Dilemma of Being Homosexual

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jade84116

Here are some ways of looking at ****sexuality that you may not have considered before.

---

I appreciate your entry into the conversation.

Quote:

---

First, if it's wrong for a man to sneer at a ****sexual they don't like, then, it's wrong for a woman to sneer at a man she doesn't like.

---

I'm confused about what you're saying. What cons***utes this "sneer", and what is the sneer in response to? What do you mean by "wrong" - do you mean "is immoral", "should be frowned upon by society", or "should be illegal"? (Or something else altogether. Sorry, I just don't understand what you said.)

Quote:

---

Second, ****sexuality cannot be a civil right, because black isn't a choice whereas sexual preference is a choice.

---

All evidence points to sexual preference and gender iden***y being some combination of genetic predisposition and 'choice' - cultural, societal, environmental &c. factors.

There are factors that are civil rights that are:

• purely innate - like race, ethnicity, gender, or inborn physical handicap;
• purely environmental - like physical handicap due to loss of function (whether accidental or inflicted);
• purely 'choice' - like religious and political expression;
• or some amorphous combination of them all - like sexual preference or dexterity (right- vs. left-handedness).

Clearly, 'choice' is not the rubric which determines whether something is a civil right.

Quote:

---

Third, ****sexuality cannot be a human right, because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights p***ed in 1948 never refers to it directly.

---

Ooh, I like the UDHR. Thanks for bringing it up. I must say, though, that I find it odd that you seem to regard the UDHR as proving a point against equality for gay and lesbian people - considering that almost every Article begins with "Everyone..." "Everyone..." "No one..."

Anyway, I just re-read the Declaration, and I think these points are particularly pertinent. All emphasis mine.

Article 1: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

Article 7: "All are equal before the law and are en***led without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are en***led to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."

Article 12: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation."

Article 19: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference..."

Article 29: "(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."

Article 29 strikes me as particularly relevant in re same-sex sexual expression. In order to prove that gay and lesbian people are not deserving of equal protection and rights under the law, a government would have to compellingly prove that such actions interfere with the rights of others. In other words, if there is no harm in an action, it is protected, regardless of whether it is a majority.

Quote:

---

Fourth, if ****sexuality that stands at roughly 3% today were to increase to 25%, then, that would mean that 22% of humanity isn't reproducing every subsequent generation until humanity no longer exists this side of the millennium that is.

---

This is an odd argument. Why would you think that the proportion of gay people would increase over time?

Quote:

---

Just my thoughts on the issue.:)

---

Thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate having another conversation partner :)

Shalom,
asdf

Notice Jade how Asdf's comments have no scriptural allusion? The only thing that might make you think he is a professing Christian is his signature from Simone Weil. I call this a front or a mask. How does a Christian reject scripture and the orthodoxy that it has maintained throughout history for some postmodern dribble?

Come, all you who are thirsty,
come to the waters;
and you who have no money,
come, buy and eat!
Come, buy wine and milk
without money and without cost. Why spend money on what is not bread,
and your labor on what does not satisfy?
Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good,
and your soul will delight in the richest of fare.
Give ear and come to me;
hear me, that your soul may live.
-Isaiah 55

6Seek the LORD while he may be found, call him while he is near.
7 Let the scoundrel forsake his way, and the wicked man his thoughts; Let him turn to the LORD for mercy; to our God, who is generous in forgiving. --Isaiah 55

A cheap gospel tells people they don't have to give up their sinfulness of ****sexual acts. It is not God's plan that people should conduct in such behavior, it is clearly a sin of the flesh. Paul even addresses lust by saying the following:

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with p***ion. 1 Cor. 7.8-9.

Marriage in the bible is only given to a man and a wife and not with the same sex. Asdf, your gospel is a postmodern idealogy that has no scriptural support. You quote p***ages of comfort to those who remain in their sinfulness and are not willing to repent. This is a false sense of hope, it is a false gospel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

6Seek the LORD while he may be found, call him while he is near.
7 Let the scoundrel forsake his way, and the wicked man his thoughts; Let him turn to the LORD for mercy; to our God, who is generous in forgiving. --Isaiah 55

---

Possessing a ****sexual-orientation is not a sin (not anymore than possessing a heterosexual-orientation). People do not 'choose' to be ****sexual.

Quote:

---

A cheap gospel tells people they don't have to give up their sinfulness of ****sexual acts.

---

Then it must really be cheap for scores of heterosexuals.

Quote:

---

It is not God's plan that people should conduct in such behavior, it is clearly a sin of the flesh. Paul even addresses lust by saying the following:

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with p***ion. 1 Cor. 7.8-9.

---

Even so, it isn't your place to enforce the morality you speak of, only to adhere to that which you believe is true. Many have their struggles before God to endure, even many who are heterosexual.

Quote:

---

Marriage in the bible is only given to a man and a wife and not with the same sex.

---

Even so, there must be something for those who are ****sexual, that you cannot yourself address (even suing the Bible); let God handle it.

Quote:

---

Asdf, your gospel is a postmodern idealogy that has no scriptural support.

---

That is what you believe, but from what I've read is not necessarily true.

Quote:

---

You quote p***ages of comfort to those who remain in their sinfulness and are not willing to repent. This is a false sense of hope, it is a false gospel.

---

And from what I've seen, some have interpreted Scripture so narrowly and selectively, that they're IN while believing those they determine are OUT. I think God has a lot more hopeful things to say, than most anti-****sexual Christians tend to.

Threads as old as this one tend to change directions drastically enough to make the OP obsolete. Still I like to address the OP to refresh the original intent.

****sexuality clinically is an abomination to the intended function of human sexuality. The mistake Christians make is that it is not the ONLY abomination to the intended function of human sexuality.

The manufacturer's manual (the Bible) has a lot to say on the subject, and most believers would not be too thrilled to learn that they are daily committing some form of abomination to God's intended use of their sexuality.

I preached it six ways from Sunday only to find believers less and less willing to listen or be around me... for telling them the truth. At times I began to doubt myself and figured there was the ideal "thou shalt" or "thou shalt not" and then there was the practical "let's be reasonable" here in the {{real}} world...

This led me to an interesting discovery in the Bible... the concessions God makes.

Before you bristle at the thought and bring up the "God does not change" verse... consider this may not apply to all things... for example... the monarchy in Israel (1 Samuel 8). And later the building of the Temple (2 Samuel 7:12-13 contrast with Zechariah 6:12-13, Matthew 16:18, 1 Peter 2:3-10, 1 Corinthians 3:16-17).

God did not intend there to be a monarchy in Israel. Or at least not until his prepared king from the line of Judah was ready. God told Moses to build the tent and gave specific designs (Hebrews 8:5). Solomon and David not... God conceded to deal with Israel according to these situations, but not without great cost and set backs.

The temple God wanted built is of the living members of the Body of Christ. So the builder would be the Messiah and 2 Samuel 7:12-13 was a messianic prophecy. Solomon's temple, Zerubbabel's Temple, and Herods Temple had only brief periods of righteousness. Defilement, destruction, desolation are the ways of the temples. Solomon broke numerous Levitical sacrificial laws in the dedication of the thing and some say in the use of conscripted foreigners to build it. It was the millstone for Judaism thrown into the deepest sea...

So what about ****sexuality?

What about adultery? Divorce? Lust? Pandering to lust?

Romans 1:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,



The truth we ought to be spreading gets suppressed by the unrighteousness of our thoughts and deeds.



Romans 1:

19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.


How much more does this verse apply to we who have the truth in God's word and in our faith and in our being indwelled by the Spirit of God himself...


We have to suppress him... to go a head and do what we know we ought not or to not do what we know we ought to... and he prompts us beyond that in our consciences... and we push it down and sin... and grieve the very person in the Godhead who loved us enough to indwell us as the deposit for eternal life to come.



Romans 1 is speaking about general humanity...


21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading p***ions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.


****sexuality is not the only thing on the list above. Yet all the others have sympathizers and empathizers in the Church...



My use of the word "normal" refers to the original intent of God the Creator and not the percentage of the "norms" of today.



****sexuality is not normal. Adultery is not normal. Lusting after other women or other men or preparing one's appearance or exposing one's self to gain the lust of others is not normal. These are sadly common, but they are not normal.


Whenever someone tells me their ****sexuality is natural (that they were born with it) I remind them that we were natural born without potty training. And that whatever our natural tendencies are that are in opposition to the normal intent of the Creator must be disciplined (potty training, learning manners, learning respect for the opposite sex and one's self) etc.



Judgment must BEGIN with the house of faith. Meaning we must get our own act together first before we go out to judge others with right judgments. Otherwise we end up with today's circumstances.



Missler pointed out on a recent video taping that God's judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah was not for the ****sexuality itself but for the social / official condoning of ****sexuality. Like America has been doing progressively for the last 20 - 30 years now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnd

****sexuality clinically is an abomination

---

Stop right there. This is utter nonsense. ****sexuality may be religiously an abomination, but clinical? Clinical research has no category of "abomination".

