The bible and homosexuality: Round 3

It was addressed to JF, but I think it's a relevant question for everyone.

You said in Message 137:

quote:

---

I suppose all of this leads into the old argument of legislating morality, and I do not condone THAT, either.

---

But you also say...

quote:

---

I think that it is ludicrous for society to attempt to push them [homosexual men] into a relationship with a women. I don't want them to marry a man, however.

---

So why is this? If you don't condone legislating morality, how can you justify legislation banning gay marriage based on a religious viewpoint? It would be one thing if the government was trying to force all churches to conduct such marriages - but no one's asking for that. We're just asking that they be granted equality from the eyes of the state.

Before I launch my spiel, I noted in someone's last post that they said heterosexuals engage in anal sex as well. That may be true, but they aren't supposed to, and it doesn't make it any more right.Here's what I really want to say:Okay, fine everyone...maybe it cannot be proven SUFFICIENTLY (sub capitals for italics) the reasons why God and his church are against homosexuality, but one would expect the physical and mental repulsion, even from those at a very young age first introduced to the topic, would be hint enough. Recently I discovered a very interesting Christian website explaining what to do when facing a situation not covered by the Bible. And the answer was, to put it in cliche: Follow your heart.The author described the conscience (and gave more Bible verses than I thought there were in that book concerning the conscience) as being the moral 'compass' with which to lead you in the correct decision.Granted, and I know you'll bring this up, there are homosexuals who feel it is right for them to be that way...So you all oposing my views may be right as well...but I may be right also...it just depends on your opinion and what you choose to beleive. But in the end, only one of us is going to be right. If it's you, no harm done. If it's me...

If your problem is with anal sex, are homosexuals who don't practice anal sex just fine? What about lesbians (who are not even mentioned in the bible)?

quote:

---

Okay, fine everyone...maybe it cannot be proven SUFFICIENTLY (sub capitals for italics) the reasons why God and his church are against homosexuality, but one would expect the physical and mental repulsion, even from those at a very young age first introduced to the topic, would be hint enough.

---

Nonsense. Do you find racism repugnant? Most people claim to, and yet our society has been brutally racist and THOSE people did not find it repugnant at all, but rational and moral.Most very small children react negatively even to hetero sex; but then, given we spend a lot of time enforcing cleanliness, and the inherent foulness of other peoples bodily fluids, its not necessarily that surprising. (as a child I found it quite odd that adults wouldn't share a spoon but would happily try to suck each others tongues out)The point being: an alleged "natural" reaction by children almost certainly is not. It is extremely difficult to isolate social influences even on children who cannot yet talk. We simply do not know if this is a childs "authentic" reaction or if the child is producing the output they have been trained to produce.

I know this is ancient, but...

quote:

---

If they give homosexuals the right to marry that effects everyone. People that believe it to be wrong won't get a choice anymore. They will HAVE to live with it no matter what. So you say it's okay as long as the gays get treated fairly even though others are being treated unfairly in there view of things. When it is all said and done someone is going to be treated unfairly in there view. If the marriages are legalized throughout then they will have to change the textbooks to show the new families even though they make up 2-4% of the population. Talk about MINORITY RULE. If they took a vote of the entire country I bet over 75 percent of the country would be against it. This is forcing views onto people. At least the "christians" ask you to consider what they have said, not YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE THIS. Some may do that, but not many.

---

This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-10-2004 09:47 AM

Coincidently, one of my English professors said the same thing a while back when we were discussing the issue of gay marriage. He also said that it's not marriage that Christian fundamentalists have been known to go after. They pretty much said the same thing when some people wanted to end slavery, that the majority didn't think blacks were really human beings and that giving them rights would force the minority view onto the majority.

Does not this verse mention lesbianism? To be fair, however, allow me to quote a comment by another friend of mine:This message has been edited by Phatboy, 11-10-2004 01:59 PM

I was the one who made that comment.Does it state in the Bible that anal sex, (or any specific sex act for that matter), is wrong?You mentioned earlier "immoral sex acts". Could you list which sex acts are "moral", and why?

Why am I reminded of when the catholic church published these books telling people of moral and immoral sex positions? These were written by people that were supposed to not know anything about sex.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

Not to mention that you before you can married you need to seek marriage counseling from someone who has taken a vow of celibacy.(By the way, I'm not trying to derail your topic. So many out there are convinced that specific sex acts are immoral I was wondering if there was any possible Biblical basis...)

Phatboy writes:

quote:

---

Am I that unloveable or unloving? What did I do?

---

You said this:

quote:

---

All that I maintain is that if a person loves God first, allowing His Spirit to fill them, they will be less concerned with their "right" to have sex with another.

---

In other words, you can "be" gay, you just can't actually be gay. You can have all the feelings you want and that isn't wrong, but if you try to do anything that actually expresses your sexuality and makes you feel connected to another human being emotionally and spiritually through a physical act, then you're just asking for too much.

quote:

---

I am not attacking homosexuality

---

Yes, you are. You are saying straight people get to ritualize and consecrate their relationships but gay people need to get over that silly notion of bonding with another person.

quote:

---

I just do not see the need to marry as being of high priority.

---

Prove it. Tell us how you've written to your church about how marriage is a horrible thing and should be abolished.Double standard, Phatboy. If straight people get to do it and it is important for them and should be celebrated and consecrated, then it necessarily goes the same for gay people or you've got a double standard.

quote:

---

Love God and desire holiness and love from His Spirit, and nobody will attack your orientations....but if you trumpet about with the "right" to marry, you will be scrutinized.

---

Why do you hate gay people so? You don't do this to straight people.

quote:

---

Why are you putting me on the hate list.

---

Because you hate.People who didn't hate wouldn't treat gay people differently and you do.Prove me wrong. Tell me about this "scrutinization" of straight people you are inflicting upon gays.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

PecosGeorge writes:

quote:

---

Don't bother to tell me about couples who cannot have children because of circumstances such as illness, etal. It has nothing to do with what sex was 'invented' to do.

---

I hope, then, that you are mute.You see, your vocal chords were "invented" to keep objects out of your lungs. Your ability to cough is because you can close off your vocal chords, build up pressure, and then expel the air violently. They were not "invented" to allow you to speak.If you truly believe that we should only use things for what they were "invented" for, then you would take a vow of silence right here and now and not engage in that evil abomination of speech.And you'd never use your penis for sex, either, because it's primary purpose is as the exit from the bladder during urination.And I seriously hope you never suffer extreme nausea, because they'll deliver the compazine to keep the dry heaves at bay rectally...which is an exit, not an entry, right?How strange it is that you seem to have no problem with a bodily organ serving double-duty except when it comes to things that trigger your squick factor.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Phatboy responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Are you saying that church leaders do not love god with all of their heart, soul, mind, and strength?

---

​

Yes. My assertion and accusation, based upon limited personal observation, suggests that many of the "enlightened" church leaders present a social relevant message rather than a historic "yahweh or the highway" one.

---

You misunderstand. I'm not talking about some generic "church leader." I'm talking about Bishop Robinson, personally. Are you seriously claiming that he, specifically, who has given his life to the church, and his husband do not love god with all of their heart, soul, mind, and strength?You seem to have set up an unwinnable situation. You claim that there are no gay couples who love god with all of their heart, soul, mind, and strength and then when you are shown a couple who fits your criteria to a T, you claim that they don't really do so with no other justification than your original assertion that gay people can't love god.Simple question: Does Bishop Robinson love god with all of his heart, soul, mind, and strength?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Perhaps, it's a matter of interpretation.