless and unruly, ungodly and sinners, . . . fornicators, men who lie with males, . . . and whatever other thing is in opposition to the healthful teaching according to the glorious good news of the happy God." (Compare Leviticus 20:13.)

Ah, our dear Paul again! Although I recognize and respect asexuality in others, I do not respect it when it colors moral judgements. Paul is well known for speaking his mind and not the teachings of Christ.

Jude 7: "Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, after they . . . [had] gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before us as a warning example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire." (The name Sodom has become the basis for the word "sodomy," which usually designates a homosexual practice. Compare Genesis 19:4, 5, 24, 25.)

Please acquaint yourself with the true meaning of sodomy as reflected in it's use in law. It meant oral and anal sex and had no bearing in many, many states of which genders participated. Many state laws were struck down because there was unequal treatment of heterosexial sodomy and homosexual sodomy. It was further discredited in Lawerance v Texas for the remaining states which had homosexual laws on the books. The is no law of the land that prohibits sodomy. Any church law is moot for citizens and visters of the United States.

What is the attitude of true Christians toward those who have a history of homosexuality?

There is no living true Christian and the attitude of the only true Christian is one of love and acceptance. Your question is moot.

1 Cor. 6:9-11: "Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men . . . will inherit God's kingdom. And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean, but you have been sanctified, but you have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God." (Regardless of such a background, if persons now abandon their former unclean practices, apply God's righteous standards, and exercise faith in his provision for forgiveness of sins through Christ, they can enjoy a clean standing before God. After reforming, they may be welcomed in the Christian congregation.)

Not very Christ-like, I'm afraid - your opinion and Pauls too. It is only God that can forgive and not any damned church that arrogantly thinks it can abrogate God. You and you associated faithful risk your own souls for forgetting and not practicing the second greatest commandment and for thinking you have been raised up to know the mind of God.

True Christians know that even deeply rooted wrong desires, including those that may have a genetic basis or that involve physical causes or environmental factors, are not insurmountable for persons who truly want to please God. Some people are by nature highly emotional. Perhaps in the past they gave free rein to fits of anger; but knowledge of God's will, the desire to please him, and the help of his spirit enable them to develop self-control. A person may be an alcoholic, but, with proper motivation, he can refrain from drinking and thus avoid becoming a drunkard. Likewise, a person may feel strongly attracted to others of the same sex, but by heeding the counsel of God's Word he can remain clean from homosexual practices. (See Ephesians 4:17-24.) God does not allow us to go on thinking that wrong conduct really makes no difference; he kindly but firmly warns us of the consequences and provides abundant help for those who want to "strip off the old personality with its practices, and clothe [themselves] with the new personality."-Col. 3:9, 10.

There you go again with the sin of pride in thinking you are the true Christian when only Christ is the one to hold that title. I would say that your arrogance in this regard is deeply rooted You have no idea what God's will is for other people and you barely understand your place in God's scheme of things. True Christian, indeed.

The word you would so impinge on others is but your interpretation of God's word and only has truth in your mind by your own relevation. No Church, no dogma, no creed is in any way superior to personal revelation. And it is just that - personal.

Bob

 

[retrorich]

I really never use to care about gay and lesbian rights, my church told me that it was wrong to be gay or lesbian, and I simpally listend to them without question. Then I got into high school, and I made a friend. Within the first week or two of our friendship, she told me that she had lesbian parents. Since then, I have wondered why the PCA has been openly agianst Gay rights.

Why? What scripture in the Bible clearly states that gay or lesbian=bad?

Personally, I am "strate", but would like to know why the Pres. church is agianst gay rights.:help:

It is good that you have moved beyond the tired dogma of the churches and the ill-advised policies of our witless president. Keep thinking for yourself, even if you take some flak for doing so.

Frubals to you.