Quote:

---

The manufacturer's manual (the Bible) has a lot to say on the subject, and most believers would not be too thrilled to learn that they are daily committing some form of abomination to God's intended use of their sexuality.

---

They might be surprised that they are daily eating "some form of abomination to God's intended use" of food, or wearing "some form of abomination to God's intended use" of fabric, too.

Quote:

---

(...) all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, (...)

****sexuality is not the only thing on the list above. Yet all the others have sympathizers and empathizers in the Church...

---

I do appreciate the opening up of the conversation from the myopic focus on ****sexuality. But I have to believe that if God's commands mean anything, they exist for the sake of human betterment and shalom—wholeness.

The same-sex sex acts described in Romans, as with the other social evils in Paul's list, were not characterized by shalom. But I have no reason to believe that the acts condemned had any bearing on a committed, mutual, monogamous, lifelong, covenantal same-sex intimate relationship.

Quote:

---

Whenever someone tells me their ****sexuality is natural (that they were born with it) I remind them that we were natural born without potty training. And that whatever our natural tendencies are that are in opposition to the normal intent of the Creator must be disciplined (potty training, learning manners, learning respect for the opposite sex and one's self) etc.

---

I don't think, and every mainstream scientific organization would also denounce, that attempting to "train" gay people out of ****sexuality is a good or healthy idea.

Society used to try to "train" left-handed people out of their "sinister" nature, to similar effect.

Quote:

---

Missler pointed out on a recent video taping that God's judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah was not for the ****sexuality itself but for the social / official condoning of ****sexuality.

---

That's interesting, but of course has no support from a biblical point of view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asdf

I do appreciate the opening up of the conversation from the myopic focus on ****sexuality. But I have to believe that if God's commands mean anything, they exist for the sake of human betterment and shalom—wholeness.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

The same-sex sex acts described in Romans, as with the other social evils in Paul's list, were not characterized by shalom. But I have no reason to believe that the acts condemned had any bearing on a committed, mutual, monogamous, lifelong, covenantal same-sex intimate relationship.

---

Same sex relationships are distructive in nature. Statistics show that ****sexuals are far likely to be less monogamous (by a very statistically significant amount), are more likely to cause physical damage because the body is not made for the type of sexual behavior seen in ****sexual relationships, and more likely to cause physical diseases such as hepa***is. This is just a beginning list of the problems found by ****sexual behavior.

Quote:

---

I don't think, and every mainstream scientific organization would also denounce, that attempting to "train" gay people out of ****sexuality is a good or healthy idea.

---

Only because the gay movement has a very strong lobbying network that attacks anyone who attempts to denounce ****sexual behavior or help those who desire to not engage in ****sexual behavior. Scientific organizations tend to follow the money, unfortunately.

Quote:

---

Society used to try to "train" left-handed people out of their "sinister" nature, to similar effect.

---

But society does train people away from being alcholics and other destructive behaviors in which they are genetically prone. As I said before, disease alone (not including AIDS) would show that ****sexuality is destructive in nature.

Quote:

---

That's interesting, but of course has no support from a biblical point of view.

---

The Bible supports marriage between a man and a woman. There is a reason for the term "sodomy" which is directly related to Sodom and Gomorrah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Agreed.

---

Howdy, BigJulie. Thanks for stopping by to chat. :)

Quote:

---

Same sex relationships are distructive in nature. Statistics show that ****sexuals are far likely to be less monogamous (by a very statistically significant amount),

---

In my opinion, you may be confusing cause and effect. That is to say, I wonder whether systemic and long-lasting traditional social prejudices can lead to the ghettoization of gay people. What is more likely to encourage monogamy—cultural stigmatization leading to a repressed underground subculture, or embracing people and welcoming them into societal norms that encourage long-lasting relationships (i.e., marriage)?

Also, these statistics you mention are for male ****sexuals. Lesbians are a different picture. More on that in a bit.

Quote:

---

are more likely to cause physical damage because the body is not made for the type of sexual behavior seen in ****sexual relationships, and more likely to cause physical diseases such as hepa***is. This is just a beginning list of the problems found by ****sexual behavior.

---

Again, you're referring to gay men and not lesbians. Also: some gay men do not have **** sex. Many straight couples do. It is not a "****sexual" behavior any more than it is a heterosexual behavior.

Quote:

---

Only because the gay movement has a very strong lobbying network that attacks anyone who attempts to denounce ****sexual behavior or help those who desire to not engage in ****sexual behavior. Scientific organizations tend to follow the money, unfortunately.

---

Professional scientific organizations follow the evidence—fortunately.

Quote:

---

But society does train people away from being alcholics and other destructive behaviors in which they are genetically prone.

---

There is no evidence that ****sexuality is destructive, nor that it is possible to "train people away" from their attractional orientation.

Quote:

---

As I said before, disease alone (not including AIDS) would show that ****sexuality is destructive in nature.

---

If that were true, it would show that lesbians are the least destructive of all!

But no, we don't correlate prevalence of disease in a community with morality or "destructiveness". Or do you think that a higher prevalence of AIDS among black Americans than white Americans indicates that being black is immoral?

Quote:

---

The Bible supports marriage between a man and a woman.

---

Sometimes.

It also supports marriage between a man and a child.
Marriage between a man and a woman...and her servants.
Marriage between a man and a woman...and several other women.
Marriage between a man and his rape victim.
Marriage between a man and the "spoils of war".

Quote:

---

There is a reason for the term "sodomy" which is directly related to Sodom and Gomorrah.

---

Sort of. "Sodomy" initially referred to all non-procreative sex, whether hetero- or ****sexual (including masturbation, coitus interruptus, oral sex, and more). It's really been only in the past 50 or so years that "sodomy" has narrowed in focus to refer to ****sexuals only.

Read all about it: We're all Sodomists now.)

[QUOTE=asdf;82230]Howdy, BigJulie. Thanks for stopping by to chat. :)

Quote:

---

In my opinion, you may be confusing cause and effect. That is to say, I wonder whether systemic and long-lasting traditional social prejudices can lead to the ghettoization of gay people. What is more likely to encourage monogamy—cultural stigmatization leading to a repressed underground subculture, or embracing people and welcoming them into societal norms that encourage long-lasting relationships (i.e., marriage)?

---

Data from countries that have long accepted ****sexual marriages have shown that the lack of monogamy in ****sexual relationships is not due to social stigma--rather the lifestyle of ****sexuality includes a more open sexual experience. Hence, the bath houses are not a result of social stigma, but a lifestyle choice.

Quote:

---

Also, these statistics you mention are for male ****sexuals. Lesbians are a different picture. More on that in a bit.

---

Yes, they are different, but there are problems with both gay and lesbian relationships.

Quote:

---

Again, you're referring to gay men and not lesbians. Also: some gay men do not have **** sex. Many straight couples do. It is not a "****sexual" behavior any more than it is a heterosexual behavior.

---

It is far more common among gay men. Oral sex can also lead to many STD's. The fact of the matter is that oral or **** sex can also lead to STD's and gay relations are not as monogamous and tend to practice these types of sex. Clearly, there is going to be some cross-over, but to use the small percentage of straight couples who practice what ****sexuals practice on large scale is not a fair comparison to the damage that is done via the ****sexual lifestyle.

Quote:

---

Professional scientific organizations follow the evidence—fortunately.

---

They follow the money--garbage in, garbage out. A study is only as good as its methods. Look at the methods of supporting studies and you will find subjective methods are being used.

Quote:

---

There is no evidence that ****sexuality is destructive, nor that it is possible to "train people away" from their attractional orientation.

---

And once an alcoholic always and alcoholic, but we can train someone away from a destructive behavior. This is cleary seen.

Quote:

---

If that were true, it would show that lesbians are the least destructive of all!

---

If disease were the only problem, I would agree.

Quote:

---

But no, we don't correlate prevalence of disease in a community with morality or "destructiveness". Or do you think that a higher prevalence of AIDS among black Americans than white Americans indicates that being black is immoral?

---

Well, lets see. I don't think to be black is immoral. What we can see from evidence is that there is a higher rate of unwed pregnancies among blacks as well as a higher rate of AID (according to you.) What I would say is that there is some factor which is influencing the black communities to get these higher rates. Education and help may decrease these problems as blacks are intelligent, capable people and so obviously something is not working in our society for them.

Quote:

---

Sometimes.

It also supports marriage between a man and a child.
Marriage between a man and a woman...and her servants.
Marriage between a man and a woman...and several other women.
Marriage between a man and his rape victim.
Marriage between a man and the "spoils of war".

---

I don't know who the child/marriage is, you can tell me. But, with all of the others--isn't it amazing that God would support so many types of marriages, but not ****sexual. Makes you think.

Quote:

---

Sort of. "Sodomy" initially referred to all non-procreative sex, whether hetero- or ****sexual (including masturbation, coitus interruptus, oral sex, and more). It's really been only in the past 50 or so years that "sodomy" has narrowed in focus to refer to ****sexuals only.

---

Yes, so according to at least your understanding...according to the Bible, all of these types of sex are wrong INCLUDING ****sexuality.

Quote:

---

Read all about it: We're all Sodomists now.)

---

I would hve to see the methods section on this one as well. It may be someone just making excuses for themselves by finding every bodies opinion and making it the "definition" of sodomy.

I just looked up "sodomy" in the 1828 Webster's dictionary. Definition "SOD'OMY, n. A crime against nature." Under this definition, anything that is un-natural is a sodomy. Clearly, ****sexuality would fit this definition. So, the question isn't whether ****sexuality is wrong, it is whether all these other things are right according to the Bible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Data from countries that have long accepted ****sexual marriages have shown that the lack of monogamy in ****sexual relationships is not due to social stigma--rather the lifestyle of ****sexuality includes a more open sexual experience. Hence, the bath houses are not a result of social stigma, but a lifestyle choice.

---

I'd like to see the data you're referring to.

Quote:

---

Yes, they are different, but there are problems with both gay and lesbian relationships.

---

From a religious perspective, perhaps. From a scientific and/or social perspective, no. (Or at least, none that do not also apply to heterosexual relationships.)

Quote:

---

It is far more common among gay men. Oral sex can also lead to many STD's. The fact of the matter is that oral or **** sex can also lead to STD's and gay relations are not as monogamous and tend to practice these types of sex. Clearly, there is going to be some cross-over, but to use the small percentage of straight couples who practice what ****sexuals practice on large scale is not a fair comparison to the damage that is done via the ****sexual lifestyle.

---

There is no "****sexual lifestyle" any more than there is a heterosexual lifestyle. And if you're including oral sex as disease-ridden immoral behavior, you're fighting a losing battle, even among the religiously conservative.

Quote:

---

They follow the money--garbage in, garbage out. A study is only as good as its methods. Look at the methods of supporting studies and you will find subjective methods are being used.

---

If you have some information to support this, or links to better, more accurate scientific research, I'm all ears.

Quote:

---

And once an alcoholic always and alcoholic, but we can train someone away from a destructive behavior. This is cleary seen.

---

Sure. And I'd love to see gay people fully embraced and accepted by the church, then guided into healthy expressions of their sexuality within committed, monogamous, lifelong relationships.

Quote:

---

If disease were the only problem, I would agree.

---

So far you've got "disease" (tenuously supported) and moral disapproval. What else do you have?

Quote:

---

Well, lets see. I don't think to be black is immoral. What we can see from evidence is that there is a higher rate of unwed pregnancies among blacks as well as a higher rate of AID (according to you.) What I would say is that there is some factor which is influencing the black communities to get these higher rates. Education and help may decrease these problems as blacks are intelligent, capable people and so obviously something is not working in our society for them.

---

Exactly. I'd say the same thing for gay and lesbian people, to the extent that there is a problem of prevalent disease and unhealthy expressions of sexuality among them.

Quote:

---

I don't know who the child/marriage is, you can tell me.

---

Is there any Biblical guidance on the minimum age for marriage? Child marriage (particularly w/r/t girls) was prevalent throughout the Ancient Near East, and most scholars agree that this was true of ancient Israel as well.

Quote:

---

But, with all of the others--isn't it amazing that God would support so many types of marriages, but not ****sexual. Makes you think.

---

Yes—it makes me think that they were a product of their time. And just as we in modern Western society have evolved beyond viewing this treatment of women as acceptable, I believe it is time to open our eyes to the reality and the normalcy of same-sex couples.

Quote:

---

Yes, so according to at least your understanding...according to the Bible, all of these types of sex are wrong INCLUDING ****sexuality.

---

Okay. You're welcome to believe that. You're welcome to practice that, to teach it to your children, to shout it from the rooftop, preach it at your church, etc.

I would disagree with you, as would many Christians. I've read the Bible, and haven't seen a word about masturbation or oral sex or heterosexual **** sex. Coitus interruptus was condemned in a narrative context in one particular instance that I'm aware of, in which the man was neglecting his duties to provide an heir for his late brother's wife. (As far as I'm aware, that's the only condemnation of any sort of contraceptive.) Same-sex sex was condemned, but in my opinion it too should be viewed contextually with the practices of the Ancient Near East—same-sex sex was characterized by pederasty, temple pros***ution, rape, displays of dominance... (For the record, I reject all that, in both gay and straight expressions.)

Quote:

---

I would hve to see the methods section on this one as well. It may be someone just making excuses for themselves by finding every bodies opinion and making it the "definition" of sodomy.

---

It's a pretty well-researched article, and makes extensive reference to the book on which it's based.

Quote:

---

I just looked up "sodomy" in the 1828 Webster's dictionary. Definition "SOD'OMY, n. A crime against nature." Under this definition, anything that is un-natural is a sodomy. Clearly, ****sexuality would fit this definition. So, the question isn't whether ****sexuality is wrong, it is whether all these other things are right according to the Bible.

---

So your research corroborated what I told you.

Feel free to make your Biblical argument against oral sex, non-procreative sex, contraception, heterosexual **** sex, coitus interruptus, masturbation, and any other deviation from vanilla missionary-position procreative heterosexual sex you'd like to include as "a crime against nature".

I find this all pretty bizarre, to be honest. These things occur in nature, therefore they are by definition "natural".

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asdf

I'd like to see the data you're referring to.

---

The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 ****sexuals. Of those involved in a "current relationship," only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years. While this "snapshot in time" is not an absolute predictor of the length of ****sexual relationships, it does indicate that few ****sexual relationships achieve the longevity common in marriages.

In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."

· A study of ****sexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.

· In his study of male ****sexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few ****sexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."

· In Male and Female ****sexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male ****sexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.

A nationally representative survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in the Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows.

· A 1997 national survey appearing in The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States found that 75 percent of husbands and 85 percent of wives never had sexual relations outside of marriage.

· A telephone survey conducted for Parade magazine of 1,049 adults selected to represent the demographic characteristics of the United States found that 81 percent of married men and 85 percent of married women reported that they had never violated their marriage vows.

· The Dutch study of partnered ****sexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.

· Bell and Weinberg, in their cl***ic study of male and female ****sexuality, found that 43 percent of white male ****sexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.

· In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older ****sexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of ****sexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.

· A survey conducted by the ****sexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asdf

I would disagree with you, as would many Christians. I've read the Bible, and haven't seen a word about masturbation or oral sex or heterosexual **** sex. Coitus interruptus was condemned in a narrative context in one particular instance that I'm aware of, in which the man was neglecting his duties to provide an heir for his late brother's wife. (As far as I'm aware, that's the only condemnation of any sort of contraceptive.) Same-sex sex was condemned, but in my opinion it too should be viewed contextually with the practices of the Ancient Near East—same-sex sex was characterized by pederasty, temple pros***ution, rape, displays of dominance... (For the record, I reject all that, in both gay and straight expressions.)

---

I am glad you understand that same-sex relations are condemned within the Bible. Any, but's makes the first part of your statement irrelevant.

Nature (God) predicts that it takes a man and a woman to have a child. Marriage to me isn't some type of convenience for men and women to "love" each other, but for the protection of children which may and usually does come from such a union. It makes sense to me that God would protect that child as he says "suffer the children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Children should not be deprived of what God provided when they were born--a mother and a father. Men and women are not the same. If they were, there would be no reason for a man or women to be ****sexual. As they can see a difference when choosing a partner, I am justified to seeing a difference as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I am glad you understand that same-sex relations are condemned within the Bible. Any, but's makes the first part of your statement irrelevant.

Nature (God) predicts that it takes a man and a woman to have a child. Marriage to me isn't some type of convenience for men and women to "love" each other, but for the protection of children which may and usually does come from such a union. It makes sense to me that God would protect that child as he says "suffer the children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Children should not be deprived of what God provided when they were born--a mother and a father. Men and women are not the same. If they were, there would be no reason for a man or women to be ****sexual. As they can see a difference when choosing a partner, I am justified to seeing a difference as well.

---

The Holy Bible also says that polygamy is wrong. God designed marriage between ONE man and ONE woman. He never changed it. Because God does not change, neither do His doctrines.

Sorry for the delay in response, BigJulie.

As for the data you cited, in the future I'd appreciate it if you could cite your source. In poking around online, I found that it's often copy+pasted into arguments, and promulgated by groups like FRC and Exodus.

I'm not impressed.

For one, these studies have been criticized because of their lack of a representative sample. Recruiting people from gay bars or readers of a quasi-pornographic magazine is not likely to bring about the kind of diversity that would be representative of gay people as a whole.

Second, it quite simply does not square with the gay and lesbian people I know. Of the gay people who are my friends, almost all of them are in long-term committed relationships. I know of one guy out of the tens of gay people I know who has been rather promiscuous in the past.

Third—and this goes back to our discussion of disease rates across racial demographics—we simply don't discriminate against people even if they were demographically inclined to be promiscuous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I am glad you understand that same-sex relations are condemned within the Bible. Any, but's makes the first part of your statement irrelevant.

---

Not really. It just puts a caveat on it. Just like:

– I understand that slavery is accepted within the Bible. But I think that's wrong, as do most Christians today.
– I understand that lending money at interest is condemned in the Bible. But most Christians don't regard that as binding today.

Quote:

---

Nature (God) predicts that it takes a man and a woman to have a child. Marriage to me isn't some type of convenience for men and women to "love" each other, but for the protection of children which may and usually does come from such a union. It makes sense to me that God would protect that child as he says "suffer the children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Children should not be deprived of what God provided when they were born--a mother and a father. Men and women are not the same. If they were, there would be no reason for a man or women to be ****sexual. As they can see a difference when choosing a partner, I am justified to seeing a difference as well.

---

There's no reason to believe that children need to be "protected" from having gay parents. You're projecting a very narrow religious view on society at large.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ErikErik

The Holy Bible also says that polygamy is wrong.

---

Not really. The most you can say is that polygamy is prohibited in Church elders.

Quote:

---

God designed marriage between ONE man and ONE woman. He never changed it. Because God does not change, neither do His doctrines.

---

So it didn't change, from an acceptance of:

Marriage between a man and a child.
Marriage between a man and a woman...and her servants.
Marriage between a man and a woman...and several other women.
Marriage between a man and his rape victim.
Marriage between a man and the "spoils of war".
Marriage as a political contract.
etc.?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asdf

Not really. The most you can say is that polygamy is prohibited in Church elders.



So it didn't change, from an acceptance of:

Marriage between a man and a child.
Marriage between a man and a woman...and her servants.
Marriage between a man and a woman...and several other women.
Marriage between a man and his rape victim.
Marriage between a man and the "spoils of war".
Marriage as a political contract.
etc.?

---

If you would look at the Lord's laws in the Torah, and the system in which God preferred, it was based on Judges and not on a monarchy. It was due to the stubbornness of the people of Isreal that God permitted them to choose a king and they elected Saul because of his stature and image. At that moment, marriage as a political contract was something outside Mosaic law. Marriages between a man and the "spoils of war" were not allowed. In most cases, God told the nation of Isreal to completely decimate their enemies. In terms of a marriage between a man and a rape victim, this is seen within one of the daughters of Jacob. In which case, due to the violation and conviction of the abuser, his whole family was circumcised and while in pain of recovery they were killed by Jacob's sons. The fact that the family was willing to make res***ution and to even take on the faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob through circumcision demonstrates a genuineness to make things as right as possible. In the case of Abraham, it was due to Sarah's unbelief as well as Abraham faultering and so sinned by sleeping with Sarah's servant and which concieved Ishmael, this action from his decendants has been a problem to this day between Ishmael's decendants being the Arabs. Even the Koran has changed this story with Abraham offering up Ishmael instead of Jacob. As far as a marriage between a man and a child, I don't understand your reference. I don't understand it because in some cultures in the past allowed marriage around the biological coming of age. Females that menstrate are biologically capable to become pregnant, and so by nature's testimony many cultures allowed this. It might be that mortality rates where high, threats from outside dangers were more eminent, even when the recorded longevity of some lived to be near their 110s. Having a larger tribe was therefore promoted as a means of survival of the community.

So there a few questions that must be asked....
1) Does our modern age with its standards of propriety make you prejudice to the past cultures? Like you know in the comfort of your speculation what the needs of their community faced.
2) That just because something was tolerated by God, does that mean God endorsed it? (But since you may not believe in the God of the Scriptures, what do you really care in terms of accuracy of the biblical narrative, i.e. you are free to make speculative judgements without concern for precision because of motives known entirely to yourself).

Now since this is a sidebar to "****sexuality," I think your idea of progression does not understand Christianity. Christ did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. Hence, your second part about lending money without return is not "condemned" in the New Testament. It was a command that is preferred because it shows greater love. It never "condemned" the practice. As far as slavery is concerned, just like the fact that God preferred a theocracy based on Judges instead of a monarchy, so likewise slavery is not found in a "thus sayeth the Lord," but is based on the obstinance of Israel to follow after the ways and customs of surrounding cultures.

Now, I address this knowing full well that the discussion on ****sexuality as it is condemned in the Scriptures is really a manner of a diversion. You don't care about consistency of the Christian faith, you want to undermine it; you don't care about truth, you care about what is the current sentimentality. The culture war, we are all just pawns and it seems our positions cannot ever be compromised, cannot find a middle way. The Church has maintained its positions on morals while dealing with the reality of State corruptions (and sometimes the corruptions within the Church, yet not changing its teachings). I find that in the movie "The Mission" with Robert DeNiro and Jeremy Irons demonstrates the state of affairs between the competing war fighting between Spain and Portagul where Portagul allowed slavery and Spain did not, that it was not the Jesuits or the Catholic Church that wanted it to remain in existence. It is the obstance of the selfishness of kingdoms that causes wars and enslaves people. I think you perhaps want to project on the Church the worst so as to justify your own position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

If you would look at the Lord's laws in the Torah, and the system in which God preferred, it was based on Judges and not on a monarchy. It was due to the stubbornness of the people of Isreal that God permitted them to choose a king and they elected Saul because of his stature and image. At that moment, marriage as a political contract was something outside Mosaic law.

---

Sure, but that only serves to reinforce my point. You'd be hard-pressed to argue that "the definition of marriage" according to Biblical sources had a single monolithic meaning running throughout the disparate accounts, from Adam to Abraham to Jacob to Solomon to Jesus to Paul.

Quote:

---

Marriages between a man and the "spoils of war" were not allowed. In most cases, God told the nation of Isreal to completely decimate their enemies.

---

In at least three cases (Judges 21, Numbers 31, Deuteronomy 20), virgin spoils of war were given to men as wives. Deut 20 is presented as words directly from the mouth of God:

When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves.

Quote:

---

In terms of a marriage between a man and a rape victim, this is seen within one of the daughters of Jacob. In which case, due to the violation and conviction of the abuser, his whole family was circumcised and while in pain of recovery they were killed by Jacob's sons. The fact that the family was willing to make res***ution and to even take on the faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob through circumcision demonstrates a genuineness to make things as right as possible.

---

I was thinking more of Deuteronomy 22.28-29:

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

I'm not sure what I think of the "rape" of Dinah (Gen 34). That's a pretty weird story. It looks like it might have been consensual, but considered "defiling" because of not going through the proper protocol. (And by the way, if they demonstrated "genuineness to make things as right as possible", Jacob's family sure treated that honorably and respectfully, eh?)

Oh, there's also the account of Tamar, who is called "righteous" for impersonating a pros***ute and seducing her father-in-law in order to trick him into impregnating her.

Quote:

---

In the case of Abraham, it was due to Sarah's unbelief as well as Abraham faultering and so sinned by sleeping with Sarah's servant and which concieved Ishmael, this action from his decendants has been a problem to this day between Ishmael's decendants being the Arabs. Even the Koran has changed this story with Abraham offering up Ishmael instead of Jacob.

---

It's nice of you to read back your interpretation of modern history into the Bible, but Abraham's consorting with Hagar is not explicitly condemned by God. Certainly Jacob's consorting with two wives and two servants is not condemned—indeed that's the origin of the twelve tribes!

Quote:

---

As far as a marriage between a man and a child, I don't understand your reference. I don't understand it because in some cultures in the past allowed marriage around the biological coming of age. Females that menstrate are biologically capable to become pregnant, and so by nature's testimony many cultures allowed this.

---

That was my only point. That which is condemned by modern morality was not condemned by "biblical" morality. Just because a young girl has experienced menarche does not make her emotionally, mentally, and physically mature enough for marriage—that is, unless she's considered a piece of property transferred from one man (her father) to another (her husband) with or without her consent, and expected to begin bearing children immediately whether or not it kills her in the process.

Quote:

---

It might be that mortality rates where high, threats from outside dangers were more eminent, even when the recorded longevity of some lived to be near their 110s. Having a larger tribe was therefore promoted as a means of survival of the community.

---

Sure.

Quote:

---

So there a few questions that must be asked....
1) Does our modern age with its standards of propriety make you prejudice to the past cultures? Like you know in the comfort of your speculation what the needs of their community faced.

---

Yes, of course. Of course I'm prejudiced against ancient moralities that explicitly regard women as property, that forces women to marry their rapists, that execute women if they don't scream loud enough when they're being raped...

Quote:

---

2) That just because something was tolerated by God, does that mean God endorsed it?

---

I think that if the scriptures are anything like what some Christians regard it as, i.e., a rulebook dictating eternal and unchanging morality, God might have had a word of condemnation when a practice was committed that violated it.

But it's a moot point when some of these disgusting practices are ascribed to have come directly from the mouth of God (e.g., Deut 20, 22).

Quote:

---

(But since you may not believe in the God of the Scriptures, what do you really care in terms of accuracy of the biblical narrative, i.e. you are free to make speculative judgements without concern for precision because of motives known entirely to yourself).

---

If I believe in a god, it is in a God who is good. If the writers of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures had experiences with a real and true and good deity, their experiences were necessarily (and by definition) partial and incomplete.

Quote:

---

Now since this is a sidebar to "****sexuality," I think your idea of progression does not understand Christianity.

---

I think one completely glosses over (and thereby, does not understand) much of the Bible if one wishes to state that the concept of marriage "never changed".

Quote:

---

Christ did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. Hence, your second part about lending money without return is not "condemned" in the New Testament. It was a command that is preferred because it shows greater love. It never "condemned" the practice.

---

There was a lot of scholarly debate over the acceptability of usury.

Quote:

---

As far as slavery is concerned, just like the fact that God preferred a theocracy based on Judges instead of a monarchy, so likewise slavery is not found in a "thus sayeth the Lord," but is based on the obstinance of Israel to follow after the ways and customs of surrounding cultures.

---

And I'm saying that if God were providing some sort of unchanging morality, there could most easily have been a "thus sayeth the Lord" that outright condemned slavery. I mean really—God bothered to outright condemn shaving the sideburns and eating bacon, but didn't have a word of condemnation for the practice of owning other humans? That was an acceptable accommodation to the "ways and customs of surrounding cultures", but God had to put God's foot down on lobster and polyester?

Quote:

---

Now, I address this knowing full well that the discussion on ****sexuality as it is condemned in the Scriptures is really a manner of a diversion. You don't care about consistency of the Christian faith, you want to undermine it; you don't care about truth, you care about what is the current sentimentality.

---

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

The culture war, we are all just pawns and it seems our positions cannot ever be compromised, cannot find a middle way.

---

What kind of compromise or middle way are you offering?

As for me, I've already offered something as close to a middle way as I think I can get: full legal equality under civil law, with religious exemptions for those who do not want to participate. Your church will never be forced to hire a gay person or perform a same-sex commitment ceremony; your family will never be forced to watch Ellen or Glee—hell, you can even join Westboro in protesting All Things Gay with signs and slogans.

In short: don't like gay marriage? Don't have one.

Quote:

---

The Church has maintained its positions on morals while dealing with the reality of State corruptions (and sometimes the corruptions within the Church, yet not changing its teachings). I find that in the movie "The Mission" with Robert DeNiro and Jeremy Irons demonstrates the state of affairs between the competing war fighting between Spain and Portagul where Portagul allowed slavery and Spain did not, that it was not the Jesuits or the Catholic Church that wanted it to remain in existence. It is the obstance of the selfishness of kingdoms that causes wars and enslaves people. I think you perhaps want to project on the Church the worst so as to justify your own position.

---

The church has enough sins to account for without me needing to project anything on it. For now, the mere fact of them wanting to deny civil equality under law to gay and lesbian people speaks for itself.

I do not think the "spoils of war" in Deuteronomy meant marriage or even concubine connotations; would apply that to the children as well--I mean are male children raped because they were "taken?" I think you can read into the text what is not there. They were definitely made servants, but in the year of Jubilee, even servants are allowed their freedom. There are some boundaries understood and not meant to be crossed, just if you take the literal sense of a word does not meant that it endorsed all exceptions of abuse and indecentcy.

I offer no middle way. Civil law and Canon law are completely seperate only as excepting when civil law choses to align itself with the principles of Catholic morality. I, as a Catholic, should not compromise the teachings of the church to satisfy the world's sensibilities. So when it comes to the people in a democracy choosing their affairs, that is based on priorities of representation in voting for candidates. The Catholic Church "wanting to deny civil equality under law to gay and lesbian people" is based on a consistency of its teaching authority regarding correct morals. But the Church has no civil authority, but it does have absolute authority of what it teaches and those who profess to be Catholic should know and act based on the teachings of the Church. Hence, Catholic politicians as an extention of their faith are to publicly endorse the moral teachings of the Church (without having to endorse Catholic doctrine contrary to the First Amendment). I shall tell you that I have not voted for a Catholic politician in my life so far, because many of them (John Kerry, Nanci Pelosi, Joe Biden, the late Kennedy) are prochoice and support many of supposed ideas which you seem to approve. None of these "Cafeteria" Catholics teach or endorse Catholicism and neither do the Catholic politicians who defend the right to life and apply themselves to support their Catholic/Christian/independent base. Not every Buddhist/Hindu/athiest has to agree with your position on ****sexual civil rights, and so do not confuse cultural compe***ive morality with a theological endorsement.

Quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to ***emble, and to pe***ion the Government for a redress of grievances.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

I do not think the "spoils of war" in Deuteronomy meant marriage or even concubine connotations; would apply that to the children as well--I mean are male children raped because they were "taken?" I think you can read into the text what is not there.

---

What do you suppose was done to adult women taken as "plunder"? Nevermind, you don't have to wonder; the Bible is pretty clear here:

When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.
– Dt 21.10f

Quote:

---

They were definitely made servants, but in the year of Jubilee, even servants are allowed their freedom.

---

Not servants who were taken, shall we say, "in the Biblical sense":

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. (...) If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.
– Ex 21.7, 10-11

Quote:

---

There are some boundaries understood and not meant to be crossed, just if you take the literal sense of a word does not meant that it endorsed all exceptions of abuse and indecentcy.

---

I don't see those "boundaries" in any way precluding the acquisition of women as sex slaves through war or purchase.

Quote:

---

I offer no middle way.

---

I didn't think so. So why'd you grouse at me for not offering a compromise?

Quote:

---

Civil law and Canon law are completely seperate only as excepting when civil law choses to align itself with the principles of Catholic morality.

---

Sure, and that is not at all in most cases. You remain free to regard any marriage other than that between an never-married Catholic man and a never-married Catholic woman as invalid; but you don't expect civil law to follow in tow.

Quote:

---

I, as a Catholic, should not compromise the teachings of the church to satisfy the world's sensibilities.

---

Of course not. Neither should you impose the teachings of the church on outsiders to the church.

Quote:

---

So when it comes to the people in a democracy choosing their affairs, that is based on priorities of representation in voting for candidates. The Catholic Church "wanting to deny civil equality under law to gay and lesbian people" is based on a consistency of its teaching authority regarding correct morals.

---

The Catholic Church's "teaching authority" is limited to the Church and its members.

Quote:

---

But the Church has no civil authority, but it does have absolute authority of what it teaches and those who profess to be Catholic should know and act based on the teachings of the Church. Hence, Catholic politicians as an extention of their faith are to publicly endorse the moral teachings of the Church (without having to endorse Catholic doctrine contrary to the First Amendment).

---

There's no contradiction between a politician personally choosing to live according to Catholic values and refraining from imposing those values on (a largely non-Catholic) cons***uency.

Quote:

---

I shall tell you that I have not voted for a Catholic politician in my life so far, because many of them (John Kerry, Nanci Pelosi, Joe Biden, the late Kennedy) are prochoice and support many of supposed ideas which you seem to approve. None of these "Cafeteria" Catholics teach or endorse Catholicism and neither do the Catholic politicians who defend the right to life and apply themselves to support their Catholic/Christian/independent base. Not every Buddhist/Hindu/athiest has to agree with your position on ****sexual civil rights, and so do not confuse cultural compe***ive morality with a theological endorsement.

---

I'll tell you what I find disgusting (though it's another rabbit-trail): Catholic bishops who move to deny communion to Catholic politicians who do not think outlawing abortion is the best way to prevent it (without, of course, advocating or endorsing abortion), but have nary a word to say about Catholics like Mark Thiessen and Rick Santorum openly embracing and advocating the "intrinsic evil", the "***ault on human life and dignity", the practice "fundamentally incompatible with the dignity of the human person" which is torture.

Quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

---

Exactly! Once again, if you don't like gay marriage, don't have one. But seeking to make a law respecting the establishment of your religion is plainly, flatly, and nakedly uncons***utional.

Actually, as far as moral teachings are concerned, democratic societies determine laws based on the will of competing values. Hence, while your idea of a compromise is to live and let live, the moral fabric of the family is threatened by lasciviousness and what the Church considers free license for all sorts of vices. Hence, there are some who want to impose taxes on soda drinks because they feel it increases gluttony and health problems ***ociated with it; there are some who want to restrict and put limits on how car companies are making vehicles and so hope to manipulate the behavior of citizens to reduce our reliance and dependence on oil. Granted, many of these things are considered noble--but it is the same thing in regards to a competing moral value. You want civil rights extended to ****sexual couples so that they are allowed to marry in all states and not just in those which by individual states permit. I think such allowances are dangerous to the fabric of society, our greatest ***et is our citizens, and citizens are created through heterosexual reproduction. I find your moral position to be part and parcel of all our human depravity and it is intrinsically disordered.

Hence, my grouse with you is that you want to limit the freedom of Catholic speech on morality on the political stage. You have stated so much in the following quote:

Quote:

---

There's no contradiction between a politician personally choosing to live according to Catholic values and refraining from imposing those values on (a largely non-Catholic) cons***uency.

---

There is a contradiction, because by refraining to present their Catholic morality (as opposed to doctrine, like nobody is forcing you to believe in the Incarnation of Christ nor the Trinity), the basis of creating a desirable society rests in the moral boundaries set by the free will of its people and represented in kind. Hence, we see people like Confusius dictating the moral framework of its leaders in creating a more peaceful society. Morals have to be understood, then enforced. What good is it when law makers set the limit for BAC to .08 as a means of preventing vehiclar ****side by drunk drivers if every law enforcement did not enforce it and just let every case slide? So I feel your immoral position endorses a dangerous slippery slope at undermining family values. If I allow your idea of a compromise, then while I may not be endorsing it personally, I am condoning it by inaction. It is like for me no difference than being an accessory to the crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

...the moral fabric of the family is threatened...

---

Quote:

---

...dangerous to the fabric of society...

---

I suppose all I can say is that I disagree, and that I haven't seen any credible evidence that same-sex relationships are a threat to opposite-sex relationships.

Quote:

---

You want civil rights extended to ****sexual couples so that they are allowed to marry in all states and not just in those which by individual states permit.

---

Indeed. Partial civil equality is not equality at all.

Quote:

---

our greatest ***et is our citizens, and citizens are created through heterosexual reproduction.

---

I have no reason to believe that would stop being the case if same-sex marriages were given equal status under civil law.

Quote:

---

Hence, my grouse with you is that you want to limit the freedom of Catholic speech on morality on the political stage.

---

No, really, I don't. I think the Church is wrong, but I support its right to be as unwelcoming and hostile to gay and lesbian people as it chooses, within the purview of Church members—those who willingly submit to the Church's official teachings.

Quote:

---

You have stated so much in the following quote:

---

The quote doesn't say what you say it says.

Quote:

---

There is a contradiction, because by refraining to present their Catholic morality (as opposed to doctrine, like nobody is forcing you to believe in the Incarnation of Christ nor the Trinity)

---

Again—the Catholic Church does not sanction marriage between non-Catholics, or between divorcees. And yet there is no effort to restrict the civil marriage rights of non-Catholics (except when it comes to same-sex couples).

Quote:

---

Morals have to be understood, then enforced. What good is it when law makers set the limit for BAC to .08 as a means of preventing vehiclar ****side by drunk drivers if every law enforcement did not enforce it and just let every case slide?

---

That's not a moral law; that's a law governing public safety. Big difference.

Quote:

---

So I feel your immoral position endorses a dangerous slippery slope at undermining family values. If I allow your idea of a compromise, then while I may not be endorsing it personally, I am condoning it by inaction. It is like for me no difference than being an accessory to the crime.

---

I guess I understand where you're coming from a little bit here. I regard the support and permissiveness of torture to be similar to being an accessory to the practice. But again, for me there's a big difference between a practice that harms another and undermines human dignity, and a practice that I dislike but ultimately doesn't affect anyone but the offender.

For example, I regard promiscuity to be unhealthy—but I would never support a law restricting people's private consensual sexual activity. I regard many movies and TV shows to be sexist and degrading—but I would not want to live in a society with an official government censor. I think most fast food is disgusting—but I wouldn't want the government to shut down McDonald's.

In short, I can tell the difference between a moral value and a regulation of the public safety. I understand that some people's understanding of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" differs from my own, and may even conflict with my deeply-held beliefs—and yet welcome them to pursue it.

It is not my contention to open the eyes of the blind; my only concern is what I believe and why I believe it. Whether you agree with me is not my concern. I rest my belief in the two-fold authority authority of the Church: namely Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

I vote my conscience based on Catholic principles; you vote based on your own. I vote prolife because that is "life," and I vote for responsible liberty in which I think ****sexual agenda is a danger to the fabric of family values and so it is irresponsible. The CCC states that ****sexual acts are "disordered." Hence, why should I want to condone by inaction a license for others to have free reign on vice? Why should I want on judgement day before God tell him that I was an accessory to other's sinfulness? Why should I encourage the alcoholic to drink by giving him money? Why should I loan money to a gambler? Why should I vote for a candidate who wants to use taxpayer money to kill innocent children in the womb? Why should I vote for a candidate who wants to give the ****sexual an endorsement of an act that is morally disordered per the Scriptures and the Magesterium of the Church indicate?

All morals have consequences, and so in my eyes the moral issue is a safety issue. I will not ever support in good conscience for a candidate who takes your idea of a middle ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

I vote my conscience based on Catholic principles; you vote based on your own. I vote prolife because that is "life," and I vote for responsible liberty in which I think ****sexual agenda is a danger to the fabric of family values and so it is irresponsible.

---

By "responsible liberty", I take it that you mean "no liberty at all"? That's the only way I can make sense of your words.

Quote:

---

The CCC states that ****sexual acts are "disordered." Hence, why should I want to condone by inaction a license for others to have free reign on vice?

---

Faithful Citizenship states that torture is "intrinsic evil", an "***ault on human life and dignity", a practice "fundamentally incompatible with the dignity of the human person". Why should you want to condone a license for others to have free reign on vice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asdf

By "responsible liberty", I take it that you mean "no liberty at all"? That's the only way I can make sense of your words.

Faithful Citizenship states that torture is "intrinsic evil", an "***ault on human life and dignity", a practice "fundamentally incompatible with the dignity of the human person". Why should you want to condone a license for others to have free reign on vice?

---

I do not agree with torture or the death penalty, the Church's position on that is fairly clear. No candidate is perfect, so I prioritize my candidates based on the overall sanc***y of life. Prolife is first because the amount of innocent children's lives taken each year far outnumber those who are tortured, but if two prolife candidates are available and one is against torture and the other is for it, then the one who is against torture is given a greater priority in my book.

So if a candidate is prolife, but also pro-****sexual agenda, if he is the only prolife candidate to vote for... then based on the overall "sanc***y of life" that candidate would procure my vote. However, I tend to think most prolife candidates are not pro-****sexual, so I have never had to worry about such voting between. However, I did vote against McCain for Huckabee in the primary because Huckabee is both prolife and against embryonic stem cell research. Hence, Huckabee had for me a greater "sanc***y of life" rating in my priorities.

As far as your idea of "no liberty" at all, so be your perspective on me. I think liberty must be responsible, not given to all vices. I am just as much against free liberty for beastiality and polygomy because those are still vices in my book as much as ****sexuality. So if you want to endorse all sorts of "liberties" to include irresponsibility, that is how I would view your support of ****sexual agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

I do not agree with torture or the death penalty, the Church's position on that is fairly clear. No candidate is perfect, so I prioritize my candidates based on the overall sanc***y of life. Prolife is first because the amount of innocent children's lives taken each year far outnumber those who are tortured, but if two prolife candidates are available and one is against torture and the other is for it, then the one who is against torture is given a greater priority in my book.

So if a candidate is prolife, but also pro-****sexual agenda, if he is the only prolife candidate to vote for... then based on the overall "sanc***y of life" that candidate would procure my vote. However, I tend to think most prolife candidates are not pro-****sexual, so I have never had to worry about such voting between. However, I did vote against McCain for Huckabee in the primary because Huckabee is both prolife and against embryonic stem cell research. Hence, Huckabee had for me a greater "sanc***y of life" rating in my priorities.

---

Fair enough. We all prioritize what is important, and hopefully realize that all candidates are imperfect. The reason I prioritize torture above abortion is that there's not a single person who actually advocates abortion. Nobody thinks it's awesome; nobody wants to encourage women to abort their children. Current torture apologists are actually arguing that torture is (under certain circumstances, or to certain people) just and right.

Incidentally, do you think it is hypocritical for Catholic bishops to move to deny communion to pro-choice politicians but not to pro-torture politicians?

Quote:

---

As far as your idea of "no liberty" at all, so be your perspective on me. I think liberty must be responsible, not given to all vices.

---

In what sense is it "liberty" to be restricted from consensual private behavior by force of law, explicitly because of sectarian religious beliefs? You've added the modifier "responsible", which for all the world looks to me as if it completely negates the word being modified.

Quote:

---

I am just as much against free liberty for beastiality and polygomy because those are still vices in my book as much as ****sexuality.

---

I am against them not because they are "vices" but because they violate the harm principle and Informed Consent.

Quote:

---

So if you want to endorse all sorts of "liberties" to include irresponsibility, that is how I would view your support of ****sexual agenda.

---

The only "****sexual agenda" that exists is the agenda for civil equality. It's not to take over the world and turn all your kids gay or even to infiltrate your church—it's solely to be treated equally under civil law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asdf

Fair enough. We all prioritize what is important, and hopefully realize that all candidates are imperfect. The reason I prioritize torture above abortion is that there's not a single person who actually advocates abortion. Nobody thinks it's awesome; nobody wants to encourage women to abort their children. Current torture apologists are actually arguing that torture is (under certain circumstances, or to certain people) just and right.

Incidentally, do you think it is hypocritical for Catholic bishops to move to deny communion to pro-choice politicians but not to pro-torture politicians?



In what sense is it "liberty" to be restricted from consensual private behavior by force of law, explicitly because of sectarian religious beliefs? You've added the modifier "responsible", which for all the world looks to me as if it completely negates the word being modified.



I am against them not because they are "vices" but because they violate the harm principle and Informed Consent.



The only "****sexual agenda" that exists is the agenda for civil equality. It's not to take over the world and turn all your kids gay or even to infiltrate your church—it's solely to be treated equally under civil law.

---

I don't expect you to understand how I feel it undermines the family. I only feel that a public endorsement would influence some heterosexuals to mess around and experience ****sexuality; very much like an endorsement of drugs sends a message that it is ok to fry your brain with narcotics. Even if your agenda is p***ed, I would always make it a point to speak out against it. However, I prioritize this speaking out only as the opportunity presents itself. There are much bigger fish to fry. We are not living in the days of the Pagan Rome, where they used Christians to feed the lions, as torches, and all kinds of other torment. YOu will not see me use violence against ****sexuals, and I am not going to avoid eating at my favorite places or shop at my favorite stores just because there are ****sexuals working there. I just don't support your agenda. I think it is important that the Church police its own believers to stay true the orthodoxy of faith, else it becomes meaningless and contradictory. You are in the world; and as such, you ride the tide of what is en vogue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

I don't expect you to understand how I feel it undermines the family. I only feel that a public endorsement would influence some heterosexuals to mess around and experience ****sexuality;

---

You're more than welcome to feel however you like about the social consequences of marriage equality. Unfortunately for the position you're arguing, there is no evidential basis in fact that it is the case.

Indeed, anti-equality groups tried to argue that in court last year in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (now Perry v. Brown). "Expert" witnesses were called to testify to the negative social consequences of same-sex marriage, and ultimately failed to provide any. In fact, under cross-examination they were ultimately reduced to saying "I don't know".

Quote:

---

very much like an endorsement of drugs sends a message that it is ok to fry your brain with narcotics.

---

Rabbit-trail, but the "war on drugs" has been a dismal failure. If we put a fraction of the money we do into support, addiction treatment, and safe injection that we do into incarceration, the problems ***ociated with drug abuse would be greatly diminished.

Quote:

---

Even if your agenda is p***ed, I would always make it a point to speak out against it.

---

You're welcome to it. Even Focus on the Family is now saying "we've probably lost" the war against marriage equality.

Quote:

---

However, I prioritize this speaking out only as the opportunity presents itself. There are much bigger fish to fry. We are not living in the days of the Pagan Rome, where they used Christians to feed the lions, as torches, and all kinds of other torment.

---

Indeed. And were such persecution to be resurrected, I'd be standing by your side opposing it.

Quote:

---

YOu will not see me use violence against ****sexuals, and I am not going to avoid eating at my favorite places or shop at my favorite stores just because there are ****sexuals working there.

---

I do appreciate that. :)

Quote:

---

I just don't support your agenda.

---

My horrible agenda for equal justice under law without deference to sectarian religious beliefs! Heaven forfend!

Quote:

---

I think it is important that the Church police its own believers to stay true the orthodoxy of faith, else it becomes meaningless and contradictory.

---

Fair enough. I still don't understand why you advocate "that the Church police" those who are not its own believers.

Quote:

---

You are in the world; and as such, you ride the tide of what is en vogue.

---

Equality under the law is much more in vogue than when we stoned gays and burned witches. I plead guilty there. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asdf

You're more than welcome to feel however you like about the social consequences of marriage equality. Unfortunately for the position you're arguing, there is no evidential basis in fact that it is the case.

Indeed, anti-equality groups tried to argue that in court last year in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (now Perry v. Brown). "Expert" witnesses were called to testify to the negative social consequences of same-sex marriage, and ultimately failed to provide any. In fact, under cross-examination they were ultimately reduced to saying "I don't know".



Rabbit-trail, but the "war on drugs" has been a dismal failure. If we put a fraction of the money we do into support, addiction treatment, and safe injection that we do into incarceration, the problems ***ociated with drug abuse would be greatly diminished.



You're welcome to it. Even Focus on the Family is now saying "we've probably lost" the war against marriage equality.



Indeed. And were such persecution to be resurrected, I'd be standing by your side opposing it.



I do appreciate that. :)



My horrible agenda for equal justice under law without deference to sectarian religious beliefs! Heaven forfend!



Fair enough. I still don't understand why you advocate "that the Church police" those who are not its own believers.



Equality under the law is much more in vogue than when we stoned gays and burned witches. I plead guilty there. :D

---

The evidences you seek are of a worldly kind, where your own biases are going to be uplifted and marketed and framed in such a way as pleases the world.
I stated that the Church needs to police its own and I further feel to promote its morality in the world. Views on morality can be shared by different groups. I am not suggesting to set up a theocracy by the Church in political affairs. But should a majority of people vote one way or another, then the Church will either suffer minor persecution for its policies as it did when under various regions and times or will enjoy a climate where family values parrallel in line with Catholic morality and are enjoyed and practiced. It is just a matter of policies that the majority want. It seems to me that you want to force the bible belt to be forced to accept gay marriages. Small town America just doesn't like them big city slickers. You already have some states that give you that civil rights agenda to ****sexuals, and I think it should be left to the locality to make these determinations and not be forced and taught as the way it has to be by people who do not share our same values.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

The evidences you seek are of a worldly kind, where your own biases are going to be uplifted and marketed and framed in such a way as pleases the world.

---

The evidence I seek is based in reality, i.e., that which does not change upon conversion.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
– Philip K. Dіck

Quote:

---

I stated that the Church needs to police its own and I further feel to promote its morality in the world. Views on morality can be shared by different groups. I am not suggesting to set up a theocracy by the Church in political affairs. But should a majority of people vote one way or another, then the Church will either suffer minor persecution for its policies as it did when under various regions and times or will enjoy a climate where family values parrallel in line with Catholic morality and are enjoyed and practiced. It is just a matter of policies that the majority want. It seems to me that you want to force the bible belt to be forced to accept gay marriages. Small town America just doesn't like them big city slickers. You already have some states that give you that civil rights agenda to ****sexuals, and I think it should be left to the locality to make these determinations and not be forced and taught as the way it has to be by people who do not share our same values.

---

Gay people live in the Bible Belt, too. They don't all conform to your stereotypes.

But so you're saying that you'd oppose a cons***utional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman? And you support the repeal of DOMA, since you believe "it should be left to the locality to make these determinations" and not done at the federal level? If so, I'm honestly shocked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asdf

The evidence I seek is based in reality, i.e., that which does not change upon conversion.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
– Philip K. Dіck



Gay people live in the Bible Belt, too. They don't all conform to your stereotypes.

But so you're saying that you'd oppose a cons***utional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman? And you support the repeal of DOMA, since you believe "it should be left to the locality to make these determinations" and not done at the federal level? If so, I'm honestly shocked.

---

Reality is that which when you start believing in it, does go away.

I just wanted to see if you changed the doesn't to does and changed the verb from stop to start if the quote would make more sense to me. It all sounds so profound. To me, I think the word should change from reality to fantasy to fit.

Fantasy is that which when you stop believing, doesn't go away.
Fantasy is that which when you start believing, does go away.

Would it not be better to say that reality is something that you believe because it doesn't go away? I mean, let's face it, you are going to p*** away just the same as me, so at death you stop believing and you also go away. Death is a reality, but what is after that no scientist can give answer excepting as the state of inanimate corpse. Life is a mystery. And life as a reality comes from God. God is believed, and the cause of life still brings wonder and religious speculation. I believe in life, but I shall die just the same as you. And then the new reality sets in, the one that you cannot speak of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asdf

The evidence I seek is based in reality, i.e., that which does not change upon conversion.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
– Philip K. Dіck



Gay people live in the Bible Belt, too. They don't all conform to your stereotypes.

But so you're saying that you'd oppose a cons***utional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman? And you support the repeal of DOMA, since you believe "it should be left to the locality to make these determinations" and not done at the federal level? If so, I'm honestly shocked.

---

I don't really have much of a stereotype when it comes to ****sexuals. I know the Church teaches that ****sexual acts are "disordered." I believe it is disordered because of sin. I know that you do not agree with me. And this discussion can go on and on. We are saying the same thing over and over again. You don't accept the authority of the Church, you think it is unfair that we are to vote based on our moral principles and this conflicts with yours. If you want to call me unfair or restricting freedom because I accept the authority of the my Church to its consistent logical conclusions, so be it; I still will call your position immoral even if the legal system p***es the very things you are attempting to gain. That is the price of a democracy, competing values means the legal system takes sides and this can go back and forth. Gays in the bible belt can try to address the local and state government for their interests, but I think it is a bad policy to force as a federal amendment to make all states accept gay marriages. I am also not for an amendment in the cons***ution for defining marriage between only a man and a woman. However, if it came to a vote, I would support it. The reason I am not for the amendment is that it is already understood by its longstanding tradition. It is a waste of time. I think right now the biggest issue is stop the lazy people from taking advantage of the en***lements, the spending of our government, and the political campaigning that seeks to mudsling while hoping the economy will recover so they can spend more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

Reality is that which when you start believing in it, does go away.

I just wanted to see if you changed the doesn't to does and changed the verb from stop to start if the quote would make more sense to me. It all sounds so profound. To me, I think the word should change from reality to fantasy to fit.

Fantasy is that which when you stop believing, doesn't go away.
Fantasy is that which when you start believing, does go away.

Would it not be better to say that reality is something that you believe because it doesn't go away? I mean, let's face it, you are going to p*** away just the same as me, so at death you stop believing and you also go away. Death is a reality, but what is after that no scientist can give answer excepting as the state of inanimate corpse. Life is a mystery. And life as a reality comes from God. God is believed, and the cause of life still brings wonder and religious speculation. I believe in life, but I shall die just the same as you. And then the new reality sets in, the one that you cannot speak of.

---

I'm afraid I don't understand most of what you're saying here. The point I was trying to make is that reality is not affected by your belief or disbelief therein. It's not reality because I believe in it; it's reality independent of my belief or otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

I don't really have much of a stereotype when it comes to ****sexuals.

---

Your earlier posts seem to contradict that, in which you implied that gay people are "city slickers" and don't exist in "small town America".

Quote:

---

I know the Church teaches that ****sexual acts are "disordered." I believe it is disordered because of sin. I know that you do not agree with me. And this discussion can go on and on. We are saying the same thing over and over again. You don't accept the authority of the Church,

---

So far I'm with you on all counts.

Quote:

---

you think it is unfair that we are to vote based on our moral principles and this conflicts with yours. If you want to call me unfair or restricting freedom because I accept the authority of the my Church to its consistent logical conclusions, so be it;

---

No, rather I think that it's unfair that you may have the opportunity to vote on the matter at all.

"Fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
– U.S. Supreme Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943

Quote:

---

I still will call your position immoral even if the legal system p***es the very things you are attempting to gain.

---

Feel free to do so. You will remain free to do so as long as that First Amendment remains intact.

Quote:

---

That is the price of a democracy, competing values means the legal system takes sides and this can go back and forth.

---

That's true, but the price of our living in a cons***utional republic (and not a democracy) is that the majority cannot vote to limit the fundamental rights of a minority.

Quote:

---

I am also not for an amendment in the cons***ution for defining marriage between only a man and a woman. However, if it came to a vote, I would support it. The reason I am not for the amendment is that it is already understood by its longstanding tradition. It is a waste of time.

---

A very strange position, if you ask me. "I oppose this amendment, but would support it if I could." Doesn't seem to mesh with your statement that you believe this matter should be up to local municipalities to decide.

And you didn't answer the question about DOMA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asdf

And you didn't answer the question about DOMA.

---

4*‘Yahweh Sabaoth, the God of Israel, says this to all the exiles deported from Jerusalem to Babylon: 5*Build houses, settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce; 6*marry and have sons and daughters; choose wives for your sons, find husbands for your daughters so that these can bear sons and daughters in their turn; you must increase there and not decrease. 7*Work for the good of the city to which I have exiled you; pray to Yahweh on its behalf, since on its welfare yours depends.

The New Jerusalem Bible. 1985 (Je 29:4–7). New York: Doubleday.


I am a foreigner, an exile. My citizenship is first the City of God. I am also an American citizen based on government's definition. As an exile in the American Babylon, I am to seek after the welfare of American Babylon as my welfare is dependent on working for the good of the city. As such, I stand up for morals that seek to secure the family unit as the primary and first form of governance within the City of Man. When the State decides by a majority rule to be in agreement with the City of God, then the family is stronger for it. But, as I am also an Exile, American Babylon may decide to enact laws that are immoral. When I stated to you earlier is an understanding that State rights have a choice to accept the ****sexual agenda since that is part of the American experiment. No Federal agency should dictate to the State to accept ****sexual agendas if the majority of representation is against it. In this instance, I am speaking in regards to a City of Man and not the City of God in terms of fairness regarding procedure. The City of God has only one ruler, namely God. There is no room in the City of God for mini-dictators, respect for the creator because of his benevolence in allowing you the conscience understanding that you think, therefore you exist is enough. There is never going to be a perfect society of which you struggle and fight for, because you are only for the City of Man. You'll die like the rest of us, then you lose all. I need to lose all now, in hopes to attain the resurrection through the free gift of Christ's sacraficial atonement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

4*‘Yahweh Sabaoth, the God of Israel, says this to all the exiles deported from Jerusalem to Babylon: 5*Build houses, settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce; 6*marry and have sons and daughters; choose wives for your sons, find husbands for your daughters so that these can bear sons and daughters in their turn; you must increase there and not decrease. 7*Work for the good of the city to which I have exiled you; pray to Yahweh on its behalf, since on its welfare yours depends.

The New Jerusalem Bible. 1985 (Je 29:4–7). New York: Doubleday.


I am a foreigner, an exile. My citizenship is first the City of God. I am also an American citizen based on government's definition. As an exile in the American Babylon, I am to seek after the welfare of American Babylon as my welfare is dependent on working for the good of the city. As such, I stand up for morals that seek to secure the family unit as the primary and first form of governance within the City of Man. When the State decides by a majority rule to be in agreement with the City of God, then the family is stronger for it. But, as I am also an Exile, American Babylon may decide to enact laws that are immoral. When I stated to you earlier is an understanding that State rights have a choice to accept the ****sexual agenda since that is part of the American experiment. No Federal agency should dictate to the State to accept ****sexual agendas if the majority of representation is against it. In this instance, I am speaking in regards to a City of Man and not the City of God in terms of fairness regarding procedure. The City of God has only one ruler, namely God. There is no room in the City of God for mini-dictators, respect for the creator because of his benevolence in allowing you the conscience understanding that you think, therefore you exist is enough. There is never going to be a perfect society of which you struggle and fight for, because you are only for the City of Man. You'll die like the rest of us, then you lose all. I need to lose all now, in hopes to attain the resurrection through the free gift of Christ's sacraficial atonement.

---

One would think that "working for the good of the city to which you are exiled" should entail caring about the well-being of those who do not subscribe to your particular version of your particular faith.

You'll remain free (and I'll fight for you to retain this freedom, if necessary) to personally object to marriage equality on religious grounds—to speak out against it, to refrain from taking part, for your church to refrain from blessing such unions. But this isn't a matter of majority/minority. This is a matter of equal justice under the law. This is a matter of religious freedom, particularly for religious people who are gay & lesbian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heart2Heart

My relatives and I have had many discussions about ****sexuality, since a person in my family is ****sexual. Unfortunately, one of the family members approve of the behavior, because she believes the person was born with a genetic defect. What is your view on this? Do you agree with the person's belief that a ****sexual is born this way? Do you think it is a genetic defect?

I do not believe it is a genetic defect, but I think the individual who was born with it, is predisposed to practice it. Do you think he or she can control their behavior?

---

Really makes no difference to God if the person was born that way or not....sin is sin, regardless of how long you have been doing it....

You dont get a p*** because you have a longer history of doing a sin and thinking you were getting away with it...LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Really makes no difference to God if the person was born that way or not....sin is sin, regardless of how long you have been doing it....

You dont get a p*** because you have a longer history of doing a sin and thinking you were getting away with it...LOL

---

I wrote this about 2 years ago...and its just the same as the way I answer this question today...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

I wrote this about 2 years ago...and its just the same as the way I answer this question today...

---

Well it is a fine statement. You're bringing it up causes me to think, you or someone thinks the subject lacks fuller disclosure, even to that point? But then again, I'm not a psychologist.

Uh-oh, now I'm likely to get banned for stalking :)

I don't know what that means. ..but I bring it up because I got a PM message and this is my response

Sorry for the interruption then, carry on.